Oklahoma mom shoots and kills intruder

[michiehoward]

I glad she had the fortitude to do what had to be done to defend he child's life and her own.
Even in cases of self defense some feel a horrible guilt for taking another's life, I truly hope she does not.

 

[orangeban]

Alright, I don't blame the mother for shooting the guy, I would likely have done the same in her situation.

However, 2 points.

Firstly: It's a shame that someone had to die, especially if it was just a robbery (I assume we don't know the intent of the crime). It's always a shame when someone dies.

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.

 

[orangeban]

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.

 

[jakeblues69]

She was totally justified.

I recently had someone try to break into my place while I was home. I didn't call the police though, I just patiently & quietly waited inside armed with an AK-47 with a 75 rd drum of semi jacketed hollow point man-stoppers. After about 5 minutes of trying to get through my steel security door the jerk off gave up and saved his own life without ever knowing how close he came to a trip to the morgue. Then I called the cops, gave them my security camera footage and they picked him up a few days later.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

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.

Spoiler

Do you have any desire to carry on a rational discussion about this issue, or do you wish to always resort to hyperbole? Castle Doctrine state. End of story. You can be a internet tough guy and keyboard warrior all you want. Doesn't change the fact that she will be hailed as a hero in the states.

And you're making a lot of assumptions there, skippy. You know what they say when you assume...

OT: What she did was justified. I'm glad she and her child are safe.

EDIT: And how is your quest for world peace going, your Holyness?

 

[madster11]

But what would you have done in this situation?

Killed the intruders.

And then gone to jail for several years because Australian laws are fucking bullshit.

 

[Siege_TF]

Well orangeban there's also the question of just how someone with the constitutional right to overthrow their government actually goes about the whole 'treason' thing, but I'm not a yank so I don't worry myself over it. I'm guessing they have to fill out some forms first, apply the U.N. to get the current boss classified as an official Dictator, or it's just the price of failure.

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

Are you autistic or something? Living in a foster home I've had to work with several kids with autism and I can't really think of anything other than some sort of similar ... condition that would compell someone to make a post like that.

 

[chrono16]

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...

Well it may have been the late husbands hunting shotgun and it was closest. It probably was not purchased for self defense. And i agree with you on the non fatal area except it probably a bit harder with a shotgun lol.

 

[chrono16]

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.

Hmm this smells like troll...and actually you cant shoot them if they are just on your lawn. They have to be in your house. I was told by a few cops where i live, if someone breaks into your house and you have a gun, don't shoot them in the back and make sure they are dead cause if they get out of your house then they can press charges against you.

 

[-Dragmire-]

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.

Out of curiosity, do you attribute the same thoughts when thinking of soldiers during wartime?

 

[Worgen]

The story itself doesn't make sense to me, I mean why would they attack her home with knives and attack it in such a movie or tv show way? Either her attackers were mentally retarded or this is a plant.

 

[Dastardly]

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.

She exercised many, many options.

1. She demonstrated legal ownership of the house by purchasing or renting it under law.
2. She marked the house as hers by filling it with her belongings and listing it as her legal residence.
3. She made it known that uninvited "guests" were not welcome by locking her doors.
4. And even then, she still retreated to the bedroom rather than confront them -- so if they only wanted her stuff, they could have had it. (THIS STEP OPTIONAL)

To insinuate that she had any other legal or moral obligation in this scenario is disgusting. That would be to suggest that these criminals have even the slightest right to do what they did.

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.

She has to live with the trauma of this event. That is the only consequence this woman should have -- and you know what? She doesn't even deserve that one. She did nothing wrong, and her "reward" was to have her life threatened by these people, and then to have to hear anyone defend the criminals.

To do anything else would be totally inconsistent with cultural values, such as the placing of an inherent value to human life.

When you break into someone's house, you're demonstrating that you do not value them as equal human beings. When you further demonstrate you intend them harm (in this case, by directly pursuing the woman rather than taking the stuff), you're demonstrating that you do not value their right to live. When one person violates the social "agreement" about the value of human life, the other side is not bound by it anymore.

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.

Source? I see no "murder" here. I see a person who killed an intruder in self-defense, and heroically pursued other options first. With the magical arrogance of hindsight, we could always insist "there was something else that could have been done." In fact, we can do that up to the point that the criminal finally just gets her... and then the magical arrogance of hindsight causes us to look at "why she didn't do anything."

Some cases are a little bit grey. This one? Not even the tiniest bit imaginable.

 

[Cette]

Being local to the area I can give a little bit of insight into some of this.

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?).

Firstly a LOT of people in Oklahoma hunt so it's not terribly uncommon to own a shotgun for that reason. Also on occasion one has cause to put down such things as coyotes, bobcats, cougars and in one personal case a donkey that went crazy while it was in the rut and tried to kill other livestock.

Some of those a 9mm is sufficient for some it isn't either way too much gun is not really a major problem when an animal is trying to take a chunk out of you. And yes coyotes aren't likely to attack a full grown adult however children or pets are a whole other story.

Totally justified, but where the hell were the police? It's not like she was in the backwoods of B*ttf*ck County. The article says "Oklahoma City area", and she was on the phone for 21 minutes with 911 before shooting the b*st*rd. Could the police not tear themselves away from their donuts?

The Oklahoma city area includes large swaths of bumfuck nowhere that can be as far as an 45 minutes away from help depending of quality of the local dirt roads which are common in the more rural sections. According to the local papers the only police with jurisdiction for that area where three County Sheriff's responsible for the entire rural area involved.

Hell the town I'm originally from didn't even have their own cop you had to call a county sheriff there as well and that was minimum of a 20-30 minute wait.

She was totally justified.

I recently had someone try to break into my place while I was home. I didn't call the police though, I just patiently & quietly waited inside armed with an AK-47 with a 75 rd drum of semi jacketed hollow point man-stoppers. After about 5 minutes of trying to get through my steel security door the jerk off gave up and saved his own life without ever knowing how close he came to a trip to the morgue. Then I called the cops, gave them my security camera footage and they picked him up a few days later.

See this right here this is not helping.

 

[Cette]

The story itself doesn't make sense to me, I mean why would they attack her home with knives and attack it in such a movie or tv show way? Either her attackers were mentally retarded or this is a plant.

The local papers seem to think they were after her recently dead husbands pain pills as they were both known prescription drug addicts. I'm not sure if that makes them look better or worse really but that's the consensus.

 

[Dastardly]

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

Oklahoma is spread pretty thin. Lots of farmland, etc. And with budget cutbacks the way they are, the cops are stretched even thinner. We also have no idea what else the cops were responding to at the time. Police response time can only be so fast, and that's exactly why we have laws that allow us to defend ourselves in the meantime.

I blame neither the woman nor the cops for this. The entirety of the fault rests on the criminals.

 

[Jegsimmons]

21 MINUTES?! SHE WAS ON THE PHONE TO THE COPS FOR 21 MINUTES?!

of course this is justified, if anything this proves why the second amendment exist, because cops take to damn long to show the fuck up!

that lady needs a medal for sheer ball (er..ovaries...what ever)
hell, it would be justified if she didn't ask permission in most states!

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

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).

No, you wouldn't. There are Castle Doctrine type laws set up in most states. You have the right to defend yourself, your family, and your property.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

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...

No. You have a baby, two men are coming at you with knives. You don't shoot to wound, you shoot in a way that will stop your attacker. A shotgun to center mass being the best option.

 

[ElPatron]

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.

What she did was legal, and the law dictates she has to be immune from charges.

this applies to every first world country.

Wrong.


In the UK you can only use as much force as the attacker. That means you must wait for the attacker to use lethal force if you want to incapacitate him. And I think that you have the duty to flee, although I'm not sure.

The "Stand your ground" or "castle doctrine" laws mean that anyone who sets a foot inside your house after a "violent entry" (breaking in by any means) can be considered dangerous and you can kill them on the spot because you can't be sure if the intruder(s) is/are armed.


In New York, if you read their self defense laws, you almost have the duty to flee.

Wait, in NY you do have the duty to flee.

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?).

Because handguns are poor man-stoppers. They have low velocity rounds and may require many shots to completely stop and opponent.

Tests done is sheep recorded incapacitating times of over 10 seconds in any common pistol caliber.

A shotgun is the best home defense gun, and you can use loads that won't penetrate trough your walls. #4 buck is very good and it is not as penetrating as 00-buck.

She could have just pointed it and hope they leave, and just if they still advanced, shot them.

SO YOU MEAN THAT SHE SHOULD WAIT FOR THEM TO ATTACK? THEY FORCED THEIR WAY INTO THE HOUSE AND BROKE INTO HER BATHROOM.

Or she could try to shot in a non fatal area, like legs or arms.

Oh, my flying spaghetti monster!

Do you know how hard is to shoot at a non-vital area?

First, it WON'T stop the attacker. They were two.

Second, it is hard to do.

Third , legally speaking, if you don't shoot to kill, that means you did not have the intention to defend yourself - it means that it was not an emergency.


I cannot stress how wrong you are.

Both morally and legally. She had the right to shoot them the second they set a foot inside her home.

She waited for them to break into the bathroom.


Basically you are protecting the rights of criminals who enter your house, forcing you to seek shelter in the bathroom, and take anything you own from you.

I don't like to say these things, but you should get robbed one day so that you can feel how it is.

I have been, and it was not even comparable to what that woman suffered. 21 minutes...

Either this is some bad NRA propaganda, or the USA is even more of a f*cked up place than I previously thought.

You mean people don't break into houses with knifes in every other country?