Oklahoma mom shoots and kills intruder

[Jegsimmons]

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.

and the guy with a knife was coming at them, seriously, unless you have sand bags or rubber bullets at that close range, there is no non fatal area. and even at that distance rubber bullets and bean bags would straight up kill.

so really, its 100% justified.

 

[spartan231490]

Of course it was justified. Hell, I wouldn't have called the cops, you don't need permission to defend yourself. I would have just shot the fucks, in fact I would have probably shot the other one before he got the chance to turn away.

 

[Dastardly]

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...

I'd like to honestly help clear up some confusion on this issue for you. It's not argument, just explanation:

1. Shotguns are far, far safer than handguns. They're harder to conceal, firstly, but that's immaterial in this case. A shotgun loaded with buckshot (or similar ammunition) ensures that every last bit of the projectile stays in the intruder. Even basic rifle or handgun ammunition can go through a person (and into whatever or whoever is behind them).

2. Shotguns don't work like video games might lead you to believe. The "spread" is minimal, and not intended to create mass chaos. The spread just ensures the round has stopping power by putting all of its kinetic energy into the target. If a round goes through a target, that means energy was wasted (in addition to the danger mentioned above).

3. Aiming any firearm is far harder than people think, particularly if they haven't fired many. This is a device that contains and directs an explosion. It propels things faster than sound. So trying to hit a leg, or arm, or even head is a bad idea. If you miss, the bullet doesn't just "stop." This is why even highly-trained marksmen still aim for "center mass" -- not because it's more lethal, but because it's safer and reduces chances of stray fire.

4. There's no such thing as a "non-lethal area." Your leg, for instance, contains the femoral artery -- even knicking this can cause you to bleed out in a couple minutes. Arm? Brachial and radial arteries. Hands and feet? You'll never hit one anyway, so it doesn't matter. Same goes for "warning shots." If you're not deciding where the bullet goes, it decides for itself, and bullets don't reason well.

5. There were multiple assailants. If she stopped to threaten and demand they leave, that costs time. Every second, she reduces her chances of survival. Let's say she waits, one advances, and she shoots him -- in the wasted time, the others have also advanced, and she can't get them all. Now she's dead, and so is her baby.

6. Survival in a self-defense situation relies entirely on controlling the situation. When you wait to see what your attacker is going to do, you are giving him control. Now you're forced to react, which means your actions will be late. Time is always against you in these life-or-death situations.

 

[RubyT]

What kind of bullsh*t goes down in Oklahoma?

This reads like a bad horror-flick. Some strange dude approaches a newly widowed woman at home, she doesn't let him in the house. He returns with a pal and a machete. The woman calls the police, who need in excess of 21 minutes to get to her house. She locks herself in the bathroom and the intruders break in there. She shoots one of them to protect her baby.

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

 

[ryanxm]

Once someone breaks into someone else's home, I feel like they deserve death or serious bodily harm. I'm really glad the woman had something to defend herself and her child with. Hope she doesn't have some mental issues now (I mean traumatization and the likes, not her going crazy).

 

[Jegsimmons]

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.

OW OW OW!!! my brain hurts! ow!
Murder? MURDER? dude, wake up and get out in the world. Its not murder, 2 drug addicts break in house armed with knives and she has a baby and was waiting on the cops for 20+ minutes and ASKED TO USED LETHAL FORCE!!!
This lady acted in self defense, purely self defense for her and her baby as well.
Not only was this legal, but possibly the smartest and best choice possible, and you people call HER a murderer?
Shame on you!
What if that was YOUR mother and you were the baby? What about then? Id be glad my mom defended me and herself. What was she supposed to do, let the crooks just do what they do which could have ranged from theft to rape,murder,and kidnapping?

 

[Marcus Kehoe]

This is the reason why we have the rights to bear arms, To protect ourselves and the ones we love.

I don't take a chance, when someone is coming to do harm or may even pose a threat I want to make sure that they can dispatched if the threat becomes imminent.

 

[Vegosiux]

My question is, why the hell did the cops take 20 minutes to get there?

And I'm not going to comment on whether or not it was justified, because in threads like these there's apparently no middle ground, and if you say she could have tried some non-lethal options that she had at her disposal before using lethal force, you're apparently "siding with the criminals".

As for the second amendment, there's a whole thread going on in R&P for those interested.

 

[Jegsimmons]

What kind of bullsh*t goes down in Oklahoma?

This reads like a bad horror-flick. Some strange dude approaches a newly widowed woman at home, she doesn't let him in the house. He returns with a pal and a machete. The woman calls the police, who need in excess of 21 minutes to get to her house. She locks herself in the bathroom and the intruders break in there. She shoots one of them to protect her baby.

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

its not the US dude, its life. People are sick in every country. That's why in america we give home owners and law abiding citizens the chance to balance the playing field.

 

[Varrdy]

Absolutely! I'm of the opinion that if someone steps outside the boundaries of the law then they cannot be protected by it. This woman was protecting her home, her child and herself against two intruders, one of which was armed with a deadly weapon.

By locking herself in a room she'd actually taken the step of giving the robbers a chance to escape unscathed but they went and cocked it up by removing that protection when they kicked the door down.

Yes the robber was someone's son and could be someone's brother / father etc. but frankly I don't give a flying fuck - he should have thought about that before he decided to become a thieving fuck!

Wardy

 

[RubyT]

That's why in america we give home owners and law abiding citizens the chance to balance the playing field.

Ah, that's why all those statistics show a nice correlation between "gun proliferation" and "homicides per capita"...

 

[Wereduck]

...
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.
...

Glad somebody finally mentioned this. When someone with a 12" knife breaks down your door that is not burglary, it's assault with a deadly weapon. You're perfectly entitled to defend yourself and you're responsible for the safety of a child then you're damn well obligated to defend them.

A few years ago there was a man in Texas who shot and killed a burglar while he was leaving the house next door (i.e. going away without having harmed anyone). The shooter called 911 while the crime was going on, asked permission to kill the burglar, was refused, announced that he intended to shoot the burglar anyway, then taunted his target by shouting "You're dead!" before he shot and killed the burglar. That was a vigilante looking for an excuse to vent his hatred and it bothers me that he wasn't tried & convicted.

The mother in the O.P. deserves a medal.

 

[Hazy992]

That is absolutely justified. That's clearly self-defence (and defence of her baby), and I don't think there'd be a single jury that would convict her (at least I hope not).

 

[Vegosiux]

That is absolutely justified. That's clearly self-defence (and defence of her baby), and I don't think there'd be a single jury that would convict her (at least I hope not).

Well, just as an interjection, not all the western world has jury trials. Not exactly relevant to the thread, just think it bears mentioning anyway...

 

[spartan231490]

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. "survival of the fittest" has long gone in our advanced society. This is a better way to thin out the heard IMO. The idiots who have no respect for others will be removed from society one way or another.

Many, if not most, states have laws like that.

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.

Personally, I am very disturbed to see someone who places more value on the life of the criminal than the lives of the two innocent people sitting in their home. The only way to value life is to use any means necessary to defend it. To say that someone should be punished for defending themselves is to grant moral equivalence between the attacker and the victim. To do that is to say that anyone who wants to do so has every right to take your life away, because it is implying that they were no more in the wrong for attacking you than you were for being attacked.

 

[ElPatron]

That's why in america we give home owners and law abiding citizens the chance to balance the playing field.

Ah, that's why all those statistics show a nice correlation between "gun proliferation" and "homicides per capita"...

Switzerland.

Switzerland always makes your argument invalid. And Germany too, they do have a very high number of registered firearms.

And 2.475 homicides per 1 million people.


Plus, you can commit homicides with knifes too, your argument is completely pointless.

 

[Vegosiux]

Personally, I am very disturbed to see someone who places more value on the life of the criminal than the lives of the two innocent people sitting in their home.

See, we're at this again.

"If you're not 100% supportive of the woman that means you are SIDING WITH THE CRIMINALS!"

...could we stop that nonsense already?

 

[sir.rutthed]

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.

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.

My question is, what more would the robber have had to do to demonstrate his lethal intent without actually killing her? If someone's trying to break down your door for half an hour, then comes at you with a knife apparently about to stab you, would you wait for him to bring it down before shooting? Hell no. You'd shoot the son of a ***** because he's obviously threatening your and your baby's lives. She had no other alternatives. She had nowhere to run. If she wasn't armed somehow, he would have overpowered her and had his way with her. If she didn't have a gun, she'd probably be dead instead of him, and while it may be sad that someone died it's better this way. As for cultural values, I'm guessing you're some flavor of European from your post. Which is fine, and you have your perspective, but you can't project your own cultural values onto a situation from another culture. American cultural values include defending your property and the people you love, balanced against the value of human life which is offset by someone threatening you and yours. And don't call this murder. Yes she killed a man, but she obviously didn't want to, and really had no choice in the matter. Murder implies intent, and this is a clear case of self defense.


EDIT: Somehow I double quoted. My bad.

 

[Jegsimmons]

That's why in america we give home owners and law abiding citizens the chance to balance the playing field.

Ah, that's why all those statistics show a nice correlation between "gun proliferation" and "homicides per capita"...

Well if you want to get specific.....every major area that tried outlawing guns has suffered a rise in crime, most notably, washington DC. They banned guns and crime TRIPLED, they unbanned them, crime dropped like a wet sock.
Lets also consider most gun related murders are from gang on gang or gang related activity, you know, the people who'd have guns no matter what law is passed.
Lets also remember that 2 million counts of self defense happen each year, and an estimated 2 and a half go unreported, most happen with out firing a shot or death.
i also want to point out that the murder rate has been steadily going down each year.

So unless, we somehow pacify all gangs, removed all guns (impossible in every way) close the borders COMPLETELY,and other near impossible or impossible actions, we will not see a positive of banning guns.Anyone else who thinks so is living in lala land.