Oklahoma mom shoots and kills intruder

Recommended Videos

Agayek

Ravenous Gormandizer
Oct 23, 2008
5,178
0
0
PlasticTree said:
Of course, it's justified, this is just self-defense.

Doesn't mean I find stories like this a reasonable justification for a country to allow the ownership of guns though (I bring this up since these are exactly the kind of situations that are used to justify that). The women's behavior was justified, but if she didn't have a gun nobody would have died. The women might be recently widowed and I'm sure the robbers were mean sons of bitches, but a dead son of a ***** is still way worse than a robbed widow.
She was holed up in her bedroom with her infant child. If her attackers wanted to rob her, they would have taken her stuff from the rest of the house and left.

The fact that they explicitly broke into her bedroom means they were planning to attack her. Most likely rape possibly followed with murder.

If she hadn't had a gun, she and probably her baby would be the ones dead, not the fuckhead who decided to attack her.
 

jdun

New member
Aug 5, 2008
310
0
0
Thyunda said:
Easily justified. The burglars knew full well that they were operating outside the rules of society when they broke into her house with a knife. Clearly the police had no intention of showing up anytime soon, and she had a baby to protect. What happened to the old saying, "Don't aim your weapon unless you intend to use it"?
If she'd have fired a warning shot, one of two things would have happened.

#1. The burglars decide it's not worth getting shot over, and run away and never bother her again.
#2. The burglars decide to continue their charge and now they're angry about being shot at. Or they leave and decide to punish her and her child with a petrol bomb through the window or another home invasion when the baby's with a sitter, and the gun-toting mother isn't around.

In short, warning shots don't work. It's the equivalent of showing your poker opponents your hand. She shot one of them, the other one knows she's not to be fucked with. She's not just waving a gun around for show, she knows how to use the thing.

I hope I'm making sense.
You don't fire warning shots. That's illegal and only happen in the movies. Bullets don't magically disappear when fired. It has to hit something hard enough to stop it. God forbid the warning shot hit a kid walking down the street.

If you tell the police officer in the USA that you intentionally fire warning shots you will open the door for prosecution and/or civil lawsuits. Why? When you fire a warning shot it tells the judge that you do not think the person is a threat and hence you have no legal standing to used your firearms.

You do not pull a gun on someone unless you intend to kill them. That's the hard brutal truth of it.
 

Thyunda

New member
May 4, 2009
2,955
0
0
jdun said:
Thyunda said:
Easily justified. The burglars knew full well that they were operating outside the rules of society when they broke into her house with a knife. Clearly the police had no intention of showing up anytime soon, and she had a baby to protect. What happened to the old saying, "Don't aim your weapon unless you intend to use it"?
If she'd have fired a warning shot, one of two things would have happened.

#1. The burglars decide it's not worth getting shot over, and run away and never bother her again.
#2. The burglars decide to continue their charge and now they're angry about being shot at. Or they leave and decide to punish her and her child with a petrol bomb through the window or another home invasion when the baby's with a sitter, and the gun-toting mother isn't around.

In short, warning shots don't work. It's the equivalent of showing your poker opponents your hand. She shot one of them, the other one knows she's not to be fucked with. She's not just waving a gun around for show, she knows how to use the thing.

I hope I'm making sense.
You don't fire warning shots. That's illegal and only happen in the movies. Bullets don't magically disappear when fired. It has to hit something hard enough to stop it. God forbid the warning shot hit a kid walking down the street.

If you tell the police officer in the USA that you intentionally fire warning shots you will open the door for prosecution and/or civil lawsuits. Why? When you fire a warning shot it tells the judge that you do not think the person is a threat and hence you have no legal standing to used your firearms.

You do not pull a gun on someone unless you intend to kill them. That's the hard brutal truth of it.
Well, I did not know that, being English myself, but thank you for providing me with a little more grounding for my argument.
 

jdun

New member
Aug 5, 2008
310
0
0
The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz1iuNVGEPg


http://www.tinyvital.com/blog/2003/7/26/american-vs-european-crime-rates/

http://www.google.com/search?q=european+crime+statistics&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:eek:fficial&client=firefox-a


It is a myth that US has a higher crime rate than the European. Unlike the European where criminal penalties are light. The US system, criminals either get killed by arm citizens or go to jail for a long time. In the USA criminals don't stay in luxury hotels. In the USA if the criminal get his third felonies he/she stay in jail for the rest of his life. This has cut down career criminals down dramatically.
 

orangeban

New member
Nov 27, 2009
1,442
0
0
ungothicdove said:
orangeban said:
Alright, I don't blame the mother for shooting the guy, I would likely have done the same in her situation.

Secondly: I still don't think Britain should relax it's gun control laws to be more like America. When a criminal tries to rob you, let them, it isn't worth you or the robber dying. If they are trying to kill/rape they probably have this planned out and it's unlikely that you could stop them anyway.
I can see the point in letting a criminal take what they want if they ONLY are trying to rob you. It may not be worth the risk to try and stop them. But you can be damned sure if someone tries to rape of kill me I'm gonna resist. Who cares if you can't stop them, at least you went out with a fight.
The problem is, if the general public is armed (and it easy to acquire guns), then criminals will just start using guns. And you have much better chances against a criminal with a knife than you do a gun.
 

Burs

New member
Jan 28, 2011
134
0
0
Neyon said:
Burs said:
Not owning a licence for the firearm doesn't change it from manslaughter to murder. The difference is if your intent was explicitly to kill or not. The location of the weapon and whether it were locked away are irrelivant. I could shoot at someone with a gun that was kept locked in a box in a cabinet nowhere near my bed with the aim of hurting / stopping them rather than killing them and it would be manslaughter. If it were self defence it would be counted as such although if it were self defence and I didn't own a license I would still be charged for owning a gun without a license.
It makes all the difference, if she owned a firearm without a licence she has effectively made the statement that she would kill anyone who breaks in aka murder ala unreasonable force. If she kept the gun by the bed she is going to kill anyone who breaks in= Murder.
Time is important, the time it takes to find, unlock the cabinet, grab a weapon is enough time for a prosecution to ask: "why did she not retreat/barracade?" and of course if she had time to do all that then the threat is'nt immeidiate but very very close, if she killed him with a lamp or any other immeidiate object to hand then this wont matter; however a weapon of any kind would turn most manslaughter through self-defence cases into murder cases.

Anyway this is entirly Off-topic We're applying UK law to an American case.
 

Nalbis

New member
Oct 6, 2008
206
0
0
I wouldn't have even asked for permission, amazing that she even thought to do that given the situation. She was fully in the right if you ask me.
 

Major_Tom

Anticitizen
Jun 29, 2008
799
0
0
She was a MOTHER defending her CHILD, it doesn't get any more justified than that. If she hadn't been armed she would have probably ripped them apart with her bare hands.
 

BrassButtons

New member
Nov 17, 2009
564
0
0
Blablahb said:
It says nothing about threatening in the story. It only says they apparently had a knife, and broke an entry.
Why is forcing entry into someone's home, while armed, not a threatening action? Why should she not have assumed that they would be violent? If she guesses that they are peaceful and they're not, that puts herself and her child at greater risk. Should she be the one making the gamble, when they're the ones responsible for creating the situation?

And as I asked you before (though you seem to have missed it) what should she have done to determine if they were actually intending to do her or her child harm? If she waits for them to actually attack things could go very badly for her or her child.

EDIT: Also, haven't you been arguing in another thread [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.337267-15-year-old-Stabs-Bully-11-Times-at-Bus-Stop-Gets-Away-With-It?page=17#13638760] that having a weapon shows intent to commit murder? The burglars had knives, so doesn't that mean they planned to kill her?

For all you know she was right behind the door and pulled the trigger the moment she saw someone.
If we're making up our own versions, I would like to suggest that perhaps the burglars were riding a T-Rex.


Self-defense with firearms is a myth. No such thing exists.
Well sure, so long as you insist that the defender wasn't in danger and was committing murder.
 

orangeban

New member
Nov 27, 2009
1,442
0
0
jdun said:
The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz1iuNVGEPg


http://www.tinyvital.com/blog/2003/7/26/american-vs-european-crime-rates/

http://www.google.com/search?q=european+crime+statistics&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:eek:fficial&client=firefox-a


The US system, criminals either get killed by arm citizens or go to jail for a long time.
Sorry, you seem to present this as a good thing.

Sure, the crime rate is lower but let's just examine what you've said here, read in between the lines. What you're really saying is that in America, there is a lower crime rate because criminals get killed or locked up for life.

Now, excuse my morals, but I don't see that as the way a civilised and beneficial society should work. Most criminals don't commit crime because they are bad people, they commit crime because they're desperate, or angry, or are mentally ill, or because of societal factors (lack of parents, lack of a good education, homelessness are all much more common in criminals than the rest of society).

These aren't people who need to be punished/killed/locked away, these are people who need help. That's what the European system tries to do, help, rehablitation.
 

Zakarrum

New member
Oct 20, 2011
10
0
0
BrassButtons said:
Blablahb said:
It says nothing about threatening in the story. It only says they apparently had a knife, and broke an entry.
Why is forcing entry into someone's home, while armed, not a threatening action? Why should she not have assumed that they would be violent? If she guesses that they are peaceful and they're not, that puts herself and her child at greater risk. Should she be the one making the gamble, when they're the ones responsible for creating the situation?

And as I asked you before (though you seem to have missed it) what should she have done to determine if they were actually intending to do her or her child harm? If she waits for them to actually attack things could go very badly for her or her child.

For all you know she was right behind the door and pulled the trigger the moment she saw someone.
If we're making up our own versions, I would like to suggest that perhaps the burglars were riding a T-Rex.


Self-defense with firearms is a myth. No such thing exists.
Well sure, so long as you insist that the defender wasn't in danger and was committing murder.
I was in the middle of pretty much posting the exact words you posted here. If the widow waited to try an determine if the robbers actually meant her or her family harm the robbers might have been able to get the jump on her if she even hesitated for a second. Why should an innocent person have to risk their life when someone is breaking into their home?
 

Jegsimmons

New member
Nov 14, 2010
1,748
0
0
RubyT said:
Jegsimmons said:
....AND? it shows how high the crime got, and it shrunk after the ban.
No. The entire graph is within the gun ban...
which shows that during the ban crime went up, and since the ban was lifted it shrunk by 25%.
Thats a signification difference

you could argue the crime rate was going down when the law was struck down, but on the other hand, that was a nation wide pattern, and since then it took a sharp turn downwards, i mean really sharp, and the fact that DC was still incredibly high needs to be taken in account.
neat little site with a graph a little ways down on the matter:
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
 

gigastar

Insert one-liner here.
Sep 13, 2010
4,419
0
0
I would call it justified, though if it was me i would have blasted out thier knees instead of merely killing them.
 

jdun

New member
Aug 5, 2008
310
0
0
orangeban said:
jdun said:
The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz1iuNVGEPg


http://www.tinyvital.com/blog/2003/7/26/american-vs-european-crime-rates/

http://www.google.com/search?q=european+crime+statistics&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:eek:fficial&client=firefox-a


The US system, criminals either get killed by arm citizens or go to jail for a long time.
Sorry, you seem to present this as a good thing.

Sure, the crime rate is lower but let's just examine what you've said here, read in between the lines. What you're really saying is that in America, there is a lower crime rate because criminals get killed or locked up for life.

Now, excuse my morals, but I don't see that as the way a civilised and beneficial society should work. Most criminals don't commit crime because they are bad people, they commit crime because they're desperate, or angry, or are mentally ill, or because of societal factors (lack of parents, lack of a good education, homelessness are all much more common in criminals than the rest of society).

These aren't people who need to be punished/killed/locked away, these are people who need help. That's what the European system tries to do, help, rehablitation.
This is typical of European's liberals, criminalize the victims and victimize the criminals.

Folks don't do that. Don't treat victims as criminals. Criminals should go to jails and for a long time.
 

Jegsimmons

New member
Nov 14, 2010
1,748
0
0
gigastar said:
I would call it justified, though if it was me i would have blasted out thier knees instead of merely killing them.
well when its a woman and her baby, their isnt much option, especially since he had a knife, he could have decided to just have crawled to them.
also, leg wounds can be equally lethal.



Also, the fact we have many people in this thread saying this was in no way justified and she committed a crime is fucking sickening to my stomach. In the US if the people are intruding in your home, fire away. Its perfectly legal because it saves lives and the thought of this lowers the chance of a town or community having so many break ins.
 

orangeban

New member
Nov 27, 2009
1,442
0
0
jdun said:
orangeban said:
jdun said:
The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz1iuNVGEPg


http://www.tinyvital.com/blog/2003/7/26/american-vs-european-crime-rates/

http://www.google.com/search?q=european+crime+statistics&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:eek:fficial&client=firefox-a


The US system, criminals either get killed by arm citizens or go to jail for a long time.
Sorry, you seem to present this as a good thing.

Sure, the crime rate is lower but let's just examine what you've said here, read in between the lines. What you're really saying is that in America, there is a lower crime rate because criminals get killed or locked up for life.

Now, excuse my morals, but I don't see that as the way a civilised and beneficial society should work. Most criminals don't commit crime because they are bad people, they commit crime because they're desperate, or angry, or are mentally ill, or because of societal factors (lack of parents, lack of a good education, homelessness are all much more common in criminals than the rest of society).

These aren't people who need to be punished/killed/locked away, these are people who need help. That's what the European system tries to do, help, rehablitation.
This is typical of European's liberals, criminalize the victims and victimize the criminals.

Folks don't do that. Don't treat victims as criminals. Criminals should go to jails and for a long time.
I said nothing about the victims, didn't mention that. I simply said that criminals aren't bad people and don't deserve to die or live in prison for the rest of their life.
 

Jegsimmons

New member
Nov 14, 2010
1,748
0
0
jdun said:
orangeban said:
jdun said:
The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz1iuNVGEPg


http://www.tinyvital.com/blog/2003/7/26/american-vs-european-crime-rates/

http://www.google.com/search?q=european+crime+statistics&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:eek:fficial&client=firefox-a


The US system, criminals either get killed by arm citizens or go to jail for a long time.
Sorry, you seem to present this as a good thing.

Sure, the crime rate is lower but let's just examine what you've said here, read in between the lines. What you're really saying is that in America, there is a lower crime rate because criminals get killed or locked up for life.

Now, excuse my morals, but I don't see that as the way a civilised and beneficial society should work. Most criminals don't commit crime because they are bad people, they commit crime because they're desperate, or angry, or are mentally ill, or because of societal factors (lack of parents, lack of a good education, homelessness are all much more common in criminals than the rest of society).

These aren't people who need to be punished/killed/locked away, these are people who need help. That's what the European system tries to do, help, rehablitation.
This is typical of European's liberals, criminalize the victims and victimize the criminals.

Folks don't do that. Don't treat victims as criminals. Criminals should go to jails and for a long time.
the fact a mentality like that exist, makes me scared shitless.....these people vote....and drive cars. We have guns for a reason, protection. Criminals are breaking the law and want to harm people for personal gain with little to no remorse.
Also, if i may, Europe isnt bordered to mexico which might as well be ran with cartels, and alot of that crime carries over.
 

Saltyk

Sane among the insane.
Sep 12, 2010
16,755
0
0
BrassButtons said:
Blablahb said:
It says nothing about threatening in the story. It only says they apparently had a knife, and broke an entry.
Why is forcing entry into someone's home, while armed, not a threatening action? Why should she not have assumed that they would be violent? If she guesses that they are peaceful and they're not, that puts herself and her child at greater risk. Should she be the one making the gamble, when they're the ones responsible for creating the situation?

And as I asked you before (though you seem to have missed it) what should she have done to determine if they were actually intending to do her or her child harm? If she waits for them to actually attack things could go very badly for her or her child.

EDIT: Also, haven't you been arguing in another thread [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.337267-15-year-old-Stabs-Bully-11-Times-at-Bus-Stop-Gets-Away-With-It?page=17#13638760] that having a weapon shows intent to commit murder? The burglars had knives, so doesn't that mean they planned to kill her?

For all you know she was right behind the door and pulled the trigger the moment she saw someone.
If we're making up our own versions, I would like to suggest that perhaps the burglars were riding a T-Rex.


Self-defense with firearms is a myth. No such thing exists.
Well sure, so long as you insist that the defender wasn't in danger and was committing murder.
God, I love you. I was trying to post to his comment as well. But I can't view it as anything but a troll comment, so I have trouble not treating it as such. Which the mods might not like. I do so love my clean bill of health.

Anyway, can I add to the make believe version of events?
They were Snake-Men riding a T-Rex.
 

Cowabungaa

New member
Feb 10, 2008
10,806
0
0
xvbones said:
Cowabungaa said:
xvbones said:
Because they do not understand how the human psyche functions under that kind of stress.
"We" do, we just say that kid has some serious mental issues if he snapped like that. No wonder of course if you're being bullied severely. But there's a difference between being smacked in the head and chased and being forced in your bathroom by a bunch of attackers who want to steal your shit and cut you up.
I will say again, 'they do not understand how the human psyche functions under that kind of stress.'

Adrenaline is a hell of a drug.
And as someone who experienced that stress daily, it does not normally lead to stabbing someone eleven times in a row. He was smacked in the head and chased by a group of bullies. Those kids weren't assassins or muggers or anything like that, they're the kind of kids who just like seeing someone wet their pants from fear.

This wasn't just a spur of the moment thing, this was a lot of built-up crap suddenly releasing in a blaze of white-hot rage and fear, the sort of snapping moment that just doesn't show a stable mental health.

And that's no big surprise of course, considering the shit he probably went through. But that doesn't mean he should just be let go either. Punished? No. Get kicked into some serious psychological help? Hell yes.

This woman is a whole 'nother ballgame, of course. This wasn't a sudden mental snap, which probably makes it harder for her to deal with. She's going to need some help too dealing with this, but not the kind that kid needs. And as that kid, she shouldn't be punished either.
jdun said:
This is typical of European's liberals, criminalize the victims and victimize the criminals.

Folks don't do that. Don't treat victims as criminals. Criminals should go to jails and for a long time.
Because the American system is working so well. Oh wait, it doesn't!

Your justice system is based on retribution, of letting criminals rot and fester inside hellhole prisons. And what happens when they get released? They're even more fucked up then when they went in. Yeah that's really going to help stop them from doing anything again.

And neither does "European justice", not that any such thing even exists, work like that. Oh yes, many Western and Northern European countries do have the same goal; to rehabilitate criminals to make sure that they become well-adjusted citizens, instead of transforming criminals in even harder criminals like you Americans seem to like doing.