Oklahoma mom shoots and kills intruder

[Smeggs]

Serves that wad of scum right.

She was totally justified to protect herself, her child and her homestead. If charges had actually been filed I guarantee they would've been dropped anyway. No way in hell would any jurry with an ounce of compassion or logical reasoning say she was not justified in shooting that guy.

 

[Kuroneko97]

They were asking for it. Why are we even discussing this? She asked for help, asked for permission to shoot should it get to that point, and the intruders were after her with knives. If that were me, I'd be loading up my shotgun too.

 

[Petromir]

The amount of ignorance in this thread about what would happen in the UK in this situation, and about the gun laws and self defense laws.

1stly a Shotgun is not dreadfull difficult to obtain in this country especially if you live in the countryside where hunting and even pest control a legitimate grounds for ownership.

There is NO leggal minumum age in this country to have a shotgun license, licenses can and have been issued to people 14 and younger. At 18 as long as you can provide an allowed reason for a given shotgun or hunting/target rifle, provide a suitibly secure storage space, and arent criminal or mad then there little the police can do but grant you the license.

Self defense laws in this country would in this situation fully support her having shot them. All the cases used in this country which made it to court there was major doubt that there was any reason to fear for theri life (there was a major case a few years back where a farmer shot a lad in the back , not the most dangerous opponent one whose fleeing, he was freed either on appeal or pardoned).

THe law on self defense here is based on reasonable force, which basically states that you are entitled to use greater force than that which is being used against you, but not exsessively so, in the case of a young widow a legally owned firearm, is justified in most cases, and I suspect if pushed most police officers would suggest said firearm as more sensible than a knife even if unarmed oppenet mearly as most amatuer knife users would be more likely to be injured by the knife than the person thats invading their home.


I also comcur that shooting to wound is the preserve of the proas in films. Even marksmen are trained to shoot for the largest area they can, unless there is exceptional reason not to. In gerneral exceptional grounds are cases where there is need to avoid an area for explosives or to extinguish all motor funtions totally, suicde bombers are a case in point.


Stopping power is impossible to predict. In normal conditions a .22 pistol will put down the average person to the point they are no risk. In and situation like a burglarry or a mugging or full comnbat, anything from a single .22 upwards could do it, but people can keep coming through all kinds of damage, a breif run through the list of VC or Medal of Honor winners will show you people who've fought on with wounds that even hollywood would (and indeed in at least one winner of a VC or perhaps the Medal of Honor from the US they DID) decide were just over the top and unbeleiviable. You really don't know when the point someone wont get up is until you've passed it.

 

[Arsen]

And this is why, we the American People, so drastically need our guns.

They forfeited their right to live once they entered her property. They could have gone somewhere else, chosen a different path in life, chosen not to break into another's home, and so many other reasons. Instead, they chose to threaten harm, cause death, rape, thieve, steal, etc...

"Equal measure" for two men? Hell no. There's no telling the physicality of the individuals when each second counts. No controversy, no gray area, no error.

Good riddance.
I would have sued their mothers for the clean up crew to come and clean the blood off my door hinge.

 

[jdun]

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.

What do you mean no one would've died? Most likely the woman would be dead or raped, and the baby perhaps dead.

Or...you know, the ass that was one of the attackers who broke in to her home was killed. Difficult choice, eh?

CAPTCHA
the estedop

It just amaze me so many people thinks that home invades are nice misunderstood people. For those people think that go google "Home invaders rape, murder, arson" or "Home invader rape" or "Home invader murder" or "Home invader arson".

These home invaders targeted this young lady for rape and murder. Home invaders check out the house before that actually commit the crime. They knew before hand that she lives alone and with a baby.

 

[jdun]

Wow, a 12 gauge shotgun? F*ck, Americans are scary. I suppose it's somewhat justified, but I can't help feeling it's a bit excessive.

Alright: what's an appropriate level of force to respond to someone who is, as far as you are able to tell, intent on murdering you?

Then again, Americans have that whole blood-lust thing, so this should probably seem tame over there.

No, some of us just understand that sometimes life-or-death scenarios do occur, and we'd prefer that the victim be the one to live.

The appropriate level for these liberals are:
1. Get rape
2. Get murder
3. Blame it on the victim
4. The criminal is misunderstood and should not go to jail.

 

[jdun]

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.

/thread

Though I will state my opnion that I firmly beilve that making rubber/plastic ammunition more available (it's actually HARDER to get then metal bullets/shot in some areas)would help.

So long as he's coming at me with a rubber or plastic knife.

Har har.

At close range, rubber/plastic ammunation is almost as damaging as real ammunation, and it's still like getting punched in the gut further out than that.

You have to remember it's still a dense object flying at you the speed of a car many time over.

Unless the guy is on something. In that case there are a lot of smaller bullets that may not do the trick even.

Ru

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.

/thread

Though I will state my opnion that I firmly beilve that making rubber/plastic ammunition more available (it's actually HARDER to get then metal bullets/shot in some areas)would help.

So long as he's coming at me with a rubber or plastic knife.

Har har.

At close range, rubber/plastic ammunation is almost as damaging as real ammunation, and it's still like getting punched in the gut further out than that.

You have to remember it's still a dense object flying at you the speed of a car many time over.

If you think rubber bullet is almost as damaging as real ammunition you're on crack. Don't mix fantasy with reality.

 

[jdun]

That's right our criminal system isn't about rehabilitation. It's about punishment. It's about justice. It's about putting them in jail for a long time so they don't repeat their crimes on law abiding citizens again.

No it isn't, you confuse justice with revenge and retribution. Justice is about sense, about logic, about doing what's best for society and protecting the innocent. And you know what's not best for society? Thinking with your heart, with your fists.

The sort of "justice" you seem to like to dispense defies all logic. You take someone who, say, stole a car. You dump him into a hellhole prison that's probably overcrowded, ruled by terrible gangs and violence, where he has to do all kinds of nasty shit to just keep his head afloat, and you let him stay in that environment for three years.

So what'll happen after those two years? You're going to kick an even more fucked up and dangerous person out on the street, probably with all-new contacts in the criminal circuit, few career prospects and probably a big-ass chip on his shoulder, or at least pretty beat up mentally, into normal society.

Is that how you're going to protect the innocent, by putting someone twisted by that fucked up American penal system in their lap? Is that how you're keeping people out of future crimes, by treating them like animals? Is your idea of protecting law-abiding citizens to turn a thief or a pothead into a gangbanger?

I mean, it just doesn't make any sense. Isn't the value and need for a focus on rehabilitation completely obvious? How do you expect someone to re-enter society as a well-adjusted human being that can take part in the daily routine in a healthy way so that they won't bother people again, which is what it's all about, without a penal system based on rehabilitation? How do you expect them to do that when you put them, for years, in an environment like this:

You know what? It work. The US crime rate has been dropping since tougher laws that put criminals in jail. You know that German guy that burned a lot of cars in LA. In Europe he might get one year in jail max and than repeat his crimes. In the USA I would be surprise if he gets less than 40 years. He won't be doing it again because he rotting in jail as it should be.

Really, "in Europe"? Do you have any idea how silly that statement is? It's a continent with fifty countries on it with an almost equal amount of radically different cultures. That statement right there speaks of plenty of ignorance on your part.

You want an example of "European" justice? Take that kid in that video, at the start. You know what we in Holland would do? We would listen to his story, we'd test him on mental issues afterwards and probably ship his ass to a special correctional facility where he would get constant treatment. We would try to help him get rid of whatever lead to him coming at someone with a knife so that he won't do it again.

You know what we would not do? Throw him amidst violent gangs who size him up, force him to choose sides and make him deal with that all the while his mental issues keep on festering. And then let society deal with him.

It is justice for the family. It is punishment for the criminals. We do not rehabilitate criminals. We punish them. That's why our crime rate has been dropping for the past 30 years.

You screw up you paid for it.

 

[Boba Frag]

20 fucking minutes? And the cops still hadn't arrived?
Unlike some posters I've actually been to Oklahoma despite not being American... but man, Oklahoma City clearly had plenty of cops when I was there... It's just a shame they couldn't get there sooner, I guess.

As for the mother, I can't say it's a great result, but the woman was trying to protect her child and herself, she believed they were both in danger and do you know what?
I can't really preach from on high when two violent thugs brandishing a hunting a knife at recently widowed mother of an infant child get pretty much what was coming in that situation.

It's a shame that she found herself in that situation in the first place. They could have just left her locked in the bathroom if they wanted to ransack the place, but the fact that they went and kicked the door in...?

I will have to say that OP should clear up by what he means by 'other countries' because where I live you are most certainly able to do unto the intruders whatever you feel is justified in order to eject them from your home!

Bottom line for me is, is criminals are going to use violence, then they should expect violence.
It doesn't solve matters, it doesn't make the resultant killing any more or less than what it was, but at the same time- criminals that attack vulnerable people like these two did can't really be shown much sympathy. It's rather tragic, but at the same time, they chose to attack that woman's house.

 

[brendonnelly]

But what would you have done in this situation?

Killed the intruders.

And then gone to jail for several years because Australian laws are fucking bullshit.

No, you're bullshit. Self-defense should lie within the realms of an equal force back. I.E If you killed both of them when they broke into your house carrying a knife. Then yes, you should go to prison because it wasn't necessary.

So, I must ask you this...

Why do people who choose to do harm to others, and care not for the safety or well-being of those they burgle, intimidate/threaten, or otherwise harm be given any chance when they arm themselves and break into a woman's home, or do the same during the execution of any other crime?

They forfeited their right to safety the second they attempted to take that away from the woman and child in this article. It has been said before. If someone ignores the conventions of society and forfeits the social contract that they hold with everyone in society, then they lose reciprocity. In essence, if someone is going to violate the sanctity of my home, threaten my life and the lives of my family members, and attempt to rob me, I am in no way obligated to value their life in any way. Why should I be? Why should anyone?

Please, I would like to hear an answer.

My logic, and Australian laws are based on the presumption that murder is never justifiable. Ever. That's why we don't have the death penalty, that's why self defence laws are limited in their way. I think I could answer your question with my own question. What kind of archaic country would you want to live in that condones the murder of BOTH men when clearly shooting one was the only necessary as the other fled. In no way did the foreit their right to safety when they broke the law. They forfeited their right to liberty, perhaps, but while on Australian shores, I don't believe (and the law reflects my beliefs in that there are no forms of corporal or capital punishment available) any person can forfeit their safety. Because what the person I was responding to was describing was truly execution. Why should the lady try to kill BOTH the intruders as the poster suggested? Perhaps murder couldn't have been avoided for the first shooting (and a self-defence defence would more than likely work in this situation) but to suggest a second killing was necessary is not only barbaric, but it also lowers the woman and the state lower than the level of the intruders.

We aren't talking about murder here. We are talking about an obvious case of self-defence. Why should someone who breaks into an innocent's house and attempts to harm someone be allowed to do so? You would say she should have done nothing? It can be inferred that from how events unfolded in the article, that she would likely have been harmed if she had done nothing.

These guys most certainly did forfeit their safety, the laws in the state where this occurred reflect that. It sounds to me like the laws in Australia tacitly support the notion that crime is a, "Legit," business. It sounds to me that it affords more protection to those committing the crime rather than those who are being victimized.

It is hardly barabric to allow a person to defend themselves in such a way when no other options were available. What is barbaric is that some countries would put this woman in jail for life and give the people who broke into her home a few months in the clink and then release them. This woman never asked to be put in this situation, and I find it stupid that some think she should be punished for getting herself out of it when law enforcement was unable to get there on time.

The fact is that this woman was attacked by an armed assailant. The criminal in question displayed hostile intent as he was both armed and fully dedicated to get in as it took him 21 minutes to do so. This woman did everything right. She fled to a safer room, secured her child, called the police, and attempted to wait them out. When that did not work and they had her cornered in her home, she did what she had to do.

I should also pose this question. What do you think would have happened to the woman and child in this story had they not had a shotgun? Before you answer that, you need to answer another question. Could you guarantee their safety in the aforementioned incident otherwise?

Obviously you didn't read my posts, nor the posts I was responding to. The first person suggested that he wanted to kill both of the intruders, and called Australian laws "fucking bullshit" for not allowing him to do so legally. Of course the woman mentioned in this article shouldn't go to gaol for what she did, and she wouldn't if the story is what was reported. I would suggest this is part of a cultural gap between the US and Australia (shown by far lower homicide rates per capita, among other statistics). also, when I say murder is not justifiable, I meant the taking of another's life is never justifiable, not in reference to the actual crime.

 

[Matt Dellar]

I didn't read through all 12 pages--only 3 of them. With that said:

My dad was a police officer in a suburb a mile or two west of Detroit up until I was 7. We moved up north and he started teaching college law enforcement. He has a shooting simulator called MILO, in which you can shoot targets or simulate an actual situation. Here's what one of our conversations was like (I believe I was 14 at the time):

Me: If someone breaks into the house, can't I just shoot him in the legs or arm?
Dad: You can, but you shouldn't. Aim at the center of the mass, because even if you miss, you'll still do enough damage to put him down.
Me: But I don't have to kill him, right?
Dad: If he has a gun and you shoot his leg, he'll likely shoot you before you can get another round into his arm. And if you miss with regard for his life, he'll hit without regard for yours.
Me: What if he only has a knife?
Dad: If he's coming at you, you have no duty to back down.

Not those exact words, but the meaning is the same. I was a bit gun-shy back then and thought everything could be resolved without killing, like in the movies I watched where the hero shot at the bad guy's hand and easily disarmed him. Nope. Center of mass, most effective weapon. If somebody breaks into your house and you are able to defend yourself, then by all means defend yourself. No happy gun-free fantasy. This is life, not a movie.

 

[Cowabungaa]

It is justice for the family. It is punishment for the criminals. We do not rehabilitate criminals. We punish them. That's why our crime rate has been dropping for the past 30 years.

You screw up you paid for it.

No, it's revenge for the family. It's retribution, it appeals to the heart, makes people feel good. Is that the purpose of justice? No, it is not. You're describing a shallow, unproductive, ultimately uneffective and barbaric way of treating criminals. Did you even read my post? You're just repeating yourself instead of offering a counter-argument.

The only reason that decreases crime is because your justice system stuffs away all those criminals and promptly forgets about them, the amount of incarerated people per capita is frighteningly high in the States. It's a bit like someone who's 'cleaning' by just stuffing all the dust bunnies under cabinets and couches. Sooner or later it'll start spilling out.

Because how many of those crimincals will be sitting out a life sentence? What'll happen when all those who don't get kicked out on the street, loads of unadjusted ex-cons used to a life of violence and rigid structure, completely alienated from the society they're now suddenly expected to is that how you're going to protect innocent lives?

Face it, your penal system is terrible and a threat to your society. [http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/prison2home02/Haney.htm] It's crystal clear that it has to change.

also, when I say murder is not justifiable, I meant the taking of another's life is never justifiable

That's quite silly, as if there aren't kill-or-be-killed situations, when the only way to keep yourself alive is to kill your assailant. And this woman didn't just have to protect herself, but her child to boot. A perfectly justifiable fact, if a sad one.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Being a petite female myself and owning both a shotgun and glock 40, I commend this woman for defending herself and her child. Growing up 2 1/2 hours from the nearest hospital, and 45 min from a sheriffs department, you come to realize you cannot rely on others to come save you. Bad things do happen, and you must be able to defend yourself or you wind up dead.

Luckily, I have only had to shoot pit bulls and coyotes, but would not hesitate if someone came wishing to do harm. She did the right thing. I, however, would not have asked permission, the second they got in they would have gone down. It is dangerous to even lock yourself in another room, they could have been armed and shot her through the wall or door if they knew where she had been standing in the room. I would have called 911 and set the phone down and let them hear it play out. Talking to them would give away your position and put you in danger. Anyone who said she should have given verbal warning is out of their mind, as that would give away your position in the room and allow them to start firing on you first.

Yes, it turned out they only had knives, but you don't know that until after the fact, all you know is someone is in your home coming to harm you, and it is better to shoot first than be the one in a body bag.

Shotgun is for multiple fast moving targets, such as packs of wild dogs, boars or coyotes. It makes perfect sense why she would have one living in Oklahoma, as you need one.

 

[baconfist]

Personally I thought the kid stabbing that bully 11 times was fine.

 

[CoL0sS]

It took police 21 minutes to respond ? Jesus, did they have to shoot someone to be taken seriously ? On top of that burglars, not being content with just breaking into the house of recently widowed young mother and her 3-month-old baby on a friggin' New Years, and taking everything they can in shortest possible time, decide they'll go looking for her. Bad. Fucking. Idea. They backed her into a corner; she had no idea what they'll do, whether they're armed so she fought back. Protected her child. Killed one bastard in the process. I applaud her. She was calm and collected (under the circumstances) and even had police on the phone for 20-DAMN-MINUTES. Why are we even having this discussion? Completely justified.
I'd have shot them the moment they broke down my door.

PS: Did anyone get Straw Dogs flashbacks while reading this?

 

[MaxwellEdison]

I might have waited a little longer than she did, but this was pretty justified, imo. She had to do what she felt necessary to protect her home.
As I said in the last two threads mentioned, it's a shame someone had to die. As I also said in the last two threads mentioned, it's a shame they had to be morons and threaten someone else's safety/life.

 

[MaxwellEdison]

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?

Perhaps their funding got cut?