Oklahoma mom shoots and kills intruder

Recommended Videos

Burs

New member
Jan 28, 2011
134
0
0
CM156 said:
Burs said:
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
 

CM156_v1legacy

Revelation 9:6
Mar 23, 2011
3,997
0
0
Burs said:
CM156 said:
Burs said:
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
Quite alright. In the US, though, several states say that once you break into someone's house, you lose any right to not be shot. Oklahoma is one such state. It's a bit more complex than that, but this is the basic idea.
 

hotsauceman

New member
Jun 23, 2011
288
0
0
him over there said:
This is justified. self defence against armed robbers with the intent to steal from you and possibly kill both you and your child with no immediate form of aid from a third party than this is absolutely justified. It isn't like those ridiculous cases wear an armed and dangerous man robs you and then successfully sues you because he hurt himself on your sub par banister. This is fair and just.
If its stealing, murder isnt justified. property is not worth life. if it was life. then i beleive it is.
But i think she was 100% justified.
 

ElPatron

New member
Jul 18, 2011
2,130
0
0
RubyT said:
ElPatron said:
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?
I am taking your point of view into a "ITT".

"In This Thread" is supposed to quickly summarize what people have been saying.

You said that you disagreed with the sources, and implied that they consisted of 15 year old teens. Then you proceeded to claim that you could fake that data by yourself.

I did not add anything to your post, I basically denounced everything I found "wrong" in it.

The increase in firearms on the streets did not cause a rise in crime, unlike you stated.


By the way, you can just spell the whole f-word because replacing a lett6er with an asterisk does not change your intention in any way.
 

him over there

New member
Dec 17, 2011
1,728
0
0
hotsauceman said:
him over there said:
This is justified. self defence against armed robbers with the intent to steal from you and possibly kill both you and your child with no immediate form of aid from a third party than this is absolutely justified. It isn't like those ridiculous cases wear an armed and dangerous man robs you and then successfully sues you because he hurt himself on your sub par banister. This is fair and just.
If its stealing, murder isnt justified. property is not worth life. if it was life. then i beleive it is.
But i think she was 100% justified.
Well only stealing isn't justified, but they were armed and you commit armed robbery to instil fear with the very real possibility of killing someone. This is where it gets sort of grey because while they didn't kill anyone and they're dead so you can't really prove if they intended to kill or control hostages with fear they had guns and guns single solitary purpose is to kill people.
 

RubyT

New member
Sep 3, 2009
372
0
0
ElPatron said:
"In This Thread" is supposed to quickly summarize what people have been saying.
Next time, why not do it in your part of a posting, not in my part (the quote)?

By the way, you can just spell the whole f-word because replacing a lett6er with an asterisk does not change your intention in any way.
I didn't do it to spare your feelings or mine, but because on many forums profanity is censored.
I'm glad my intention came though nonetheless.
 

laggyteabag

Scrolling through forums, instead of playing games
Legacy
Oct 25, 2009
3,385
1,090
118
UK
Gender
He/Him
People were in her home with the intent to take things and harm them. Of course her actions were justified, what was she meant to do? Sit there and watch them rob her and attack her? Gladly she doesn't live in England where self defence can actually get you prosecuted...
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
spartan231490 said:
Vegosiux said:
spartan231490 said:
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.
You might want to look at who posted that once again.

I actually say there always are consequences anyway. I mean, if you kill a guy, sure your mind is gonna get messed up, punishment or not.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
Anoni Mus said:
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...
She was locked in the bathroom There was no reason for them to come into the bathroom unless they were planning to harm her. I mean, what, you think they needed to take a shit? Clearly a case of self defense.

As for your sidebar about shotguns, shotguns are a fuck-ton cheaper and easier to get than handguns. Several states actually outlaw handgun ownership, meaning you can't get your hands on a simple 9mm. For reference, the 870 express remington shotgun is one of the best shotguns out there, and it costs less than $300. For an automatic short barreled 9mm, which is about as cheap a handgun as you can get, you're looking at about the same price. The handgun I'm planning to buy is closer to $1000 And you need to get a pistol permit, which take a long time to get, 6-8 weeks if your lucky, and usually has some pretty stringent requirements attached to it, like being 21. The girl was too young to own a handgun in most states.

Second: a 9mm is not an adequate weapon for most people to defend themselves with. Handguns are hard to shoot, they take hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands of round fired at the practice range to gain the proficiency needed to hit the chest of a man if he's standing still. To hit a moving target reliably with a handgun is a very rare skill.

Also, 9mm handgun rounds have a very low stopping power. It takes 3 or 4 or even more hits to stop someone before they can hurt you. It's not like the movies, you don't shoot them once and they instantly die. A person who is shot once with a handgun is going to be alive for several minutes, and conscious for a significant portion of that. Even the .357 magnum, the most powerful handgun available, isn't a guaranteed stop with one shot. Self defense training teaches you to keep shooting until they hit the floor.

As for hitting a non-vital area, a 12 guage shotgun would pretty much blow off a limb even if she managed to hit such a rapidly moving and small target. This means there really isn't any non-lethal area to hit with a shotgun, he's gonna bleed out no matter where you hit him. And shooting someone in the arm isn't going to stop them from attacking you, which is the whole point of self-defense. Hitting them in the leg would, but unfortunately, the legs are pretty much the hardest part of a person to hit. They're small and they move very rapidly and often unpredictably. There's a reason that even police, who are required to practice, are trained not to aim at the legs, it's pretty much impossible to hit them well enough to stop them.
 

LarenzoAOG

New member
Apr 28, 2010
1,683
0
0
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.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
Vegosiux said:
spartan231490 said:
Vegosiux said:
spartan231490 said:
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.
You might want to look at who posted that once again.

I actually say there always are consequences anyway. I mean, if you kill a guy, sure your mind is gonna get messed up, punishment or not.
My apologies, you didn't say that. However, the post that started all this was specifically addressing that concept, when you replied you pretty much agreed with the guy, so I will stand by everything I've said.

As to having your mind messed up, maybe. Just like you will probably have your mind messed up from having to hide in your own bathroom from intruders who were in your home for 21 minutes before finally forcing their way into the bathroom with every intent of seriously harming you.
 

Roggen Bread

New member
Nov 3, 2010
177
0
0
RubyT said:
Roggen Bread said:
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.
Well Guten Abend, ;)

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.
 

TJC

New member
Aug 28, 2011
398
0
0
Cowabungaa said:
What the fuck took the cops so long?! Seriously, 21 minutes and she still had to deal with them herself?! What the fuck?
This!!! Fucking this!
A helpless woman scared shitless for both her and her child's lives and the police takes their sweet time :/

Justified self-defense.
 

Poster1234

New member
Apr 26, 2011
71
0
0
I'm sorry, but am I the only one here wondering were the hell wasn't the police already there, if the mom had been speaking to 911 for 21 freaking minutes !? Didn't they think that, just maybe, to people breaking into a house while armes with a knife MIGHT be something they should deal with ?
I understand that policemen are busy and all, but if I even one unit in the area, and heard of something like this going on, I'd send it ASAP.

I don't like the idea of a country where guns run free. However, if you can't rely on the police to protect yourself, then, by all means, please buy a machinegun : I do not think one should respect the law if said law doesn't protect its citizens.
 

ElPatron

New member
Jul 18, 2011
2,130
0
0
RubyT said:
I didn't do it to spare your feelings or mine, but because on many forums profanity is censored.
I'm glad my intention came though nonetheless.
I have been in many communities where censoring swear words is still swearing.

However, I do not see people getting banned by using profanity, and I admit I used it when I found it adequate. I just don't like arguments to turn into open season of insults.

spartan231490 said:
Also, 9mm handgun rounds have a very low stopping power.
NEIN NEIN NEIN

Although I have an unconditional love for the .45, as an European I cannot dislike the 9x19 Europellet.

The claims that it does not offer stopping power are ridiculous. You can't talk about "stopping power" when you are talking about handgun ammo anyway.

Any handgun is a poor man-stopper compared to a rifle. It's just a lot easier to handle in close combat and to conceal.

The "stopping power" myth in handguns comes from the .45ACP and .455 Webley.

9x19mm or anything above it will be powerful enough for self-defence, and a few millimetres won't compensate for poor shooting.
 

ZombieMonkey7

New member
Dec 24, 2009
178
0
0
This is about as justified as it gets, personally I don't even think she should be brought to court for this, if all of this is accurate.
1. She called 911 before and asked persimmon to shoot, for 21 minutes!
2. There were two of them and they had a weapon(s).
3. They busted down the door to the room she was hiding in (she didn't even shoot them until they did this), obviously wanting to hurt her.
4. She's protecting herself and her baby.
 

Whispering Cynic

New member
Nov 11, 2009
356
0
0
LarenzoAOG said:
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...
 

ElPatron

New member
Jul 18, 2011
2,130
0
0
Roggen Bread said:
I think against a German burglar it would have sufficed to fire a warning shot.
Warning shots are dangerous.

They might kill someone you did not mean to,and if you pull out a gun without intention to kill you're basically telling any lawyer in the world that you were not in fear for your life, so you did not need the gun.

If you are going to shoot, please aim for the chest, and pull the trigger until he starts falling down. I know this sound shocking to anyone, but you don't want the criminal to live, then go to court explaining he was armed but did not want to kill you, and now he is disabled for life because you shot him.


Suennodil said:
I don't like the idea of a country where guns run free. However, if you can't rely on the police to protect yourself, then, by all means, please buy a machinegun : I do not think one should respect the law if said law doesn't protect its citizens.
Machine guns are hard to use for self-defence, they require a lot of training, they make it harder for each shot to land on the right place, they are even more difficult to handle when you are under panic.

A shotgun is all you need, I think that you could get away by having a hunting license and using the gun for self-defence than having an illegal gun that will probably kill your neighbours.
 

McMullen

New member
Mar 9, 2010
1,334
0
0
Emergent System said:
...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'm pretty sure she'll be dealing with psychological consequences for a while.

I just don't understand this thing that some people have where they think "Oh it was completely justified/understandable/the only viable option, but they should still be punished for it." What the hell, people? Don't you see how insane, perhaps even bloodthirsty, you are?