Oklahoma mom shoots and kills intruder

[RubyT]

I'm honestly not sure, while the legal situation might be clear, this is still lethal force. And somehow I'm having a hard time to imagine, that a German police officer would recommend to shoot. This is just not how we are raised. I think against a German burglar it would have sufficed to fire a warning shot. No guy with a knife in his right mind would risk the loot in an 18 year old widow's appartmeant if the defendant had a frickin' firearm. Especially one, that is THAT loud and intimidating.

At least she would have been arrested. Also major investigations.

Why would she be arrested? She had the police as witnesses that her life and that of her baby was in immediate danger. I am quite sure that this wouldn't have been a problem in Germany either. I don't know where this notion stems from that self defence is "critical" outside of the U.S.

As to the particular case at hand:

The whole story somehow sounds fishy!
- Why did it take the police 21+ minutes to show up?
- Why did two grown men need 21 minutes to break into a house?
- They were probably not rapists or they would have left when she called the police.
- They were probably not burglars or they would have just taken stuff and left.
- They were probably not assassins or they wouldn't be as clumsy.
- What was their purpose?

 

[Patrick Buck]

Perfectly justified. Self defence, robbers in her house, defending her baby. All that needs to be said.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

Personally, I believe that if someone breaks into my house that I should be able to defend my self in anyway I can. If a gun happens to be to hand (which it shouldn't be over here, should be in a locked gun cabinet) I wouldn't hesitate to use it. Cricket bat? Boink. Replica sword? Oh boy did they break into the wrong fucking house.

While I'm not saying that you should aim to kill, I'm saying that if you need to to defend your life or the lives of others it's perfectly fine in my books.

 

[tsb247]

I guess...

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

My life has become exactly 1020% better because you posted that link. Thank you kind stranger!

 

[tsb247]

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.

From the article I found:

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/05/9968356-no-charges-for-teen-widow-who-killed-intruder

please read the following:

"The 911 conversation lasted for 21 minutes. Then the door gave in. Martin charged at McKinley with his knife, but she said she shot at him before he could get to her."

Either way, he was armed, broke into someone else's home, and because of this, he forfeited his right to not be shot by the homeowner. It was the home invader's choice to break into her home that led to his demise.

This woman feared for her life and the life of her child. There is not better reason to kill an armed intruder than that.

 

[Omnific One]

Um, absolutely it was justified. There's really nothing to debate here.

 

[Belated]

This is why the second amendment is important. Scenarios such as this one are very real, and only a gun can repel intruders that effectively. I'm not a Conservative, but the right to protect yourself from people trying to hurt you just makes sense. I don't really think there's any question she was justified in what she did. If you disagree, you're too soft on violent criminals. (And I'M soft on violent criminals. So I know "too soft".)

 

[LarenzoAOG]

What's the discussion? Armed intruders enter house, threaten mother and child, gets shot. As far as I'm concerned everything happened exactly as it should have.

This is pretty much it. I only wish it would work this way in my country as well, if you shoot a burglar here who breaks into your home you have a good chance of going to jail for it and even having to pay for burglar's medical expenses...

Well I wasn't really speaking to the legaility of the situation, in some states if someone enters your house without your permission and you think they want to harm you, you are well within your right to "bust a cap". However in other states if someone breaks into your house you don't have the right to shoot unless they come into your bedroom or something, every state has different rules and often situations that are quite clearly "kill or be killed" end in a home owner firing on a burglar and then being arrested or paying the burglars hospital bills like you said.

However I think in this case common sense prevailed and the poor women wasn't sent to prison or given other punishment for what was clearly self defense and defense of her child. But I would say this kind of situation is rarer than it should be, and on many occasions people who break into a house will become the victim and the person who was only trying to defend themself gets into trouble with the law.

 

[Malty Milk Whistle]

I guess...

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

I love you.

 

[Thyunda]

Easily justified. The burglars knew full well that they were operating outside the rules of society when they broke into her house with a knife. Clearly the police had no intention of showing up anytime soon, and she had a baby to protect. What happened to the old saying, "Don't aim your weapon unless you intend to use it"?
If she'd have fired a warning shot, one of two things would have happened.

#1. The burglars decide it's not worth getting shot over, and run away and never bother her again.
#2. The burglars decide to continue their charge and now they're angry about being shot at. Or they leave and decide to punish her and her child with a petrol bomb through the window or another home invasion when the baby's with a sitter, and the gun-toting mother isn't around.

In short, warning shots don't work. It's the equivalent of showing your poker opponents your hand. She shot one of them, the other one knows she's not to be fucked with. She's not just waving a gun around for show, she knows how to use the thing.

I hope I'm making sense.

 

[Vegosiux]

If she'd have fired a warning shot, one of two things would have happened.

#1. The burglars decide it's not worth getting shot over, and run away and never bother her again.
#2. The burglars decide to continue their charge and now they're angry about being shot at. Or they leave and decide to punish her and her child with a petrol bomb through the window or another home invasion when the baby's with a sitter, and the gun-toting mother isn't around.

In short, warning shots don't work. It's the equivalent of showing your poker opponents your hand.

I don't see how "don't work" is a conclusion when option 1 is a less violent resolution with one less person dead and one less person heavily traumatized (the traumatized one being herself). Now if 2 happens, the scenario plays out the same, but 1 prevents it.

Sure, it's not certain they'd run away, but if they didn't, nothing is actually different.

And "I have a gun and I'm going to use it" is like showing your hand, yes, but it's one very mean hand and if you don't fold against that one, you're likely going to lose.

I don't know. So many things have failed in that scenario. Not least of which was the police response time.

 

[Mercury1]

Completely and totally justified
If someone threatens your family and your life
Then you have all rights to stop him/her

Or would you rather have a post-mortem report done by the police whose guns you wish you had?

Legal gun owners don't kill for no reason

If your the scum of the earth and decide that you are willing to take another human life for your own gain
Then you certainly deserve to be stopped BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY

End of story
bye,bye
see you later

In addition WARNING shots do not work
they'll just comeback another day for revenge also you risk hurting another innocent person when you fire
How do you fire a warning shot in a sub-urban area? the answer: you don't Shoot him injured/dead and you have sent a clear message
You have also wasted 1 of the shots in your very limited supply

 

[xvbones]

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.

I will say again, 'they do not understand how the human psyche functions under that kind of stress.'

Adrenaline is a hell of a drug.

 

[Neyon]

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.

Sorry just working on UK law, In the UK she Might've been charged for manslaughter however it depend and the courts would ask:
Has she got a firearms licence? Yes = manslaughter no= Murder
Was the weapon kept beside her bed? Yes= murder no= manslaughter
was the weapon locked away? yes= murder (since she obviously decided to use lethal force) no= mansluaghter and Improper practice of firearms or murder

Not owning a licence for the firearm doesn't change it from manslaughter to murder. The difference is if your intent was explicitly to kill or not. The location of the weapon and whether it were locked away are irrelivant. I could shoot at someone with a gun that was kept locked in a box in a cabinet nowhere near my bed with the aim of hurting / stopping them rather than killing them and it would be manslaughter. If it were self defence it would be counted as such although if it were self defence and I didn't own a license I would still be charged for owning a gun without a license.

 

[Thyunda]

If she'd have fired a warning shot, one of two things would have happened.

#1. The burglars decide it's not worth getting shot over, and run away and never bother her again.
#2. The burglars decide to continue their charge and now they're angry about being shot at. Or they leave and decide to punish her and her child with a petrol bomb through the window or another home invasion when the baby's with a sitter, and the gun-toting mother isn't around.

In short, warning shots don't work. It's the equivalent of showing your poker opponents your hand.

I don't see how "don't work" is a conclusion when option 1 is a less violent resolution with one less person dead and one less person heavily traumatized (the traumatized one being herself). Now if 2 happens, the scenario plays out the same, but 1 prevents it.

Sure, it's not certain they'd run away, but if they didn't, nothing is actually different.

And "I have a gun and I'm going to use it" is like showing your hand, yes, but it's one very mean hand and if you don't fold against that one, you're likely going to lose.

I don't know. So many things have failed in that scenario. Not least of which was the police response time.

I don't know. A warning shot isn't 'I'm going to use it'. All that says is that you know how to pull the trigger, but it doesn't show that you're prepared to actually shoot somebody. Hell, a gun-savvy intruder might have been able to take advantage of a situation like that.


Option #1 was the desirable one, yes, but where your child is concerned, there is no sense risking it. If it was me in the situation, and I was on my own, maybe I'd have risked a warning shot, confident that I could handle the consequences. If it was me and a dependant, then I would never risk my first shot going to waste. Too many factors. I think we can assume the girl only knew about their exact weaponry after the incident...and perhaps she thought the intruders had a gun.
If she fired a warning shot, and displayed her hand, then the intruders know what they're dealing with, and she's still totally in the dark. Let's say the guy she shot had a pistol, and he was prepared to shoot her. I'm not saying that she thought this, but it's a possibility. And where your life is concerned, you should never take a risk like this.
It's America, after all. Guns being as 'easy' as they are to get in the country (I say easy - you can buy them. England, where I live, makes it a lot harder to get a hold of one, so outside of London, gun crime is rare), I would say it's safe to assume that every intruder has a gun, until proven otherwise.

 

[magicmonkeybars]

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?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

 

[ungothicdove]

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

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.

I can see the point in letting a criminal take what they want if they ONLY are trying to rob you. It may not be worth the risk to try and stop them. But you can be damned sure if someone tries to rape of kill me I'm gonna resist. Who cares if you can't stop them, at least you went out with a fight.

 

[Saltyk]

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...

SNIP

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.

In the interest of stamping out ignorance, I need to explain something to you both. But since I already did this once today, I shall just quote myself.

There is no such thing as a nonlethal gunshot! There is no place I can shot you that doesn't risk killing you. Movies and games like to pretend that shooting a person in the leg or the arm won't kill them. This is completely and utterly false. Some smaller bullets have been known to ricochet within the body doing massive damage. There's also the possibility that the bullet could shatter sending what amounts to shrapnel through your body. Even if not, there are plenty of arteries and blood vessels in your arm and leg that will cause you to bleed to death if they are so much as nicked. In your leg they are massive. Think of how often you have heard a doctor tell someone they got real lucky because the cut just barely missed an artery. Even being shot in your shoulder can quickly result in death.

Given this, police are not trained to shoot to injure or stop. They are trained to shoot to kill. If they have to shoot someone, it has to be a case where the individual is a threat to them or other people. This is why police don't just shoot a running individual in the leg to catch them. In fact, they are trained to shoot at the person in the abdomen rather than extremities as it is more likely to kill the suspect due to the organs and such. This also means that they have to shoot more than once to ensure the suspect does not survive. A wounded animal is more dangerous as they say. Also, a good number of bullets will miss a target. Handguns are not terribly accurate at any range. This is only magnified from greater distances. Once more, movies lie to you when they say otherwise.

It doesn't matter if I shoot you with a shotgun or a 9mm handgun. It doesn't matter if I shoot you in the head or the foot. The fact that I shot you can very easily result in your death. So, if you're going to shoot someone, you might as well shoot to kill. There's a very good and real chance that person will die no matter what.

Anyway, I say we give the woman a medal. She protected herself. She protected her baby. She protected her home. There is a very real danger that these men were going to kill them both and worse. She is a hero. End of story.

 

[doomspore98]

She's a very nice woman(it's local to me). If you read on the man who didn't die in the attempted break in is being charged with the death of his friend. If he hadn't talked his friend into it, he wouldn't have gotten 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.

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.

I learned about this story over the internet, i followed a link that said "911 GIVES WOMAN LICENSE TO KILL".
I saw another link to it somewhere else that had a similar tone to it, '911 GIVES WOMAN GO AHEAD TO KILL' or something really similar.

And then I read the story and became extremely fucking sickened at those links for violently misrepresenting this story.

If you know this woman, please tell her some random guy on the internet said, "Way to protect your family, lady. Every ancestor you have is proud as hell of you."

I read it were it said "Woman Calls 911 before shooting man breaking in to her house"
Sort of putting it in better light. Anyway, That is what I would have done in her situation.