Oklahoma mom shoots and kills intruder

[VoidWanderer]

I loved the 'On hold with 911 for 21 mins while asking for permission to shoot the intruders.'

But, yeah, completely justified.

 

[PlasticTree]

The difference in stance here just comes from a differing personal philosophy. I'm of the opinion that those who willingly and knowingly violate the social contract forfeit their right to protection under same. If you're dumb enough to attack someone else, you deserve the response, whatever that may be. If the victim feels it necessary to use lethal force, so be it. The attacker instigated the whole debacle, on their head be it.

You pretty clearly disagree. Nothing really to be done without pages upon pages of debate that doesn't convince anyone. I'll pass on that this time around.

Fair enough, I can respect that. It's hard to argue about something when the underlying principles differ.

 

[Ickorus]

Justified as fuck, here in England there was a farmer who did the same and got sent to prison and then in another case a thief fell through the roof of someones house and sued them, so stupid here.

 

[robot slipper]

I'll just say, if she did that in the UK, she'd go to prison for murder and possession of a firearm, her child would get fostered and the other burglar would sue what was left of her into the ground for causing him huge emotional trauma.

I'll also say, I have the justice system in my country.

Ugh, I know. Still doesn't stop me from keeping a large, blunt object by my bed in case of a home invasion. I can [almost, minus the dead husband] put my self in this woman's shoes, as I am a single mum. If someone breaks into my home I am going to defend my child from harm, and defend myself from sexual assault. I don't think there is anything that quite compares to a parent's instinct to protect their child, and it is a violent instinct. I found out the other day that some older kids were taunting my child at school during play time, causing him for the first time in his life be crying in the mornings that he doesn't want to go to school any more. My first thought was to find out who they were and slam them head-first into a wall. But I digress. My point is, if a person invades someone's home, especially armed, they should be aware that the occupant(s) may fight back.

Someone carrying a knife at the very least intends to use it to intimidate you in order to get what they want. My fear would be any of the following:

a) abducting and/or harming my child
b) raping me
c) taking my possessions

I am not willing to wait and find out if they'll just leave if I ask nicely. I would rather club them into unconsciouness just to be on the safe side.

 

[WillItWork]

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.

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.

Win for the Okies, then. I wouldn't have wanted to try that here in Rhode Island.

 

[senordesol]

This is so open and shut that ANYONE who would try to argue otherwise is certifiably and provably off their nut.

1. Two armed men break into your house. I mean...right there, what more do you need? ARMED MEN breaking into YOUR HOUSE. They're not there for a spot of tea and motherfucking crumpets!!

2. You arm and barricade yourself and keep your child with you. So right there, you've isolated yourself. You are no threat to them if they don't come after you (again, in YOUR HOUSE).

3. They spend 20+ minutes attempting to get into the room you've locked yourself in. Knowing the police could arrive at any moment, this takes some intense dedication. It certainly shows that they're not about to let anything get in their way.

So how the hell does anyone get off on defending these clowns? Or suggesting that the mom should have put her child at (further) risk by trying to reason with them? For God's sake, it's like they WANT criminals to go around, robbing people and God knows what else.

If you break in someone's door, you are committing a violent act and deserve nothing less than a bodybag for your trouble.

 

[Scrubiii]

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.

What she did was legal, and the law dictates she has to be immune from charges.

this applies to every first world country.

Wrong.


In the UK you can only use as much force as the attacker. That means you must wait for the attacker to use lethal force if you want to incapacitate him. And I think that you have the duty to flee, although I'm not sure.

In the UK, you have the right to use "reasonable force" to defend yourself. What is "reasonable" is decided on by a jury following the incident. In this situation, lethal force would have been justified (if the opinions of the jury were reflected by the opinions of people in this thread).

 

[senordesol]

Breaking into a house during the night is violent entry and it threatens every occupant with death or severe bodily harm.

No it isnt. I will never understand how anybody in their right mind could possibly agree with your statement.

Someone using FORCE to enter your home is most certainly and places people at risk. First, it DAMAGES your property, and second: had you happened to be standing in front of the door when it was kicked in, you might have been severely injured.

That is why police don't go around kicking doors in everytime they need to talk to somebody, but when they fear the occupants inside will be violent whether they knock or not.

 

[direkiller]

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 Shotguns, why would anyone need a gun for self defence stronger than a simple 9mm?).

12gauge shotguns are for outer things as well(deer,small game,fowl anything that you want to hunt in the US except bears
there also less finiky then a 9m,less parts and the chambering mechanism(a pump action) dose not jam easily(if at all).

there's a clip i cant find on youtube for the next point but i cant find it.

Try shooting a moving arm of a moving target with a 9mm. Even professorials miss the chest and head(much larger and less mobile targets on a body) what makes you think a person who has significantly less experiences shooting is going to hit an arm reliably(under stress mind you) and if that shot is even going to stop the person from coming at you(as even chest shots don't often stop people from coming at you). Honestly, just go spend a little bit of time with guns before you preach about them for self defense. As most of the general "Why did they not do xxx diffidently" are answerd in the first hour of a self defense course.

 

[galaktar]

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.

I think it was a rural area. Long distances involved.

 

[ThreeWords]

Forum members say a 15 year old stabbing an attacker 11 times is excessive

Because they do not understand how the human psyche functions under that kind of stress.

Sad thing is, understandable =/= legal.

11 stabbings may be the natural reaction, but it doesn't mean it's not wrong

 

[galaktar]

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.

Ok, now imagine that all your life savings are being walked out the door to your home, and the police don't exactly respond quickly to simple robberies. Are you supposed to challenge a career criminal to a boxing match for all your stuff back? Trial by combat anyone?

Of course not. You have a right to life and therefore the the products of your own life (property). Grand larceny doesn't happen by accident, and any criminal has willingly given up, through his own actions, all moral defense against any measure of force necessary to secure your life or property.

 

[galaktar]

HNK(he needed killin) defense argument if I've ever seen one.

 

[galaktar]

Forum members say a 15 year old stabbing an attacker 11 times is excessive

Because they do not understand how the human psyche functions under that kind of stress.

Sad thing is, understandable =/= legal.

11 stabbings may be the natural reaction, but it doesn't mean it's not wrong

I'm pretty sure the case against the 15 year old was dropped, since it was legal. I think it's a good thing when people don't have to hesitate to worry about having the audacity to defend themselves at the expense of an aggressor. If bullying results in a lower life expectancy for the bully, so be it. It's easily avoidable behavior.

 

[hotsauceman]

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.

Ok, now imagine that all your life savings are being walked out the door to your home, and the police don't exactly respond quickly to simple robberies. Are you supposed to challenge a career criminal to a boxing match for all your stuff back? Trial by combat anyone?

Of course not. You have a right to life and therefore the the products of your own life (property). Grand larceny doesn't happen by accident, and any criminal has willingly given up, through his own actions, all moral defense against any measure of force necessary to secure your life or property.

The law is very clear. Property crimes do not warrent deadly force.

 

[galaktar]

i think the gun laws say that if you shoot an intruder and he falls inside your home you are home free

Maybe some places. 50 different states here and 50 different standards at least.

 

[salinv]

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.

I think it was a rural area. Long distances involved.

From what I heard, she lives in a mobile home in a trailer park, on a jurisdiction edge. I think the 911 call actually went to the wrong police department (it wasn't the closest one), so the call for help actually bounced around a couple times. Not to mention she was likely a bit harder to find.

 

[Wushu Panda]

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.

What would you have asked her to do? Sit down and ask them what their agenda is for breaking into her home? they had a 12 inch hunting knife, and the report states...

When Martin kicked in the door and came after her with the knife, the teen mom shot and killed the 24-year-old. Police are calling the shooting justified.

"You're allowed to shoot an unauthorized person that is in your home. The law provides you the remedy, and sanctions the use of deadly force," Det. Dan Huff of the Blanchard police said.

there shouldn't be any consequences for her shooting the intruder. They entered her home with clear ill intention and a mother was defending not only her life but her child's as well. She was cornered and they could have just pilfered something nice from downstairs and left, instead they made it a point to seek her out with a weapon.

The mother was by all rights justified in defending herself. I'm glad no charges are against her and that she can continue living (hopefully in time with peace).