Oklahoma mom shoots and kills intruder

[Black Arrow Officer]

What about the store clerks who kill armed robbers and end up arrested? That happened at a sporting goods store in my town. A store clerk grabbed a baseball bat, snuck behind a robber armed with a handgun (with no bullets) and killed him with 2 swings to the head. The prosecutors said that the robber only brought the gun to threaten people and had no intention on harming anyone. That's bullshit. Cops can legally kill people armed with pellet guns because they can't differentiate between fake guns and real ones, but people can get arrested because someone had a gun with no bullets? A gun is a gun, and the clerk had no way of telling that it didn't have bullets. I doubt he would've cared. The case was dropped, but the fact that the case even appeared in a court makes me sick. Yeah, this lady is justified.

 

[jdun]

What about the store clerks who kill armed robbers and end up arrested? That happened at a sporting goods store in my town. A store clerk grabbed a baseball bat, snuck behind a robber armed with a handgun (with no bullets) and killed him with 2 swings to the head. The prosecutors said that the robber only brought the gun to threaten people and had no intention on harming anyone. That's bullshit. Cops can legally kill people armed with pellet guns because they can't differentiate between fake guns and real ones, but people can get arrested because someone had a gun with no bullets? A gun is a gun, and the clerk had no way of telling that it didn't have bullets. I doubt he would've cared. The case was dropped, but the fact that the case even appeared in a court makes me sick. Yeah, this lady is justified.

That's why laws are needed to stop liberal bleeding prosecutors from trying to convict victims. Liberals loves to criminalize victims and victimize criminals.

 

[Fusioncode9]

Though I think it was justified, she should have taken a non lethal shot. Maybe hit the intruder in the leg or arm.

 

[conflictofinterests]

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.

I think this might have ended up being a little more than just a "robbed" widow. I think, seeing as they had a knife and kicked down the fucking door to the room she was hiding in, that they intended her and her child bodily harm. There are a lot of things one can do with a knife, not to mention murder, and guns are the great equalizer. Unless you suggest everyone take self-defense lessons, especially those people (like women) who posses less physical strength, and therefore must rely on superior technique to succeed in non-gun combat, I don't see how she would have gotten out of there with her life (considering witnesses are pretty damning evidence, and you did just kick down a door to where a couple of them were attempting to hide from you) without a gun. Personally, I don't support loose gun restrictions, but this case does pose pretty strong evidence for the capacity for civilians to own them (hopefully with a license rather like that for driving, except with a psychological portion, and if you fail, you have to not own guns)

 

[conflictofinterests]

Though I think it was justified, she should have taken a non lethal shot. Maybe hit the intruder in the leg or arm.

I'm pretty sure with a shotgun at that distance there's no such thing as non-lethal.

 

[EclipseoftheDarkSun]

As far as human rights are concerned, yes everyone has them as a default, but if you start threatening/depriving others of their human rights, you're putting your own at risk. It's the whole principle behind jail. You stole or murdered or a range of other unsocial activities, putting other's lives/health at risk, so you get deprived of your right to walk around freely and do pretty much what you want, for a period of time that should be proportional to how much you impinged on other's human rights.

And she did the right thing - it's not like she could have known exactly they had in mind and whether it might have escalated from there. Same principle as that bullied kid who killed in self defence, when there was a small mob against him, led by the bully.

 

[PlasticTree]

I think this might have ended up being a little more than just a "robbed" widow. I think, seeing as they had a knife and kicked down the fucking door to the room she was hiding in, that they intended her and her child bodily harm. There are a lot of things one can do with a knife, not to mention murder, and guns are the great equalizer. Unless you suggest everyone take self-defense lessons, especially those people (like women) who posses less physical strength, and therefore must rely on superior technique to succeed in non-gun combat, I don't see how she would have gotten out of there with her life (considering witnesses are pretty damning evidence, and you did just kick down a door to where a couple of them were attempting to hide from you) without a gun. Personally, I don't support loose gun restrictions, but this case does pose pretty strong evidence for the capacity for civilians to own them (hopefully with a license rather like that for driving, except with a psychological portion, and if you fail, you have to not own guns)

Hi, thanks for your thoughts. I'm sorry though, but I think about 3, 4 different people told me te same thing, and I reacted to all of them, so my enthusiasm about responding with actual arguments as withered a bit. Anyway, if you are interested in why I don't think this is good evidence for such a stance on gun-ownership, please read my other posts. I'll gladly respond if you still have some arguments after that.

 

[BrassButtons]

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.

Well when your questioning leads to some reason to think there was an alternative, let me know.

 

[msmitty]

In rural areas there is a high percentage of gun ownership but i bet stats would show violent crime overall is very low. I think she did what she had to do, but i am not sure the news is reporting this story correctly. they seem to be creating more myth than is necessary. Some reports have it happening at night but it apparently happened at 2 pm in the light of day. and if you listen to the 911 call only one man was trying to get in. she never mentions the second man. in the second man's 911 call and in his statement he said he never approached the house and stood near the fence..whereever that was...and the latest info was the police claim the response time was 16 minutes..still way too long...and there is confusion over the stalking claim..in some reports the victim claims she did not know him but had seen him around town about three times...mother brings up a rodeo stalking incident 2 years ago...and some other claims that he stalked her since her husband died (1 week) and another since her husband got sick...i think the confusion is being created by the press. I will say, if were me, I would have done everything she did, but i would have yelled that i had police coming and a shotgun...she definitely is not required to do so...but she did a good thing pushing that couch over...would definitely give her a few seconds longer to shoot...but once that door flew open, you never know what will happen. the 911 dispatcher asked if she could set off a car alarm..another thing to think about...but i really don't think he knew she was there..he was a drug addict looking for drugs. which there is more to be explained about what happened to her husbands drugs..she made claims that someone had been coming into her house and pills were turning up missing, but police found no pills....maybe when this other punk comes up for trial we will learn everything.

 

[msmitty]

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.

Well when your questioning leads to some reason to think there was an alternative, let me know.

I think you also have to consider she had her baby there. If you are guarding an infant, its not like you can run out the back door across a field...you are forced to stand your ground. i suggested i might have yelled after calling 911 but given that infant, it might make hiding and staying quiet the more logical option..especially since i am sure in her fear she was not thinking all that clearly. hindsight is 20/20.

 

[KiKiweaky]

Shhiiiit thats nuts, glad she had the stones to go through with it. If she didnt this story could be a hell of a lot worse.

 

[Steinar Valsson]

Completely justified. If she had ran after the other and shot him, then... not so much. But this is as clear cut as it can be with self defense.

 

[ElPatron]

Lets use logic.

Let's do it.

Shoot yourself with rubber ammo. If you are so convinced that it is not deadly, then it is logic that you should be safe.

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.

First, never said blunt force trauma was "quantitatively" worse than penetrating trauma.

Second, a bullet proof vest noes not carry 100% of the energy of the bullet. It will dissipate, that's why we use composite materials.

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?

You said that yourself. I never brought up body armor.

But you have the chance of breaking ribs after taking a shot, yes. Depends on the type of ammo, the angle, the actual vest/trauma plate.

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.

First, many shots were taken from a distance, not close range.

Second, thick clothing.

Third, in one of the videos he was getting hit by paintballs with irritating composition.

Fourth, police officers are not exactly untrained with those weapons.

If you are advocating the use of less than lethal means to stop assailants, bear in mind that the lack of will to kill an intruder will mean that you never thought you were in danger in the first place, making the shooting unjustified.

Not to mention that if the point is not to kill, you might kill a human with a less than lethal weapon, making it irrelevant for self-defence anyway.

 

[Arizona Kyle]

If they had no intention of hurting her why would they break the door down..... They deserved a shot

 

[Caligulove]

Killed another human being. It's never a black and white issue.

Not to mention the woman sounds like shes emotionally compromised, so soon after the death of a beloved one. At the very least, she should be seeking (or possibly partake under court order) some sort of counselling or psychological help.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Though I wouldn't judge another human being for doing what they see necessary, I am saddened by the attitude a great majority of posters have taken on. A life has been lost. Regardless of circumstance, celebrating, touting, or otherwise congratulating the killing of a human being--however misguided they may have been in their life or final actions--is never the best course of action.

Here's hoping these horrible events can be overcome by all involved, including the mother and her child, and the family and friends of the passed, who must now bury their loved one.

 

[Arizona Kyle]

A store clerk grabbed a baseball bat, snuck behind a robber armed with a handgun (with no bullets) and killed him with 2 swings to the head.

So basically he clubbed someone to death who was lying on the floor? And you wonder why he got proscecuted?

Actually, where did that bat come from? He probably had it laying around with the intent of assaulting or murdering anyone he wants. Voila, it was premeditated murder.

If they had no intention of hurting her why would they break the door down....

Did you not read the article? Thet thought they could steal narcotics from the house.

Meaning there was no danger involved. Their intent was to steal, not hurt. If she had told there are no narcotics instead of committed murder, everyone would've gone their merry way.

But now someone has been murdered, and a dangerous murderer who will kill again if presented with a similar situation is still on the loose. Go America.

Did you not read the article

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

where does it say they were trying to steal stuff? Plus if they were trying to steal stuff they would of not tried to get at her, they would of taken the stuff and run out

Yay for reading

In what world does a thief give up if you tell them you have nothing.... That would not make everything alright they would just try to take something else, so please don't insult my country based on this, a woman defending herself from 2 men with a large hunting knife..... He was stalking her, she already felt in danger around him

.... I don't know what universe you are from but go back to it you troll

 

[msmitty]

there is no evidence that man ever stalked her, only a flimsy accusation. not sure why this woman feels the need to make that accusation. i think he thought the house was empty..the woman was whispering and strangly her dog was not barking at someone alledgedly banging on her doors. this was happening at 2 pm not in the middle of the night. the other man was not trying to break in. he was out at the fence. on the 911 tape she never mentions stalking or that the man is after her. the man was trying to steal drugs from a house he must have known drugs were. i don't know why so many lies are being told about this story by the press. i don't think the image of a big stalker after a poor little woman and her baby with a big ole knife is really what happened. when he pushed that door open, he probably saw nothing but a shotgun blast and death. what person would charge a woman with a shotgun? i think the sheriff needs to investigate this death. i am all for anyone defending themselves including use of deadly force...but since the woman has to make up lies to bolster her case, me thinks the lady doth protest too much. she claims pills have been coming up missing, and she suspected someone was sneeking into her house stealing...hmmm...why not 911 then? and where are the leftover pills? and she claimed he was stalking her, but a few nights before he apparently had to introduce himself to her if you believe that version. what stalker has to introduce themselves to their target. then the other day she said she didn't know him, only seen him around town three times...hmmm...doesn't sound like a stalker to me. come on people....stop the parades and demand answers.