Oklahoma mom shoots and kills intruder

[ElPatron]

Don't post what you do not understand. If you can survive a gun shot wound at 2m away then some rubber bullet won't even phase you. If you go to any firearm schools and said what you just posted they will think you're a liberal moron.



Here learn something useful:
https://www.google.com/search?q=miami+shootout&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a

http://www.lawofficer.com/article/training/officer-down-peter-soulis-inci

lol handguns are poor man stoppers, shot placement is the only way to go. Also, it was .40 Short & Weak, real men fire 10mm Auto

You're the one who doesn't actually understand what you are talking about.


Gunshot wounds are PENETRATING wounds, while less than lethal weapons cause BLUNT FORCE TRAUMA.

Two different aspects, I asked you proof of less than lethal weapons not being able to kill (Hint: people have been killed by less than lethal ammo) and you send me proof of people surviving handgun gunshot wounds. Cool story, bro.

They are expected to produce contusions, abrasions, and hematomas.[6] However, they may cause bone fractures, injuries to internal organs, or death. In a study of 90 patients in Northern Ireland, one died, 17 suffered permanent disabilities or deformities and 41 required hospital treatment after being fired upon with rubber bullets.[7]

The rubber bullet has been portrayed as a non-lethal weapon and has gained preference in riot-control over live ammunition. Despite the fact that it was designed to be safer than live ammunition, several cases of fatalities have been reported from its use. Most of these fatalities were because of abuse of the weapon in terms of range of fire and anatomical area of the body targeted. This is a case report of such a fatality following shotgun rubber bullet injury, including the circumstance surrounding this unusual occurrence, the autopsy findings and reports of the ballistic analysis. Four projectiles penetrated the right chest lodging in the right lung and injuring the right pulmonary artery, causing death. The mechanism of death in this case is rapid massive pulmonary haemorrhage.

Plastic bullets, developed to be less lethal than rubber

Most of the deaths were allegedly[12][13][14] caused by the British security services misusing the weapon, firing at close range and at chest or head level

Deadly.

Now this is the part I dare you to put your money where your mouth is, and dare you to hypothetically take a rubber slug into the chest from 2m away.

Do you think you'll live to tell the story?

 

[FaceFaceFace]

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?

None, preferably. Perhaps not a particularly realistic view, I wouldn't know I've never been in the situation, but I question whether there was no way out of it other than killing the assailant.

I think that's far less than a particularly realistic view. We all have the luxury of talking about situations we've never been in for 14 pages on an internet forum, but what does an innocent person who never asked for an armed person to enter their home to possibly kill them have? Either a short few moments, or, as in this case, a lengthy, tense, time spent not knowing what's happening because you tried to barricade yourself away. She actually had to deal with both since the man broke down her door and charged her with a knife.

If you're on the road and someone swerves into your lane coming right at and you panic and swerve in such a way that they end up dead and you live, are you responsible for their death? You were minding your own business, you were innocent, and then someone threw you into a life-threatening situation. As an ordinary person you have no duty to think of the best solution in a split-second and anything that results from you being put in that position is the other person's fault.

I think this is the bottom line, so I'm putting it in its own paragraph. The home invader is the one who puts someone in this situation, so they are the one who must take the consequences of the victim's inability to think out the best, least-lethal way to end the situation.

 

[SirDoom]

If an armed person breaks into your house, you have no idea what their intentions are. They may wish to steal from you, rape you, or kill you. You have no way of knowing which it is until it is too late. Therefore, you have reason to believe they are there to hurt you. If that is the case, you are allowed to defend yourself.

There is really no time to decide what course of action to take in this scenario. When they kick in the door, they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are there to cause harm. If you're face to face with an armed intruder, it's really too late to run. In that case, defending yourself with lethal force (like a gun) is the safest option for you. They forfeited their right to not be shot the second they proved their violent intentions by kicking down the door.

It's a situation I hope nobody ever has to be placed in. But if I am, one day, placed in this kind of situation... Let's just say I hope to have a shotgun on me as well.

 

[Xanthious]

As I've said before in all of these types of threads I post in I carry a concealed and loaded firearm everywhere I'm legally allowed to do so. That being said, if I find someone is breaking into my home, regardless of intention, I am going to unload my weapon into that person until their body stops twitching and know I'm well within my legal rights to do so.

I'm not going to wait and try to discern their reason for breaking into my house. I'm not going to see if they have a weapon or are an adult or a child. I'm not going to try and get cute and try to scare them away with my gun or shoot them in a non vital area. I'm going to shoot for their upper torso and continue to do so until I'm good and damn sure their time on this planet has come to an end.

You see the thing of it is when a person decides to violate another person's home they have, in my opinion, made their lives forfeit and deserve to be met with lethal force. These people made a choice. They weren't forced to violate another person's home they CHOSE to knowing full well what the consequences could be. There is a simple way to avoid being shot to death while breaking into another person's home. Don't fucking break into people's homes!

As for the story in question I say good on the woman for defending herself. The only criticisms I have is, one, that she felt the need to ask for permission to defend her life and the life of her child. Nobody should EVER need to ask anyone for permission to defend their lives or the lives of their children from intruders. My other criticism is she wasn't able to kill both of them. People that would do what those men did deserve far worse.

 

[MyNameIsNowNotMyName]

Yes, because America JUST HAS more nut-jobs then anywhere else. That is the most flawed logic I've ever read, and really, it's kinda prejudiced against Americans. You: "It's a fact there's more nut-jobs in America, Der-Hur." No, it's kinda not.

My logic is: #1 gun ownership rate in the western world correlates nicely with #1 homicides per capita.
It also seems to defeat the argument that guns provide safety.
Yeah, numbers and stuff.

You can point to Switzerland, a tiny country with not quite 8 million ethnically homogenous people and a centuries-old history of peace, defensive pacifism and non-aggression. Is that a good indicator how a 300+ million behemoth of a country with America's diversity is going to behave with a similar premise?

You say, nope, the number of weapons has nothing to do with it. What then?
I could probably get talked into believing the generally less equal American society could be at fault, but I'm probably gonna be shouted down by Americans telling me how Europe sucks more and how comparably worse France and Britain integrate their minorities.

But if guns aren't to blame and America is the bestest country in the world, what other reason can there be for the fact that the U.S. sports more homicides than anyone else?
To me, the next best candidate for an explanation would be the "mentality" of the people.

Maybe calling them "nutjobs" is a little (cough) incendiary, but maybe it's just the attitude manifested in this threat.
Having guns, believing in guns, glorifying guns. Maybe that kind of gun-culture just breeds more, pardon me, NUTJOBS.

As a living, breathing American, I can tell you that there is no glorifying guns culture. The only Americans that I can think of ever said guns were the best things ever were the trouble making schoolmates I had back in grade-school. While I can't speak for the rest of the USA, I can guarantee you that only the bottom .000001% (# pulled out of ass, I'm too lazy to actually look at population #'s.) actually think guns are a "great" thing, if even that much. Of course I understand that a lot of video games (especially fps) have stemmed from America, but that's because there are simply guns in WAR. While war isn't really "enjoyable", my TF2 is. Good day sir. (Damn I hope I didn't type this to get flamed at for having something that wasn't "anywhere near what I'm talking about". Dammit! I jinxed myself, Doh!) /wasted time

 

[Hitokiri_Gensai]

Absolutely justified. You cant break into someones house with the intent to do harm to them without paying the price.

Thank God for states with Stand Your Ground or Castle Laws. You should always have the right to defend your life.

 

[William Whyte]

Pretty sure they broke into her house CARRYING KNIVES. That rarely is a sign that they"re there to do nice things.

Main point: Don't threaten a mother's baby. She will fuck you up. Fact.

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

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?

None, preferably. Perhaps not a particularly realistic view, I wouldn't know I've never been in the situation, but I question whether there was no way out of it other than killing the assailant.

So it was excessive force because you want to believe that there was another option? No, that's not particularly realistic. I think everyone wishes their was a way to solve every issue without violence, but that's not the case. If that woman had refused to use force in the hope that it wasn't necessary, she would have been gambling with her and her child's lives.

I don't "want" to believe that, I simply question the alternative.

 

[Dastardly]

What country are you from because I'm surprise that you guys even have a police force. The amount of lawsuits will be staggering. It would put anybody out of business.

No because here in Canada when you call the cops they actually come instead of sitting on their asses doing nothing.

Talk to some folks living out in the Yukon about what police response time can be. The police aren't omnipresent. And more than a few police forces are understaffed due to severe budget cuts at the moment, so each officer has a lot of ground to cover.

Canada doesn't have magical police. Everyone is subject to laws of time and space.

 

[Dastardly]

My logic is: #1 gun ownership rate in the western world correlates nicely with #1 homicides per capita.
It also seems to defeat the argument that guns provide safety.
Yeah, numbers and stuff.

Right. Numbers. They often make for awful storytellers, being isolated data points. We often have to create the story ourselves by considering the methodology and the context surrounding these numbers.

You can point to Switzerland, a tiny country with not quite 8 million ethnically homogenous people and a centuries-old history of peace, defensive pacifism and non-aggression. Is that a good indicator how a 300+ million behemoth of a country with America's diversity is going to behave with a similar premise?

You say, nope, the number of weapons has nothing to do with it. What then?
I could probably get talked into believing the generally less equal American society could be at fault, but I'm probably gonna be shouted down by Americans telling me how Europe sucks more and how comparably worse France and Britain integrate their minorities.

I appreciate that you're considering this issue... but I think you're still drastically underestimating its impact.

America is unique in the sheer number of different races, cultures, sexual orientations, religious ideologies, economic status, and everything else represented in our population. A lot of our homicides take place in urban areas -- that means tightly-packed populations of very different people. Any nation with a mix like that is going to see more murder, guns or not.

But if guns aren't to blame and America is the bestest country in the world, what other reason can there be for the fact that the U.S. sports more homicides than anyone else?
To me, the next best candidate for an explanation would be the "mentality" of the people.

And it's an invalid conclusion. Nothing supports that, except for personal beliefs and biases that you're interpolating with the numbers your listing. You're taking the numbers and filling in the story you want to hear -- that America just chock-full of gun-crazy nutjobs.

Having guns, believing in guns, glorifying guns. Maybe that kind of gun-culture just breeds more, pardon me, NUTJOBS.

Gun-culture is a myth. We have a culture, and we have guns. They are wholly separate. I mean, what does "believing in guns" mean? They exist. No need to "believe" it. They're out there. And America was founded after the invention of the gun, so they were here already when we got the ball rolling. Also, being so geographically widespread, with so many European interests warring, and our conflicts with the Native tribes, we needed to keep them to defend ourselves.

Once the genie is out of the bottle, it's a lot harder to put it back in. We did not found the kind of country in which the government can roll up to your door and demand that you surrender the means to protect yourself -- including from them. While that may not in itself represent a tyranny, it creates fertile soil in which tyranny can grow. All any would-be tyrant needs is a population that can't fight back.

Our love isn't for guns. It's for rights and freedoms. We rightly and freely believe that your average law-abiding person can responsibly handle gun ownership. And those who use guns to commit crimes already do not respect the law, so outlawing guns would do nothing in this country but disarm the victims (who, in our system, are innocent until proven guilty).

If I'm shot dead in my home because I could not defend myself, it doesn't matter how harsh the punishment is for the guy that shot me. For one, most criminals aren't known for thinking ahead to the consequences of their actions (Traditionally, they don't expect to get caught). For two, I'm still dead. And I don't want to be.

Again, it's not the guns we love. It's the idea that we, as law-abiding citizens, have a government that trusts us until we prove ourselves unworthy... rather than assuming the worst from every individual at all times. Guns are simply one of the subjects of that, but certainly not the only one.

Connection to gaming:

How do you feel about restrictive DRM? A common belief is that pirates get around it anyway, so it only manages to insult, inconvenience, and alienate the paying customers. Same thing, different issue.

 

[Nielas]

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?

None, preferably. Perhaps not a particularly realistic view, I wouldn't know I've never been in the situation, but I question whether there was no way out of it other than killing the assailant.

So it was excessive force because you want to believe that there was another option? No, that's not particularly realistic. I think everyone wishes their was a way to solve every issue without violence, but that's not the case. If that woman had refused to use force in the hope that it wasn't necessary, she would have been gambling with her and her child's lives.

I don't "want" to believe that, I simply question the alternative.

There were an infinite number of alternative options. The question is what are the most likely outcome of those options. If the likely outcome of making a different choice is worse than the outcome of the choice that was made than it is hard to question the validity of the actual action taken.

The best outcome in this situation would have been that nobody died or was hurt. However, given the situation at hand there was a very low probability of that happening and a very high probability that attempting to achieve this would have resulted in the worst outcome: the woman and her baby being killed. The woman chose not to gamble with her and the baby's lives and instead chose the outcome where they live but the criminal might die.

 

[Stu35]

I don't "want" to believe that, I simply question the alternative.

There are several.

All of which involve giving the assailants exactly what they want.

This could have been:

To Kill the occupant of the house
To Rape the occupant of the house
To Rob the occupant of the house
To Rape, then Kill the occupant of the house
To Rape, Kill and Rob the occupant of the house


... and so on, and so on.

In any case, I would say that, of all the options available, killing the intruders was more than justified.

Then again, I'm a British Army Soldier - I know that one has every legal right to utilise lethal force in the protection of human life.

In America it's a bit different, they're allowed to use lethal force in the defence of property as well (to a certain extent).


...

Above all, it genuinely worries me how many people in this thread seem to think that they'd be calm, controlled, and ninja-like in their application of "alternative options" with two blokes kicking the door down...

Personally, my fight-or-flight response would kick in and everything after that would be out of my hands (figuratively).

 

[chadachada123]

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?

None, preferably. Perhaps not a particularly realistic view, I wouldn't know I've never been in the situation, but I question whether there was no way out of it other than killing the assailant.

The problem is that, even if there was a way out that was non-violent, unless it is immediately accessible and obvious, a normal person wouldn't go that route, and shouldn't be held to the standard that a trained professional is. Additionally, if the non-violent or less-violent route would put the homeowner, the innocent person, at greater risk, we shouldn't expect the lay-person to pick that option over the safest option (shooting the intruder), because, again, the lay-person is not a trained professional whose job it is to confront danger at personal risk.

 

[jdun]

What country are you from because I'm surprise that you guys even have a police force. The amount of lawsuits will be staggering. It would put anybody out of business.

No because here in Canada when you call the cops they actually come instead of sitting on their asses doing nothing.

Then you're wrong since Canada still have a police force. As far as I know you can't successfully sue cops for failure to protect in Canada. You can try and waste a lot of money doing tho.

 

[jdun]

Don't post what you do not understand. If you can survive a gun shot wound at 2m away then some rubber bullet won't even phase you. If you go to any firearm schools and said what you just posted they will think you're a liberal moron.



Here learn something useful:
https://www.google.com/search?q=miami+shootout&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a

http://www.lawofficer.com/article/training/officer-down-peter-soulis-inci

lol handguns are poor man stoppers, shot placement is the only way to go. Also, it was .40 Short & Weak, real men fire 10mm Auto

You're the one who doesn't actually understand what you are talking about.


Gunshot wounds are PENETRATING wounds, while less than lethal weapons cause BLUNT FORCE TRAUMA.

Two different aspects, I asked you proof of less than lethal weapons not being able to kill (Hint: people have been killed by less than lethal ammo) and you send me proof of people surviving handgun gunshot wounds. Cool story, bro.

They are expected to produce contusions, abrasions, and hematomas.[6] However, they may cause bone fractures, injuries to internal organs, or death. In a study of 90 patients in Northern Ireland, one died, 17 suffered permanent disabilities or deformities and 41 required hospital treatment after being fired upon with rubber bullets.[7]

The rubber bullet has been portrayed as a non-lethal weapon and has gained preference in riot-control over live ammunition. Despite the fact that it was designed to be safer than live ammunition, several cases of fatalities have been reported from its use. Most of these fatalities were because of abuse of the weapon in terms of range of fire and anatomical area of the body targeted. This is a case report of such a fatality following shotgun rubber bullet injury, including the circumstance surrounding this unusual occurrence, the autopsy findings and reports of the ballistic analysis. Four projectiles penetrated the right chest lodging in the right lung and injuring the right pulmonary artery, causing death. The mechanism of death in this case is rapid massive pulmonary haemorrhage.

Plastic bullets, developed to be less lethal than rubber

Most of the deaths were allegedly[12][13][14] caused by the British security services misusing the weapon, firing at close range and at chest or head level

Deadly.

Now this is the part I dare you to put your money where your mouth is, and dare you to hypothetically take a rubber slug into the chest from 2m away.

Do you think you'll live to tell the story?

Lets use logic. That means everybody that wear bullet proof vest will die of BLUNT FORCE TRAUMA BECAUSE THE BLUNT TRAUMA FROM A REAL BULLET IS GREATER THAN A RUBBER BULLET. That means a lot of dead cops and military people that wear armor. In fact why used body armor if the blunt trauma can kill you?

If you haven't look at the videos I posted, you should because the Ninja and Samurai guy got hit by a ton of rubber and beanbag bullets without phasing them.

 

[Shraggler]

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.

They are used to TV, movies and video games where adrenaline and the fight-or-flight reflex pretty much don't exist.

or police shooting a kid with a pellet gun three times is excessive,

Because of the above and also because they did not know that the pellet gun the kid had painted to look like a real gun was not a real gun.

The kid aimed a pellet gun he had painted to look like a real gun at cops, who then defended themselves and the children at that school.

See, we know it was a pellet gun NOW.

Those cops?

All they saw was a kid with a gun in a school.

so was this justified in your eyes?

Completely.

Also agree here.

What bothers me is this mentality espoused by people who lack a certain amount of logical reasoning and propagated by people with the same "rationale." As I'm finding, it's actually a large part of the population.

I'm disturbed simply by people who say "human life is precious" or "sacred" because, most of the time, they're speaking as if it's a universal law as opposed to subjective opinion. There is no intrinsic, objective value on life, let alone human life. Life is valuable to whom it belongs, but to say human life is more important than anything else is arrogant and ignorant. People die all of the time. People also die in the most pathetic ways possible. I heard on the radio when coming into work today that some-odd thousands of people die each year (in my state) from "prescription drugs" - not "prescription drug abuse", just "prescription drugs." Why the fuck should I care? Sure, it's terrible for them that they died, but it has virtually no impact on me, besides making it harder to obtain an effective prescription because people refuse to take responsibility for their actions. People die all of the time. Why should I care when it has something to do with a decision they made?

People throw their lives away for the dumbest reasons. On the other side, life is frequently taken away by nature before someone has a chance to "live" - just go to a children's hospital and see how "objective" the sanctity of life is.

Regarding the OP, the woman was totally justified. The police officer she was speaking with on the phone said as much. THE POLICE OFFICER SHE WAS SPEAKING WITH ON THE PHONE! That is going over the top in my opinion. She took the time, potentially risking both of their lives, to find out if she could legally shoot an intruder. That's how fucked up this country is - you're so afraid of the punishment for defending yourself that you won't defend yourself unless given permission by the State. That stinks to high heaven of the purest bullshit.

If someone is breaking into your house/car/property, you should have complete rights to take care of the situation any way you see fit - within reason. But being held "criminally" accountable for the assault and death of someone breaking into your house is just completely ridiculous. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a total moron - either completely sheltered or completely ignorant.

I'm tired of this nanny state, bullshit mentality that pushes everyone to rely on the system to resolve everything. "Just call the cops" as if they're some magical, superhero force that resolves all conflict. If recent local news and YouTube videos posted by citizens, police have shown themselves to be less trustworthy and reliable than they want us to believe. The cops in this state seemed to be more concerned with bringing in state revenue (via tickets and infractions) than they do actually protecting the populace. Yes I know, generalizing based on a few incidents is terrible - unfortunately, locally, it's not "a few" incidents. How about people learn some "self reliance"?

Also, what is with this "if there was no other way possible, if the houseowner knew 100% that the assailant had murderous intent and was armed with an equivalent weapon, then it's justified to shoot them - any other option is not" mindset/opinion?

Are you serious? You want me, and everyone else, to ascertain the threat in my own home, get to know the intruder, do a complete history to see if mental illness or depression could be an issue (because everyone deserves compassion, right?), visually and electronically (and psychically... gotta keep all our options open, right? Have to be 100% sure...!) determining if they have any weapons on them before taking absolutely any action what-so-ever? The amount of stupid it would take for someone to completely believe that as a viable rationale is depressingly large. It's plain ignorant that they can't even imagine being in that woman's position.

With adrenaline running through your system and your mind racing, you're trying to determine what the person at your door in the middle of the night is doing there, how long you have until they get inside, how long then it takes them to notice you, what you should be doing now to prevent that, what you should be doing to eliminate the threat, and what tools you can use to accomplish that. You're not thinking "I wonder if his father abused him as a child, or if he even had a father... poor soul..." with a slow, rhythmic heartbeat, a calm demeanor, and arms open to embrace the troubled stranger.

Tl;dr - Human life has no inherent, objective sanctity. Eliminate the threat before it eliminates you. Get off your high-horse and trust your instincts.

 

[mega48man]

intruders breaks into home with clear intent to kill (or possibly more/worse, intruders forget about every american's 2nd amendment right to bear arms, intruder gets shot and dies ha ha take that criminal scum....yep, no argument, there shouldn't be one.

although i find it very interesting that these intruders attack this widow who only a week before the attack lost her husband. that poor child to, caught up in the middle of that. i'm glad that mom used her tender, and sometimes vicious, motherly instinct to kill anything that got close to that baby.

 

[FarleShadow]

If someone is breaking into your house/car/property, you should have complete rights to take care of the situation any way you see fit - within reason. But being held "criminally" accountable for the assault and death of someone breaking into your house is just completely ridiculous. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a total moron - either completely sheltered or completely ignorant.

I disagree with this view point, but only in a minor way and I'll use the breaking into my house as an example.

If someone breaks into my house, I cock my shotgun at them and warn them, they flee and then I shoot them knowing they're fleeing, that's not defense, that's manslaughter. (Or, in more legalese, if they broke in, but then got outside my property and I fire, that's an offense)

If someone breaks into my house (Like the original story) then, even when they realise I'm there, still come after me, they deserve whatever I can throw at them to stop them.