Oklahoma mom shoots and kills intruder

[Metazare]

If someone breaks into your home and you're armed, you shoot to kill. If you need to question defending your home and family by means of lethal force is justified, then you need your brain checked out because clearly you're a lunatic.

Warning shots don't mean a damned thing to someone intent on doing you harm, you're just proving the weapons loaded. You need to let that attacker know that you're prepared to defend yourself if they come at you. Nothing says that like a good ol' fashion buckshot.

 

[Vegosiux]

You said that killing a person, even in self-defense, should always be punished. Ergo, self-defense is wrong, since you can be punished for it.

I did?

 

[RubyT]

Look at the chart on the right, also allow me to correct my self, it DOUBLED, not tripled.

Yeah, the chart to the right start TEN YEARS AFTER the law came into effect. It also shows that 1985 and 2005, both years with gun control, have the same number of homicides. What a telling chart that is.

 

[Jegsimmons]

Look at the chart on the right, also allow me to correct my self, it DOUBLED, not tripled.

Yeah, the chart to the right start TEN YEARS AFTER the law came into effect. It also shows that 1985 and 2005, both years with gun control, have the same number of homicides. What a telling chart that is.

....AND? it shows how high the crime got, and it shrunk after the ban.

 

[ElPatron]

Correlation does not imply causation, but it is still worth noting.

Yeah. I could make the same image using the number of smartphones in use. ITT: I don't believe the info I am reading so instead of following the source I am going to say that they are fake and that even I could fake it

You should read up on what people who are not 15 and on the escapist forums say about why homicide rates are declining.

But you go ahead and think it's because more people have guns...

Again, correlation does not imply causation.


Would you stop putting words in my posts, which are somehow invisible to everyone else?

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Such as? A baseball bat? You want to get close to someone with a 12 inch knife? A stun gun? A one-shot thing that sometimes doesn't work because of clothes. Pepper spray? Something that can leave them just pissed off or still a threat till the cops finally show up? You're an 18 year old woman with a child and these are two large men who are breaking in. Non-lethal options put you at a huge risk. A gun, however, has great stopping power.

I believe we discussed this already in the thread I mentioned, no?

I don't remember your answer though. "Non-lethal" weapons have severe drawbacks to them, for the user. And again, look at her. She's not some sort of Navy SEAL (If you don't know, those are specially trained Navy guys). She's an 18 year old girl. Who is also a mother. What. Other. Choice. Did. She. Have? I'm not aware of any non-lethal weapon as effective at taking down bad guys as a gun is.

I'll concede that once you're barricaded in there the way it was, okay, once the door slams open there aren't that many options left.

But in that case why didn't she just fire a warning shot? Sure, as you said, it might have just pissed them off, but in that case the result would be exactly the same, wouldn't it? They break in, she shoots them dead.

But what if it worked? What if it made them back off? Then nobody would die at all. What I'm saying is, there was no "worse" possible outcome from a warning shot an a potential for a "better" one - so why was it not used?

Bottom line is, once that door goes down and the cops aren't anywhere in sight, yeah, you shoot, even I can see that. I'm talking about things that happened (or did not) before that point.

Common misconception. Warning shots don't mean anything and can be dangerous to you as well. It's a Hollywood myth. There's a good reason not to fire warning shots. You can't predict where the round will go after that point. Further, what if the criminal didn't back down? She has just wasted time and space between the two of them. These men were hell-bent on getting in. It's unknowible if they would have realized that shit's gotten real simply with a warning shot.

 

[Phlakes]

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.

But she basically had no other choice. Sure, there was a small chance the intruders wouldn't've hurt her, but self defense is more than understandable, and no one should ever be punished for protecting themself or their children.

 

[Metazare]

It boggles my mind that there are people who think this woman was in the wrong...

 

[RubyT]

....AND? it shows how high the crime got, and it shrunk after the ban.

No. The entire graph is within the gun ban...

 

[Sangreal Gothcraft]

They had it coming by going into a property that is not theirs and attempting to harm both her and most likely the babies (We live in a messed up world) Well i'm sure they won't never attempt to do something this stupid again.

 

[Roggen Bread]

European guy (more important, German guy, you know, the nationality that forced itself into limitless pacifism by being aggressive dicks) speaking. The guys that oppose your death penalty and your guns.
This was discussed in the German press. While the newspapers had to be neutral, the comments on the internet had one context:

This is good. Completely justified, and a good reaction from law-enforcement.

Also: "In Germany the mother would have been convicted for murder, the surviving guy would have filed a suit for unsuccessful assault and would have won."

I do not agree with this, but in Germany this would NOT have been consequence free for the mother. Given, that she legally owned the firearm (which is possible in Germany, but very hard, especially for an 18 year old.)

I do agree. This is one of the very few things where the american justice is superior.

 

[Burs]

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. I know people have a habit of badmouthing America whenever there's a story like this one, but what would you have done in this situation? Thankfully she doesn't live in a country where you can't do anything to someone breaking into your home and robbing you.

It was Justified however it was manslaughter.

Do I believe the woman should be punighed for her crimes: Hell no!

Do I believe that the courts still had to question her actions: HELL YES

If police get called into question for dealing with an armed gunman then a member of the public shooting another member of the public should as well her being a mother should hold no sway in a house of law

 

[RubyT]

Would you stop putting words in my posts, which are somehow invisible to everyone else?

What the f*ck are you doing? Why are you inserting stuff into my quotes?

 

[anthony87]

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.

They didn't "step inside"

They forced their way into her house, armed with knives and threatened her and her child. If a couple of guys broke into my home and threatened my family I'd do everything thing in my power to stop them just like she did.

 

[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. I know people have a habit of badmouthing America whenever there's a story like this one, but what would you have done in this situation? Thankfully she doesn't live in a country where you can't do anything to someone breaking into your home and robbing you.

It was Justified however it was manslaughter.

Do I believe the woman should be punighed for her crimes: Hell no!

Do I believe that the courts still had to question her actions: HELL YES

If police get called into question for dealing with an armed gunman then a member of the public shooting another member of the public should as well her being a mother should hold no sway in a house of law

Castle Doctrine [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine]

It's not manslaughter. It's justified homicide. She committed no crime.

 

[Metazare]

I think that any time that you kill someone, there should be consequences for it, even if the killing was understandable.

By your logic then we should lock up every member of the armed forces who have been deployed, as they've certainly had their fair share of justified, and even questionable kills to protect themselves or others. I don't think you realize that in this world, there are people who are actually evil, evil isn't a story book idea, I've seen it. The kind of evil that makes you strap a bomb to your child for example, then tell them to go say hello to the nice soldiers over there. The toll it takes on your mind is punishment enough for people who have been forced to take someones life, even in self defense.

 

[Dogstile]

She knew they had a knife, she had a shotgun (seriously, I mostly disapprove gun ownership, but can understand it, but not Shotguns, 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.

Well, for a start, the shotgun may have been for hunting purposes /bullshit answer

That not being the likely case and living near a farmtown myself, I can give the answer that its usually hard as hell to hit someone with a pistol so a shotgun is usually used, even over longer ranges (slugs, not shells).

Aside from that, the "non-fatal" area is something that kinda annoys me, so i'll explain that too. Not only is there no "non fatal" area when shooting at someone (due to arteries and such having that annoying tendency to rupture, the hydrostatic shock affecting more than it should, etc) so you'll have the bastard bleeding out anyway, but i highly doubt she was trained to hit someone who is moving that quickly at that close of a range in the arm or the leg.

When you're trained to shoot (and that's if she's even had training) you're told to aim for the torso. This is knowledge i've learned by studying guns, not using them (living in the UK after all)

Aside from that, they were in her house for 21 minutes, they had their fair share of warning.

 

[RubyT]

I do not agree with this, but in Germany this would NOT have been consequence free for the mother.

Of course it would. §227 of the BGB. Self defence is legal. Self defence is any action necessary to defer harm from you or others.

If you kill an intruder and you have the police on the phone as ear-witnesses, nothing bad will happen to you.

 

[spartan231490]

You said that killing a person, even in self-defense, should always be punished. Ergo, self-defense is wrong, since you can be punished for it.

I did?

"but I think that any time that you kill someone, there should be consequences for it, even if the killing was understandable"
direct quote.