Oklahoma mom shoots and kills intruder

[theriddlen]

She has done the right thing. What was she supposed to do, risk hers and her baby's life? Of course not.

Killing is never justified. But she wasn't killing the thief, she was defending herself from him, and the thief's death is only his own fault.

 

[Smokej]

hard to condemn the mother in this situation, but damn 21 minutes is a long time for some kind of response from the cops


nevertheless it still reinforces this kind of stereotype of u.s. citizens and their gun fetishism

 

[theamazingbean]

Gun ownership is harder to obtian legally here than in the US of Abundant Ammunition.

What are you talking about "abundant ammunition"? I have to pay almost $.25 a round for decent brass-cased 5.56 NATO.

why would anyone need a gun for self defence stronger than a simple 9mm?

Because guns and the wounds they cause are unpredictable. People can survive 12 gauge shotguns and get killed by .22 long rifle. It's dangerous to assume that a particular gun will or will not kill the person it's shot at, so legal standards have adopted around the idea ALL guns are equally lethal, and pointing any of them at someone is considered "lethal action".

 

[Darkmantle]

justified, as were the other two cases you mentioned. Some people just take pacifism to extreme levels. "oh you should never kill anyone!even if they are trying to kill you!" give me a break.

 

[Robert Ewing]

Well, that shits legal in Britain. You can use lethal force on an intruder on your property.

Well done Oklahoma mom!

 

[Guffe]

So they treathen her and her child in her house wiht knives and they get shot.
They chose the wrong widow to mess with.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

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.

Anyway, this case is pretty obvious of course. When you're being attacked in your own home with a lethal weapon, and you even call the damned police for help by that point, it's pretty obvious what she has to do and has the right to do.

You know what I find shocking about this article though?

What the fuck took the cops so long?! Seriously, 21 minutes and she still had to deal with them herself?! What the fuck?

Maybe she lives in a rural area or something? Never had any reason to call the police around here, but I'd have to imagine it'd take them at least half an hour to get here from the nearest police station.

 

[Ectoplasmicz]

I guess...

If you can't stand the heat, keep out of her kitchen.
http://mirrors.rit.edu/instantCSI/

I love you for leading me to this.

OT: Perfectly justified, men breaking and entering on private property, she has the right to assume they will harm her if necessary, she has the right to threaten and harm them.

 

[Ethan Asia]

She was 'authorised' to kill a man?

hmm.

I think it would have been better if she had made it known she had a weapon. I know she'd be in a panic but still, she killed someone.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

Oh, okay. That's fine.

*sips drink*

...Wait, is there something special about this case?

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Justified? yes. 100%? No

She knew they had a knife, she had a shotgun (seriously, I mostly disapprove gun ownership, but can understand it, but not Shotgungs, why would anyone need a gun for self defence stronger than a simple 9mm?). She could have just pointed it and hope they leave, and just if they still advanced, shot them. Or she could try to shot in a non fatal area, like legs or arms.

Just read the comments on the OP link. Those are scary. Some of them say they should all be exterminated, wtf...

Several reasons why shotguns are good for home defense. Since they spread, there is a lesser chance of missing. Shotguns also don't "over-penetrate" or continue on through the target, and potentially hitting people beyond the target. They would also intimidate someone significantly more than a handgun. Also, people do not collapse immediately once shot. A 9mm would likely require several shots to incapacitate, especially if the shooter was stressed (likely) and the target had adrenaline pumping through them (also likely). At that point, any less lethality of the 9mm is negated.

Suggesting she "shoot them in a non-fatal area" is not really practical. There are no truly non fatal areas, people can survive repeated head-shots and die from a .22 to the foot. Ballistics is incredibly complicated, there are very few guarantees. Shooting someone in the arm is in no way guaranteed to incapacitate someone, if you get shot you'll mostly likely freak the hell out. Say she shoots the guy in the arm, he goes "Ow, fuck!" and stabs her. She dies from the stab, and he later bleeds to death anyway. This, I think we can agree, is the worst outcome possible.

Every military and police doctrine says to aim for center mass. Why? Because it is much more likely to put down the person, as opposed to "non lethal" areas. Getting shot with a gun is not a good thing, and if you shoot someone then you shoot to kill and hope they live, because shooting to wound and hoping they don't die isn't going to work.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

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.

Well, she murdered someone. How is it not unusual to press charges for murder?

That murder is legal in the US whenever someone walks onto your lawn is a different story, but at least that is still being regarded as 'crime untill otherwise'.


Anyway, there's a world of difference hidden in that story that Yahoo doesn't tell us. 'as they enter the home' could've been anything from opening a door while intending to try and steal a few dollars worth of stuff, to being an actual threat.

Obviously, since I have morals, I don't approve of murdering someone who wants to steal $ 10. We had the medieval ages where they did stuff like that, it didn't work. And since it's unclear if the burglars were any dangers, I can't call this justified.

But judging as the first thing the murderer did was run for firearms, and the first question to the dispatcher was if it was okay to murder that guy, I'm betting she's a gun nut who opened fire the moment they stepped inside.

That's murder, no matter how much a pro-violence gun nut wants to twist the story. Someone's not a threat by opening a door.

Wow, dude. For someone who describes themselves as "moral" you're making a lot of assumptions about this person. The story said she was on the phone with them for 20 minutes, so she definitely opened fire immediately, spot on there. And two people certainly entered a house armed with knifes for $10, yes that's logical.

 

[michael87cn]

Far as I know, you shouldn't be able to get away with killing someone in a situation like that unless you had reason to believe that *they would kill you* if you didn't do something about it and you didn't have any other alternatives available to you.

Reading the article, it doesn't seem like that's the case. If she just shot him the instant he entered then clearly she had other alternatives, such as simply pointing the gun at him and telling him to piss off.

I'm not saying I don't understand why she did it, or even that I know I would do different in the same situation, but I think that any time that you kill someone, there should be consequences for it, even if the killing was understandable. To do anything else would be totally inconsistent with cultural values, such as the placing of an inherent value to human life.

Personally I am very disturbed that the same people who are happy to say that human life is precious are often equally happily celebrate murders if they didn't like the people who got killed.

I'm calling definite troll here, but I'll respond anyway.

Two men break into your home, you lock yourself in a room hoping they just want to steal stuff and leave. Instead, they try to break into the room you locked yourself in, clearly showing that they are after YOUR LIFE. The intent to kill or at the very least cause suffering is 100% evident. You call the police and it's clear they won't arrive in time. Not having superman vision, you can't tell if they have ranged weapons themselves so you shoot them immediately when they break through the door.

If you had NOT shot first there is a great chance you would be dead if they had pistols or rifles. The weak will hesitate and be killed, the strong will survive.

You would have probably died worrying about the moral values of it all whilst they stabbed you to death... -.-

 

[Ithera]

They didn't have to kick the door down and challenge her, why not grab some stuff and bolt? They must have been desperate if they saw the need for such risky actions. Another theory could be that an ex decided to have some grade F hit-men finish her off?

 

[v3n0mat3]

They had a knife and invaded her home, she had a gun and a child to protect.

Yeah. Totally and completely justified. They shouldn't have broken into her home in the first place. Why this is so controversial in the first place, I don't know.

 

[SextusMaximus]

Absolutely, completely, utterly justified with absolutely no argument. If anything, I applaude her for having the nerve to do it.

Also happen to think the stabbing was justified, questionably, but necessarily.

 

[BrassButtons]

That's murder, no matter how much a pro-violence gun nut wants to twist the story. Someone's not a threat by opening a door.

You're aware that your entire post twists the story, right? Calling it "murder", saying they "just opened a door" (that's like saying she 'just pulled the trigger'), referring to her as a 'gun-nut' and someone who supports her as 'pro-violence'. Glass houses, stones, etc.

Obviously, since I have morals, I don't approve of murdering someone who wants to steal $ 10.

How was she to determine their intentions? She can't ask, because they could lie. If she waits to see what they do, they may succeed in striking first and seriously injuring or killing her (people with knives have beaten people with guns before, so her being armed in no way guarantees her safety had they attacked). So what would be the moral thing to do, in your opinion?

 

[BOOM headshot65]

Sorry, but I am one of those who thinks that if you commit a break in, you'd better hope the cops show up and drag you off BEFORE the enraged farmer finds you. But as it stands, self defense is always justified in my eyes. But I also live in a state with almost no gun laws, "castle doctrine", and "No duty of retreat." so of course I will support those things (along with the death penalty in cases of murder, rape, treason, etc.) But where I live, you can use pretty much ANYTHING to defend you self and still be legal. 9mm, Colt .45, Desert Eagle, 12-guage shotgun, AR-15, heck, one of my teachers has a full-auto AK-47 for home defense. Overkill, yes. But overkill beats underkill anyday.