Oklahoma mom shoots and kills intruder

[ThreeWords]

It's easily avoidable behavior.

Said argument works both ways; it's easy not to stab someone.

 

[galaktar]

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.

Actually happens pretty often, but most people don't want to take their chances with public opinion/the press.

 

[Sandytimeman]

Here in Oklahoma, if they are in your house and they aren't supposed to be, you have the right to use lethal force because it's understood that they intend on using the same on you.

That you for explaining that to me good sir. You have proven that the US is far more fucked up then i ever could have imagined.

I suppose in your country the legal thing to do is let yourself and your kid to be assaulted and robbed?

Yeah the police totally dropped the ball but, seriously the guys didn't leave when warned, they could have robbed whatever else in the rest of the house. Instead they broke into a locked room, ignoring verbal warnings, and came in with a knife.

Seriously what would you have done? (I would have emptied the magazine in sheer terror most likely)

 

[galaktar]

This is justified. self defence against armed robbers with the intent to steal from you and possibly kill both you and your child with no immediate form of aid from a third party than this is absolutely justified. It isn't like those ridiculous cases wear an armed and dangerous man robs you and then successfully sues you because he hurt himself on your sub par banister. This is fair and just.

If its stealing, murder isnt justified. property is not worth life. if it was life. then i beleive it is.
But i think she was 100% justified.

Ok, now imagine that all your life savings are being walked out the door to your home, and the police don't exactly respond quickly to simple robberies. Are you supposed to challenge a career criminal to a boxing match for all your stuff back? Trial by combat anyone?

Of course not. You have a right to life and therefore the the products of your own life (property). Grand larceny doesn't happen by accident, and any criminal has willingly given up, through his own actions, all moral defense against any measure of force necessary to secure your life or property.

The law is very clear. Property crimes do not warrent deadly force.

Depends where you're talking about. If you're in the UK or California, I'll give you that, but there are plenty of states where you absolutely do not have to give a single damn inch to a criminal on your property. See "Stand your ground" and "Make my day" laws.

 

[galaktar]

It's easily avoidable behavior.

Said argument works both ways; it's easy not to stab someone.

It's also easy to let yourself get punched into a coma. Doesn't mean that's the option you have to pick.

 

[galaktar]

I think it looks like we're all pretty much agreed here. I might not like the idea of taking a life, even in self-defence, but I wouldn't be so arrogant as to say that I wouldn't do it if I felt I was threatened, I wouldn't claim to be able to respond to something like that with anything more than instinctive self-preservation. So I say well done to her for likely saving the lives of her baby and herself, and what the hell to the police for taking 21 minutes.

I think it was a rural area. Long distances involved.

From what I heard, she lives in a mobile home in a trailer park, on a jurisdiction edge. I think the 911 call actually went to the wrong police department (it wasn't the closest one), so the call for help actually bounced around a couple times. Not to mention she was likely a bit harder to find.

Fair enough, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

 

[senordesol]

It's easily avoidable behavior.

Said argument works both ways; it's easy not to stab someone.

Sure it is, but he wasn't the initiator, AND he tried to flee first.

 

[evilneko]

I don't really see how this could be anything but justified. The woman acted in completely reasonable self-defense. Given the situation, I'd call it justified no matter who the shooter was.

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.

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?

I'm pretty sure in most places they treat any shooting as murder/attempted murder until the DA makes their official decision on the case.

And as for police shooting a kid with a pellet gun--also justified. A teenager has a weapon, and not only ignores orders to drop it but points it at police. That's a deadly threat right there, the police responded properly.

 

[Android2137]

...Why are we even discussing this? Two guys break into a recent widow's house, armed with a knife. Said widow locks herself in her room with her baby and a gun, and calls the police. The two guys break in before the police arrive. Really, the only way to make this more justified was if those two guys were armed with guns too. ...And that would not likely end well for the lady and her child.

 

[jdun]

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.

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.

That's right our criminal system isn't about rehabilitation. It's about punishment. It's about justice. It's about putting them in jail for a long time so they don't repeat their crimes on law abiding citizens again.

You know what? It work. The US crime rate has been dropping since tougher laws that put criminals in jail. You know that German guy that burned a lot of cars in LA. In Europe he might get one year in jail max and than repeat his crimes. In the USA I would be surprise if he gets less than 40 years. He won't be doing it again because he rotting in jail as it should be.

 

[galaktar]

Breaking into a house during the night is violent entry and it threatens every occupant with death or severe bodily harm.

No it isnt. I will never understand how anybody in their right mind could possibly agree with your statement.

They aren't breaking in to give you a surprise party, and it isn't the duty of the occupants to ask nicely what the masked intruders intentions are. If you want to challenge some potentially drug addled maniac to a discussion of the social contract, so be it, just don't demand that everyone else do the same.

 

[galaktar]

...Why are we even discussing this? Two guys break into a recent widow's house, armed with a knife. Said widow locks herself in her room with her baby and a gun, and calls the police. The two guys break in before the police arrive. Really, the only way to make this more justified was if those two guys were armed with guns too. ...And that would not likely end well for the lady and her child.

The fact that this happened challenges some people's belief systems. So discussion ensues...

 

[ElPatron]

In the UK, you have the right to use "reasonable force" to defend yourself. What is "reasonable" is decided on by a jury...

So that someone's personal, subjective views make the law. In this thread, there were a lot of people that said that "self-defence with firearms is a myth", or that "gun ownership should not be legal", and stuff like that. Good luck finding a jury without people like these in the middle.


Anyway, they "only" broke into her house and her bathroom, so she would have to wait for an actual attack to be able to fire.

Breaking into a house during the night is violent entry and it threatens every occupant with death or severe bodily harm.

No it isnt. I will never understand how anybody in their right mind could possibly agree with your statement.

Okay, so you are saying that if someone breaks into your house, there is a 0% chance of getting raped, tortured and killed by a sicko?

If your car had a 0.1% chance of blowing up when you start it, would you start it?

IF PEOPLE ENTERING YOUR HOUSE DURING THE NIGHT IS NOT A THREAT, WHY DO YOU HAVE A DOOR?



I can say "I'll kill you!" but not do it. It's a threat. If I break into your family's house with a knife, I am not a threat to your family?

Will you wait for me to kill everyone in the house and hope I get arrested for it?

There is a shotgun by your side. I dare you to not shoot at me when I am trying to get into your mother'/sister's/daughter's room.

I dare you.

 

[jdun]

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-USfficial&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.

You know your statement is an oxymoron. It's like saying rape isn't bad because the rape victim deserve it. It's like saying murdering a baby isn't bad because the baby bad deserve it. It's like saying that burning a house full of people while they are sleeping isn't bad because they deserve it.

You are criminalizing the victims and victimize the criminals. Unfortunately your mind can't comprehend that.

 

[galaktar]

Do the police in the US not exist to protect and serve like in every other civilized country? I ask this because in what fucked up country do the police not immediatly go to your house when you report somebody is trying to break in with a knife. Seriously 21 minutes on the phone with the police is fucking rediculous.

Here in Oklahoma, if they are in your house and they aren't supposed to be, you have the right to use lethal force because it's understood that they intend on using the same on you.

That you for explaining that to me good sir. You have proven that the US is far more fucked up then i ever could have imagined.

Yes, because clearly the de-facto legalization of crime, and criminalization any resistance to crime, is the mark of "civilization." And it was actually decided in the supreme court that the police are not, in fact, responsible for protecting you, only society as a whole or whatever loose definition of "the common good" is popular at the time.

 

[galaktar]

Home defense tip: The only reason you would need a handgun it to use it as a way to get to your shotgun.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Well either that was the stupidest robber ever (gun beats knife) and this is cut and dry or she shot him immediately as they broke the door down and before they could react, which makes it slightly less cut and dry since in theory the gun would have likely scared them away when they saw it and she wouldn't need to shoot. Course they might have had a gun and yadda yadda, grey area, grey area.

 

[senordesol]

Well either that was the stupidest robber ever (gun beats knife) and this is cut and dry or she shot him immediately as they broke the door down and before they could react, which makes it slightly less cut and dry since in theory the gun would have likely scared them away when they saw it and she wouldn't need to shoot. Course they might have had a gun and yadda yadda, grey area, grey area.

If you read the story, you'd find that they were in her house for 20 minutes while she hid in the bathroom. Facts n' such.

 

[jdun]

Do the police in the US not exist to protect and serve like in every other civilized country? I ask this because in what fucked up country do the police not immediatly go to your house when you report somebody is trying to break in with a knife. Seriously 21 minutes on the phone with the police is fucking rediculous.

Here in Oklahoma, if they are in your house and they aren't supposed to be, you have the right to use lethal force because it's understood that they intend on using the same on you.

That you for explaining that to me good sir. You have proven that the US is far more fucked up then i ever could have imagined.

Under the SCOTUS rulings the police are not under the law to protect its' citizens. They are task with keeping the general peace and enforce the laws on the book. That's means you can't sue the police for failure to protect. It's up to the citizen to insure their own safety. Cops aren't body guards and are allow to leave where they know crimes are being committed as seen in the LA riots.

Other counties have these type of laws too. Does your country allows you to sue the police for failure to protect? If No than the police aren't under the law to protect you or your property.

 

[newwiseman]

Whenever someone dies there is an investigation and in the even that the District Attorney finds it 'justified' they usually will make an announcement that no charges will be pressed.

I'm not really seeing a story here other than the pros of owning firearms.