Oklahoma mom shoots and kills intruder

[Sylveria]

First off, this has nothing to do with being in the US, it is because Oklahoma has a "make my day" law; if someone is trespassing on your personal property (or maybe just your house, I don't remember), the homeowner has every legal right to use lethal force.

That Oklahoma and much of the US has legalised murder, doesn't change the fact that it was most likely murder. Laws aren't self-justifying.

Besides, didn't you just claim they broke in to find medication, meaning they were after getting high? Then they were clearly no threat. Their intent was not do harm, but to steal something. No run of the mill burglar would engage in violence as it would only add to their possible punishment.

But apparently for that mother, if you want to steal something, anything, even something totally useless to her, that is reason enough to commit murder. To end someone's life, deny him everything else he could've had, and to throw an entire family into mourning.

Well mom, I hope you have fun with that medication worth $ 0 to you. I also hope your child never wakes up in the night and goes for a glass of water, only to be shot dead by his own paranoid mom. Certainly wouldn't be the first time some gun nut kills their own family thinking they're someone else.

So, if someone breaks into your house and starts stealing your stuff what are you going to do? Help them carry it to their car so they don't strain their back?

Also hyperbole. Yay! It's so much fun! Let me try.
Everyone is a killer! Everywhere! You all deserve to be punished for your terrible crimes!

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

Yes! And they were accompanied by a gang of Dire Badgers dual-wielding greatswords.

And Mimes that sang songs about Great Pandas.

Ignore Blab, in the 15yr old kid thread, he already demonstrated his absurdity by claiming to be a non-violent, anti-weapon use, kickboxing security guard who studied krav maga. I also find it humor that he honestly thinks that people who would go the the effort to kick down a locked door with a woman and child in it are just there to steal shit. Must be a happy flower land where he lives in his head, or rather, sounds like sociopathic justification for the violence he commits and thinks no one else should be able do the same.

Also, mimes don't sing.

 

[BOOM headshot65]

I will support those things (along with the death penalty in cases of murder, rape, treason, etc.)

I was intrigued by this point, so I thought I'd address it.

Forgetting the moral arguments against the death penalty, their is a very good reason we don't kill rapists and treasoners, because then the rapist/treasoner would have no reason not to kill their victims/witnesses. If the death penalty is used, it must be as the ultimate threat.

Warining! The following argument may sound like I stepped out of a time machine straight out of the "wild west." Do not be alarmed. This is to be expected since I live in an area where we still follow the code of law of the "wild west."

We know return to "In favor of the Death penalty."

*puts on stereotypical sheriff outfit, grows beard, and starts speaking in a drawl*

First off, let me start by saying I think that there have been more than a few times where innocents have been killed following death penalty. I think the death penalty should only be used if you are 100% sure they are guilty of a most henios crime. If it is 99.99999999%, they shall be spared until it hits 100%.

Now, as for the morality of it, there is no morality. If you kill or try to kill someone in cold blood, you *deserve* to swing from the tallest oak tree in town with a sign under you: "You have been warned, criminals." Plus, as it is written in the constitution of this great nation, Treason is the ONLY crime with will ALWAYS carry a death penalty.

 

[Saltyk]

First off, this has nothing to do with being in the US, it is because Oklahoma has a "make my day" law; if someone is trespassing on your personal property (or maybe just your house, I don't remember), the homeowner has every legal right to use lethal force.

That Oklahoma and much of the US has legalised murder, doesn't change the fact that it was most likely murder. Laws aren't self-justifying.

Besides, didn't you just claim they broke in to find medication, meaning they were after getting high? Then they were clearly no threat. Their intent was not do harm, but to steal something. No run of the mill burglar would engage in violence as it would only add to their possible punishment.

But apparently for that mother, if you want to steal something, anything, even something totally useless to her, that is reason enough to commit murder. To end someone's life, deny him everything else he could've had, and to throw an entire family into mourning.

Well mom, I hope you have fun with that medication worth $ 0 to you. I also hope your child never wakes up in the night and goes for a glass of water, only to be shot dead by his own paranoid mom. Certainly wouldn't be the first time some gun nut kills their own family thinking they're someone else.

So, if someone breaks into your house and starts stealing your stuff what are you going to do? Help them carry it to their car so they don't strain their back?

Also hyperbole. Yay! It's so much fun! Let me try.
Everyone is a killer! Everywhere! You all deserve to be punished for your terrible crimes!

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

Yes! And they were accompanied by a gang of Dire Badgers dual-wielding greatswords.

And Mimes that sang songs about Great Pandas.

Ignore Blab, in the 15yr old kid thread, he already demonstrated his absurdity by claiming to be a non-violent, anti-weapon use, kickboxing security guard who studied krav maga. I also find it humor that he honestly thinks that people who would go the the effort to kick down a locked door with a woman and child in it are just there to steal shit. Must be a happy flower land where he lives in his head, or rather, sounds like sociopathic justification for the violence he commits and thinks no one else should be able do the same.

Also, mimes don't sing.

I wasn't taking him serious anyway. Just read what he was saying and try to take that seriously. It's insanity.

Also, what kind of security guard is non-violent? That's like a pacifist soldier, or a meat-eating vegan. It's an oxymoron.

Singing mimes was the joke...

 

[ToxinArrow]

I didn't see this story in the offtopic forum yet, so I figured i'd post it here.

http://news.yahoo.com/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder-911-operators-okay-091106413.html

A week after her husband dies on Christmas day, two armed intruders break into a mother's house with a knife. She is locked in her bedroom with her baby and on the phone with 911 asking permission to shoot them if they get inside. (She was on the phone with them for 21 minutes by this point) When the door is kicked open, she unloads a 12 gauge shotgun into one while the other flees.

What's your feedback on this story? In my opinion, it doesn't get anymore black and white than this. Two men trying to take advantage of a recent widow, she calls police first, shoots one defending herself and her baby. The annoying thing is how follow up stories say the mom won't have charges pressed against her, like they're doing her a favor. I know people have a habit of badmouthing America whenever there's a story like this one, but what would you have done in this situation? Thankfully she doesn't live in a country where you can't do anything to someone breaking into your home and robbing you.

Forum members say a 15 year old stabbing an attacker 11 times is excessive, or police shooting a kid with a pellet gun three times is excessive, so was this justified in your eyes?

That part right there is why I facepalm when people say HURR DURR JUST CALL THE COPS! U NO NEED GUNS STOOPID

Good for her. She defended herself, her child, her property, and removed one more worthless piece of human trash from the planet. It's a shame so many other people live in places where they have their right to defense infringed upon.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

Warining! The following argument may sound like I stepped out of a time machine straight out of the "wild west." Do not be alarmed. This is to be expected since I live in an area where we still follow the code of law of the "wild west."

We know return to "In favor of the Death penalty."

*puts on stereotypical sheriff outfit, grows beard, and starts speaking in a drawl*

First off, let me start by saying I think that there have been more than a few times where innocents have been killed following death penalty. I think the death penalty should only be used if you are 100% sure they are guilty of a most henios crime. If it is 99.99999999%, they shall be spared until it hits 100%.

Now, as for the morality of it, there is no morality. If you kill or try to kill someone in cold blood, you *deserve* to swing from the tallest oak tree in town with a sign under you: "You have been warned, criminals." Plus, as it is written in the constitution of this great nation, Treason is the ONLY crime with will ALWAYS carry a death penalty.

As a proponent of the death penalty, I've considered that very logical point before. The problem is that if you're willing to deprive someone of all of their liberties being 99% sure, why not take that last step?

Also, isn't that a self defeating argument? The means by which people are not convicted of a crime is based upon the "reasonable doubt" standard. If even the prosecutor is not so confident of the proof of the crime that they should be killed, why should we believe their case is so strong as to be good enough to "just" jail them? Is not the proof of the prosecutors lack of conviction strong enough proof of the defendants innocence? Even if there's no physical evidence to support the idea, it will inevitably screw with the minds of the jurors and the defense attorney would certainly hammer that point home.

We need to go back to the founding principles of the judiciary. "It is better that 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent go to prison." That, in and of itself, makes the death penalty viable and if it were adhered to, we wouldn't have to worry about the wrong people going to the chair.

I stand by you, though. String 'em up.

 

[RamirezDoEverything]

Of course it was justified. I would have done the same thing if I were in the mother's shoes (though I would have been arrested solely because of my maleness).

This is sad but true.

OT: 2nd Amendment worked.
The spirit of the law works.
Feel good story all around.

 

[JWAN]

seems pretty cut and dry to me. Too bad she didn't get the second one.

 

[triggrhappy94]

Well I'm one of those people who think guns should be controlled, there's no reason for people to own certain guns, and all that, but this is one of those awkward circumstances where it was actually self-defence.

 

[LadyMint]

I applaud the woman's actions wholeheartedly. In her shoes, I don't think I would have wasted my breath yelling to them that I was armed while I waited for them to continue their break-in. I might have told them I'd called the police but without 100% certainty that they didn't have guns of their own, I wouldn't want to give them any reason to start firing before I did. Yes, yes, I know the articles all say that they only had knives but this is all after the fact. During the scenario, as a victim I wouldn't know much more than "badguys are trying to get me and my child, and I have the deadly means to stop that from happening."

In situations like that, you never know how your attackers are going to react to anything you do. I'm certainly not going to shove the poor woman into a non-existent time machine and tell her to take proper protocol and give the criminals a fair chance to live. They weren't about to give her one, and that was all the reason she needed to act how she did. This is the most cut and dry case of self defense you could ask for.

 

[jimbob123432]

I believe the kid stabbing a bully was justified (if a tiny bit excessive, but that's explainable) as well as the cops shooting the kid with a pellet gun, and I believe this is justified too.

 

[salinv]

That Oklahoma and much of the US has legalised murder, doesn't change the fact that it was most likely murder. Laws aren't self-justifying.

First off, this isn't murder, murder implies premeditation. And honestly, its a bit hard to plan to kill someone inside your home.

Besides, didn't you just claim they broke in to find medication, meaning they were after getting high? Then they were clearly no threat. Their intent was not do harm, but to steal something. No run of the mill burglar would engage in violence as it would only add to their possible punishment.

Are you saying that people who aren't fully in their mind are no danger whatsoever? That breaking into someone's home brandishing a knife is non-threatening and harmless? Stealing is causing harm: you are forcibly taking something away from someone to your own benefit. Anyways, thievery may have been their initial intent, but who is to say that it would, without a doubt, have ended there? They could have escalated during the crime, and this could have easily turned into a home invasion with her and what was left of her family dead.

But apparently for that mother, if you want to steal something, anything, even something totally useless to her, that is reason enough to commit murder. To end someone's life, deny him everything else he could've had, and to throw an entire family into mourning.

It wasn't the (intended) act of thievery that gave her the right end someones life, it was the fact that they assaulted her. They broke into her house with a deadly weapon (during her own time of grieving) after she had known of and feared them for half an hour. After being there for two hours, their intent was obviously to cause harm; whether that was just theft or worse doesn't explicitly matter. The trespassers made the choice when they broke in to gamble over the fact that their intimidation and knife were more than a match for what was waiting for them inside. They made the immoral act, she retaliated in the defense of herself and her family.

Well mom, I hope you have fun with that medication worth $ 0 to you. I also hope your child never wakes up in the night and goes for a glass of water, only to be shot dead by his own paranoid mom. Certainly wouldn't be the first time some gun nut kills their own family thinking they're someone else.

And there's your opinion of people who own guns. Honestly sounds like something born of paranoia.. Anyways, what you just described is more of a case of a nut who got hold of a gun than anything.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

If a person has taken over 21 minutes to break through ONE door in the house and didn't just grab what they could and run, it would seam to me their intent was beyond question.

 

[Dfskelleton]

I don't see any reason why anyone would see this as "wrong". Her life (and the life or her child) were in danger, she did what she could to protect her and her child. Simple as that.

 

[WeAreStevo]

I feel that this was completely justified. I would love to see the jury that would try and convict a recent widow when two scumbags tried to break in to take advantage of her. They deserved what they got and if anything the guy who got away should be charged with breaking and entry and attempted murder, seeing as they broke into the home, they displayed pre-meditation by attempting to enter the home the day of the funeral, and then while entering the home they charged at her with a 12 inch hunting knife.

I'm sorry, but these scumbags got what they deserved.

 

[Saltyk]

That Oklahoma and much of the US has legalised murder, doesn't change the fact that it was most likely murder. Laws aren't self-justifying.

First off, this isn't murder, murder implies premeditation. And honestly, its a bit hard to plan to kill someone inside your home.

Besides, didn't you just claim they broke in to find medication, meaning they were after getting high? Then they were clearly no threat. Their intent was not do harm, but to steal something. No run of the mill burglar would engage in violence as it would only add to their possible punishment.

Are you saying that people who aren't fully in their mind are no danger whatsoever? That breaking into someone's home brandishing a knife is non-threatening and harmless? Stealing is causing harm: you are forcibly taking something away from someone to your own benefit. Anyways, thievery may have been their initial intent, but who is to say that it would, without a doubt, have ended there? They could have escalated during the crime, and this could have easily turned into a home invasion with her and what was left of her family dead.

But apparently for that mother, if you want to steal something, anything, even something totally useless to her, that is reason enough to commit murder. To end someone's life, deny him everything else he could've had, and to throw an entire family into mourning.

It wasn't the (intended) act of thievery that gave her the right end someones life, it was the fact that they assaulted her. They broke into her house with a deadly weapon (during her own time of grieving) after she had known of and feared them for half an hour. After being there for two hours, their intent was obviously to cause harm; whether that was just theft or worse doesn't explicitly matter. The trespassers made the choice when they broke in to gamble over the fact that their intimidation and knife were more than a match for what was waiting for them inside. They made the immoral act, she retaliated in the defense of herself and her family.

Well mom, I hope you have fun with that medication worth $ 0 to you. I also hope your child never wakes up in the night and goes for a glass of water, only to be shot dead by his own paranoid mom. Certainly wouldn't be the first time some gun nut kills their own family thinking they're someone else.

And there's your opinion of people who own guns. Honestly sounds like something born of paranoia.. Anyways, what you just described is more of a case of a nut who got hold of a gun than anything.

There's something else I'd like to add. Most criminals don't want to break into your home when you are home. That risks confrontation. If they are willing to break in when when you are home, awake, and well aware of their presence, that implies an intent to confront you. This is a VERY dangerous situation. They want to confront you or at least are not afraid to confront you. This also implies that "mere" theft wasn't the only thing they were after.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

There seems to be a small collection of posters on this site who are either exceptional trolls, or honestly believe that it would be better for that mother and her child to have been left lying in pools of their own blood, satisfied in the knowledge that even though they were dying, they were "morally right".

 

[Saika Renegade]

In all fairness, the two blokes chose to knowingly break the law first, what with the armed home invasion and all. It's not like kicking in doors with a knife is going to be a-okay with a police force. When you knowingly choose to do something that can only harm others, karma occasionally has a way of calling back with surprising speed, and occasionally will do as small, fast-moving bits of metal noisily announcing their presence.

The fact that she called someone who could be considered an authority figure to inform them and ask for clarification proves that she wanted to stay on the proper side of the law, as well as the fact that she was capable of far more foresight than I honestly would have in a similar situation.

Regarding this issue with the child in Texas who was shot, the officers involved had no idea what weapon he actually had at the time and had to make a split-second decision. I personally do not know of a lot of police officers who ever heard 'let the suspect shoot first' as part of their training. What really gets on my case regarding the school incident is that the parents then have the gall to ask why they couldn't simply shoot him in a place that would take him down with a single shot, perhaps unaware that one, any gunshot wound is a medical emergency of the highest caliber (no pun intended); two, there is there is no such thing as a 'safe place' to take a bullet (I confess to giving some truly disgusted looks at individuals who asked why he was not shot in the shoulder or the leg, or why the police didn't shoot the gun out of his hands--things that anyone with even a modicum of firearms training knows are *not* the most wisest way to use a firearm, especially in an emergency situation); three, a person who has been shot non-fatally and on the ground may still in fact be armed and dangerous; and four, that the only way a single shot takes a person down reliably is generally because it is a killing shot.

It is unfortunate the boy died, but he did not disarm when police ordered him to (other students corroborate reports that they ordered him to drop the gun), pointed a weapon at police officers, and chose to do this in a post-Columbine, post-9/11 setting, where public safety concerns have only risen. Stop trying to blame police officers who were forced to do their duty.

 

[PlasticTree]

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.

It is possible that this would have happened, yes. However, by allowing every American to own a gun, and by allowing every American to shoot to kill whenever something like this happens, the chance of someone dying is way, way bigger than it is otherwise. Maybe the ratio dead criminal/dead victim will change a bit in the victim's favor, but apply this on a national scale and it will an enormous increase in deaths. And only a very small part of that group would have been given the death penalty (not to mention that they would have deserved a trial of course).

Ah well, as a non-American I can accept the fact that gun-ownership is such a big deal in the U.S., especially when taking the whole culture in consideration, but anecdotes should never be the basis for any kind or large-scale decisions, really.