Oklahoma mom shoots and kills intruder

[Cowabungaa]

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?

 

[Snotnarok]

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.

There should be consequences for defending yourself? So everyone should just assume that armed intruders in your house aren't going to try to kill you and your family in the process?


We're talking about two gentlemen by breaking into her house armed their intent was clear. Robbers aren't going to play nice they come in for money and potentially your life and rape so why should the victim hold back? Because they might not attack? That's a good way for you AND your family to get robbed, raped and killed which in turn the robbers can get away with it and live happily off YOUR stuff and your misery or get to live in a prison cell with 3 meals a day while your dead and your family suffers for it.

Punish the people defending themselves? Yeah just give the robbers more power beyond having illegal weapons, numbers and surprise, great idea.

Human life is precious? That's subjective, when two guys break into someones house with weapons, their life is forfeit. Because clearly they don't mind taking your life, and I have no problem with anyone defending theirs from assholes like them.
Chase them 10 miles with a knife? No but a shotgun to the face when they turn the corner sounds fine and dandy to me.

 

[PlasticTree]

Of course, it's justified, this is just self-defense.

Doesn't mean I find stories like this a reasonable justification for a country to allow the ownership of guns though (I bring this up since these are exactly the kind of situations that are used to justify that). The women's behavior was justified, but if she didn't have a gun nobody would have died. The women might be recently widowed and I'm sure the robbers were mean sons of bitches, but a dead son of a ***** is still way worse than a robbed widow.

 

[JoesshittyOs]

any time that you kill someone there should be consequences

No. Absolutely not.

If someone sole intention it is to kill you, or your family and they've already made it clear that they are going to kill you, be it by shooting a weapon at you or breaking in with a weapon, your life is forfeit.

Damn straight we are placing a value on Human life. You aim to cause unjustified harm, I defend myself. Whoever the defendant in that situation just became more important than you. Person dies in the process, tough shit. Shouldn't have done what they did.

Yeah, death and violence is bad. But once you make the choice to take someone's life, or break in their house with the intent purpose to harm or kill, it becomes black and white. Peace isn't a reality when people like this think they can take advantage of a widow.

Congrats to her for defending herself.

 

[Scarim Coral]

She was in the right espically when she ask for permission to shoot in self defence. I mean she was somewhat clear headed about the situation (she's aware that she may have to shoot them to defend her child) and the law for doing do.

 

[teebeeohh]

what she did was completely justified but still it would have been nice if killing a human being could have been avoided

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

Your presentation of this story is a little disturbing, frankly. It seems the purpose was to compare notes on whether you thought it was wrong or not, and nothing else. And really, that seems to be quite the theme on these forums.

I suppose what I'm getting at is that the priorities may be a little misplaced.

 

[snappydog]

I think it looks like we're all pretty much agreed here. I might not like the idea of taking a life, even in self-defence, but I wouldn't be so arrogant as to say that I wouldn't do it if I felt I was threatened, I wouldn't claim to be able to respond to something like that with anything more than instinctive self-preservation. So I say well done to her for likely saving the lives of her baby and herself, and what the hell to the police for taking 21 minutes.

 

[FMAylward]

As someone from there UK here is my opinion on all three of those examples as I see this as more as all thee being questioned then just one.


In the case of the mother I would say it was completely justified, it was known the person had a knife and smashed his way in. Even here in the UK we would be within our rights to grab a weapon and kill the person without being charged. Though while I support she did if I ever met her I would have asked why she never shouted out she had called the police and was armed.

In the case of that 15 year stabbing someone 11 times that was completely unjustified. From what I read the bully was no threat to the boys life and stabbing someone 11 times is by definition excessive especially against someone who is unarmed. However if I remember right they wanted to charge him as an adult which I don't agree with, he should have been charged and dealt with using whatever the child system is.

In general I am against shooting anyone classed as a child, if you are classing someone as a child you are saying they are not responsible enough to be an adult and therefore should not have deadly force used against them unless it is a last resort. Now in the news article I saw posted on here the officers met the kid what I assume to be head on, asked him to drop the weapon and only fired when he raised it at him. As long as is what actually happened and they had no other tactical options then fair enough, justified. However I read a news article on Google where the kid was shot in the back of the head, that turns the shooting from justified into something that needs fully investigating because if the kid was facing the officers and pointing the weapon at him how could they shoot him in the back of the head?


So in summery. The mother should now be left alone, the stabbing kid should be charged as a child and the school shooting is at first glance justified but should be investigated (which I hope is standard practice)

 

[DarthAcerbus]

Of course, it's justified, this is just self-defense.

Doesn't mean I find stories like this a reasonable justification for a country to allow the ownership of guns though (I bring this up since these are exactly the kind of situations that are used to justify that). The women's behavior was justified, but if she didn't have a gun nobody would have died. The women might be recently widowed and I'm sure the robbers were mean sons of bitches, but a dead son of a ***** is still way worse than a robbed widow.

The robbers were armed with knives, and the police were clearly nowhere close. In all likelihood, if she hadn't been armed, they would have raped her and likely murdered her. Also remember she had a child with her, who, if these gentlemen are breaking into a house armed with knives, likely would not have escaped unscathed.

 

[Akimoto]

I would have liked the robbers to be scared, run away and turn over a new leaf and tell their grandkids one day of the lady who made them rethink life by the barrel of a gun... but real life sucks for all I guess. I hope she's ok, most people get nightmares on their first shooting. Most armies - mine included - have programs just to desensitize soldiers.

The kid though, has he/she got a hell of a story. "My mom shot a guy to defend me. What did your mom do?"

 

[Keneth]

Perfectly justified.

Any low-life who would break into a recent widow's house and threaten her and her child with a knife DESERVES a load of buckshot to the face.

I always said that there is no creature more dangerous then a mother protecting her children. Point Proven.

 

[Rylingo]

Absolutely on her side. She was cornered, in her own home, with a child.

Maybe if they were unarmed she should have fired a warning shot. They were not unarmed and a knife is a fast brutal weapon that, when used in a house, at close range, in an enclosed space can overcome even someone using a gun. If she saw a knife and instantly went for a kill shot, she did the right thing. If she was cornered and shot wildly to keep them at bay, but accidentally killed, she did the right thing.

This isn't a pick-pocketing thief. This is someone breaking into a home with full knowledge that doing so is dangerous both to the himself and the homeowner. If you break into someones home and are fatally wounded, its your fault. You not only risked your own life, but the homeowners as well. The thief cannot complain. He played with fire and got burned.

 

[Esotera]

In the UK, this is probably deemed excessive force. But I would have done exactly the same, as would most people put in that situation.

 

[Me55enger]

Over here in the UK, this has happened a couple of times (under varying circumstances surrounding breakins/defening oneself). As you know, Gun ownership is harder to obtian legally here than in the US of Abundant Ammunition.

There have been mixed responses based on who you're listening to: some police have pressed charges of manslaughter and some have not. But one thing is for sure: the defenders of thier lives, thier properties and thier families rapidly become heroes amongst the non-police population for thier act of bravery.

They should be left alone. What they did was right, to defend what thiers.

 

[Khada]

Necessary self defense, when people are violating your safety is completely justified.

 

[Andrew_C]

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?

 

[Trololo Punk]

She was protecting herself and her baby from two armed intruders. I'd say that's pretty justified to me.

 

[Vivi22]

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.

While in an ideal world I would agree with you on that, but often we don't live in an ideal world. Having two people in your house for 21 minutes while you sit and wait behind a locked door with a baby would be absolutely terrifying. You don't know their intentions, you don't know if they're armed. And when they break down the door you have no way of knowing if they're going to immediately charge you with a knife or shoot you from the doorway before you have a chance to warn them off at all. The most she could have really done to give them warning would have been to tell them she is armed and will fire before they broke the door down, but even managing that when you're absolutely terrified may be impossible.

To her credit, the article specifically states that the man came at her with the knife after he broke the door down. So she knew he was armed, and he was being aggressive. And if you expect me to believe he didn't see a 12 gauge as soon as he was in the room and know she was armed then I'd have to ask if you were joking. Once they were in that room, with a weapon coming at her, she doesn't have time to warn them off anymore, and she has to protect that baby.

I agree that it's always a shame when a human life is taken, but if the choice is between two dangerous criminals who broke into your home or a baby, I'm sure you can guess which I would want to see make it out alive.

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.

I can't disagree more with this myself. She did nothing wrong. Yes, I do believe that all human life has value, but that does not mean punishment is required when you take one, circumstances be damned. I would say she'll almost definitely need, and should get, therapy, but that's not punishment. And if you really want to talk about punishing her, I'm sure she'll spend the rest of her life always wondering if the sound she heard outside is just the wind, or someone sneaking around the side of her house. Believe me, there are plenty of consequences for her in this situation without society having to lift a finger.

I think the real issue here that is far more concerning for the people in her area though is why in the hell she ever had to pull that trigger? 21 minutes on the phone with 911 and not a single cop made it to her house before she killed that man? As much as I hate to say it, this is one of the reasons I kind of agree with gun ownership in the US. You absolutely cannot always rely on the police to make it before something very bad happens.