Oklahoma mom shoots and kills intruder

[senordesol]

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.

Interesting situation to consider:

Now, I have had it pt to me that the pumping adrenaline of a fight is a justification to the seemingly savage stabbing. I have been told by you that to kill is justified in order to protect one's own life.

So, say the bully is stabbed once or twice, non-fatally (say in a limb). He recoils in fear of this victim-turned-threat, but the red fog has come down, and the bully comes under attack. Would the fully be within his rights to try to fend off what is now his attacker, even if that defence was fatal?

As the initiator it is hard (nigh impossible) for him to argue 'self-defense' only if he was visibly and provably no longer a threat would he have a leg to stand on.

 

[BrionJames]

If I was in a similar situation I would've done the same thing. Individuals who rob people to take things that aren't theirs by force need to accept the possibility that they could be shot to death as a result of their actions. Also, if you've ever taken a self-defense course or read up on self-defense shooting drills, when you pull your gun, you don't fire warning shots or try to shoot for the leg or shoulder. You aim center mass because it's the largest target on your attacker and you fire and continue to fire until the person has gone down. When someone is attacking you, there are no second chances or do overs you either do it right or they get you and take whatever they want. This woman did exactly what your supposed to do, she called 911, told them what was happening, and then made it clear to the person on the line and her attackers that if they continued to advance into the bedroom she would shoot them. Under American law she cannot be charged because she had recorded proof that she believed her life and her baby's life was in danger and reacted with whatever force necessary to protect herself.

 

[chadachada123]

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.

Interesting situation to consider:

Now, I have had it pt to me that the pumping adrenaline of a fight is a justification to the seemingly savage stabbing. I have been told by you that to kill is justified in order to protect one's own life.

So, say the bully is stabbed once or twice, non-fatally (say in a limb). He recoils in fear of this victim-turned-threat, but the red fog has come down, and the bully comes under attack. Would the fully be within his rights to try to fend off what is now his attacker, even if that defence was fatal?

But that's not what happened. In your scenario, many courts would determine that the victim (the knife-wielder) stepped outside his bounds by pursuing the attack on a defenseless asshole. So, yes, the bully would be able to fend off the victim-knife-guy *IF THE VICTIM LAID THE ATTACK ON FIRST.* That is, the fight must have stopped, followed by the victim openly attacking the wounded kid.

As it happened, though, the victim was completely in his right to defend himself with a flurry of stabs. In that moment, NO PERSON ALIVE would stop to see if the bully was incapacitated after just one stab unless they were seriously freaked out by the idea of stabbing another person. They would stab until the threat is definitely neutralized, which, given the adrenaline, would not be until, well, at least 8 or so stabs.

 

[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.

Interesting situation to consider:

Now, I have had it pt to me that the pumping adrenaline of a fight is a justification to the seemingly savage stabbing. I have been told by you that to kill is justified in order to protect one's own life.

So, say the bully is stabbed once or twice, non-fatally (say in a limb). He recoils in fear of this victim-turned-threat, but the red fog has come down, and the bully comes under attack. Would the fully be within his rights to try to fend off what is now his attacker, even if that defence was fatal?

If there is a actual break in the exchange and the original assailant visibly tries to flee (not get to a better weapon), then the original victim would most likely be guilty of a crime. When a criminal is surprised that his intended victim isn't defenseless, his panic doesn't absolve him of his original intent.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Mind if I have your address? Seeing as how you're against self-defense of any kind I figured I may as well try stealing some stuff from your house. Don't worry though, I'm not gonna harm you or threaten you in anyway so it's totally okay by your logic right?

Why are you talking about self-defense here? The topic was committing murder with firearms if someone wants to steal something. That has nothing to do with self-defense.

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".

Speaking of trolling, pretending that if you can't murder anyone who dares tread on your land equals being helpless, is a good trolling attempt.

Not to mention the irony of accusing that people who oppose murder would allow it, while it's the pro-violence gun lobby that promotes murder as being justified and legal.

You keep insisting that the intruders were there just to rob the place, as if there were no other reason for two men to break into a home where a (supposedly) defenseless woman resided. Because it's not like there's anything else they might be looking to do.... [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders]

The intruders had twenty minutes to take whatever they wanted from any room besides the one the woman had barricaded herself in. Instead they decided to try to break into the bedroom (did they want her sheets? Her memory-foam pillows?) and once they accomplished this, one of them rushed her with a knife. Where does all that fit in with "they just wanted to steal stuff"?

It's blatantly obvious you're a troll. A fairly good one to get people so riled up, but a troll nonetheless. Please move along now, and find another thread to infest.

 

[galaktar]

here in my country there is no such thing as "self-defence", you CANT kill other people whitout getting in trouble PERIOD, even if they are clearly assailants tresspasing in your house, your lookin at least 3 days detention during "inquires" (wich are just another word for how much are you willin to pay for them to let you out) matter of fact is easier to shoot them IN the house then throw them out on the sidewalk and wait it out, just deny anithing if anyone asks, is nearly impossible to get a licence to buy a firearm if your a civilian (and actual firearms are prohibitely expesive for most)

Mexico?

 

[galaktar]

Mercy to the cruel is cruelty to the innocent.

 

[Treblaine]

Just an aside on the three-shot deal, that's 1 for 1 officer and 2 for the other. Double-tap (two shots at a time) is a trained response, because 1 bullet is not a sure stop for an assailant. I think the numbers run something like 40-70% depending on the caliber of gun and placement. Two shots has nearly a 100% chance of stopping an assailant, and so it's a known, trained response. Looked at that way, the officer who only shot once was either confident his partner would fire at the same time, or was taking a big chance on a return shot, possibly out of consideration for the fact that it was a child assailant.

Just saying, the whole "they shot him 3 times 'cause Texas is gun-crazy" attitude isn't justifiable here.

Yeah the "why did they shoot him 3 times" might be a relevant question if it was one guy with a muzzle-loading musket where it takes up to half a minute to load each shot, but this is TWO cops with semi-automatic pistols who can fire a second shot with a twitch of a muscle.

I don't think people realise how easy it is to let a gun get away from you.

I heard a great story of a Plainclothes Police Detective who while on duty had to use the bathroom stall. He was of course carrying a pistol in a belt holster and not wanting to put the 3-pound gun on the floor nor let it hangs from his belt and there being no shelf he saw the coat hook and HUNG THE PISTOL BY THE TRIGGER GUARD ON THE COATHOOK. That was somewhat fine, except he didn't notice the safety catch had disengaged ...

When he out to pick up the pistol the trigger touched the hood and suddenly a lot of things happened very quickly.

1. the trigger was pressed that fired a bullet
2. recoil pushed the gun back
3. but the gun was STILL CAUGHT ON THE HOOK
4. as the gun swung around the trigger got pressed again
5. repeat steps 1 through 4 at about the speed a Machine Gun fires

The result was the pistol suddenly turned into a Machine Gun spinning on the coathook firing bullets everywhere till the magazine was spent and it stopped with the gun spinning on the coathook like the coathook was a wild-west gunslinger. Thankfully, the bullets didn't hit anyone, but you can imagine the shock of everyone, especially the detective. Don't know what happened to him, but it must have been hard to explain how he turned his pistol into a machine gun and negligently discharged his entire magazine of bullets into a defenceless bathroom.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_WTjjPyd2s&context=C3223afbADOEgsToPDskI0elLDMrUd_Ho_4MzhP61I

The principal they are talking about is basically "bump-firing" or holding a pistol in a certain way where one force interrupted by the guns recoil can reset and depress the trigger rapidly as a machine gun fires. Still a semi-auto as a semi-auto gun is defined as "a singe cartridge fired per pull of the trigger" the trigger is just pulled very quickly.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

The difference between this and those other stories is that here, there are NO other options.

The kid could have stabbed the bully fewer times and the cop could have been more careful, but here, if she hadn't done that, very bad things would have happened.

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

Wow, a 12 gauge shotgun? F*ck, Americans are scary. I suppose it's somewhat justified, but I can't help feeling it's a bit excessive. Then again, Americans have that whole blood-lust thing, so this should probably seem tame over there.

 

[senordesol]

Wow, a 12 gauge shotgun? F*ck, Americans are scary. I suppose it's somewhat justified, but I can't help feeling it's a bit excessive. Then again, Americans have that whole blood-lust thing, so this should probably seem tame over there.

There's nothing 'excessive' about defending your child from a knife-wielding assailant.

 

[ThreeWords]

But that's not what happened. In your scenario, many courts would determine that the victim (the knife-wielder) stepped outside his bounds by pursuing the attack on a defenseless asshole. So, yes, the bully would be able to fend off the victim-knife-guy *IF THE VICTIM LAID THE ATTACK ON FIRST.* That is, the fight must have stopped, followed by the victim openly attacking the wounded kid.

As it happened, though, the victim was completely in his right to defend himself with a flurry of stabs. In that moment, NO PERSON ALIVE would stop to see if the bully was incapacitated after just one stab unless they were seriously freaked out by the idea of stabbing another person. They would stab until the threat is definitely neutralized, which, given the adrenaline, would not be until, well, at least 8 or so stabs.

I'm afraid to say that I won't argue with people who use capslock to reinforce a point. If your argument needs that, then it's too weak to stand up on it's own.

Nothing personal, of course, but it keeps me out of arguments with people who use insults as arguments.

 

[BrassButtons]

Wow, a 12 gauge shotgun? F*ck, Americans are scary. I suppose it's somewhat justified, but I can't help feeling it's a bit excessive.

Alright: what's an appropriate level of force to respond to someone who is, as far as you are able to tell, intent on murdering you?

Then again, Americans have that whole blood-lust thing, so this should probably seem tame over there.

No, some of us just understand that sometimes life-or-death scenarios do occur, and we'd prefer that the victim be the one to live.

 

[galaktar]

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.

I'm saying nothing of the sort about victims. I didn't say that the criminals actions weren't bad, or that the victims deserved it, or that the criminals shouldn't go to prison. I'm say that criminals are not evil people, they are people in need of rehabilitation.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that if you break into someones house with the intention of doing harm (any kind)...your're evil. Society can spend a million dollars on rehabilitation or allow you to fix the problem for 80 cents.

http://www.ableammo.com/catalog/gauge-inch-lead-turkey-shotgun-shells-ammo-sale-online-discount-prices-c-10480_14626_11576_16377_11591.html

 

[galaktar]

Wow, a 12 gauge shotgun? F*ck, Americans are scary. I suppose it's somewhat justified, but I can't help feeling it's a bit excessive. Then again, Americans have that whole blood-lust thing, so this should probably seem tame over there.

We have fire extinguishers for fires and criminal extinguishers for criminals. There's no blood-lust involved.

 

[senordesol]

Galaktar...kudos

 

[galaktar]

Galaktar...kudos

Thank you!

 

[Treblaine]

When ever 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.

The young lady isn't going to jail because Oklahoma adopted the Castle doctrine which allow you to kill home invader(s) without any fear of prosecution and civil lawsuits.

Castle doctrine are good laws which I support. It prevent liberal prosecutors from criminalizing victims.

Even without the Castle Doctrine she would not have gone to jail because her actions would have been deemed as self-defense and thus not criminal. Castle Doctrine extends the protections way further than self-defense allows.

That's incorrect. In liberal cities with liberal prosecutors they will take the home owner to court on criminal charges.

The Castle Doctrine was created to prevent that short of crap. It prevent the prosecutor taking the home owner to court even if they know the home owner is 100% in the right. By not going to court this young lady save herself ten of thousands of dollars in lawyer fees and months of unnecessary stress.

Stop. You're making gun owners look bad. You're making the average American look bad.

There are no "liberal" prosecutors. There are shitty prosecutors that do things that stereotype both Republican and Democrat attitudes, but they aren't "liberal" or "conservative," except in the single issue that they are prosecuting for.

To interject, how about "greedy, shyster, incompetent, underhanded, sneaky, desperate and unconstitutional lawyers"? Is that preferable?

PS: both "liberals" and conservatives misuse the term "liberal", even when labelling the same people.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

She was in the right espically when she ask for permission to shoot in self defence. I mean she was somewhat clear headed about the situation (she's aware that she may have to shoot them to defend her child) and the law for doing do.

/thread

Though I will state my opnion that I firmly beilve that making rubber/plastic ammunition more available (it's actually HARDER to get then metal bullets/shot in some areas)would help.

 

[TheScientificIssole]

Lethal force calls for lethal force.
Also this close to the opposite of Mad Max.