Oklahoma mom shoots and kills intruder

[GistoftheFist]

I didn't see this story in the offtopic forum yet, so I figured i'd post it here.

http://news.yahoo.com/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder-911-operators-okay-091106413.html

A week after her husband dies on Christmas day, two armed intruders break into a mother's house with a knife. She is locked in her bedroom with her baby and on the phone with 911 asking permission to shoot them if they get inside. (She was on the phone with them for 21 minutes by this point) When the door is kicked open, she unloads a 12 gauge shotgun into one while the other flees.

What's your feedback on this story? In my opinion, it doesn't get anymore black and white than this. Two men trying to take advantage of a recent widow, she calls police first, shoots one defending herself and her baby. 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. I know people have a habit of badmouthing America whenever there's a story like this one, but what would you have done in this situation? Thankfully she doesn't live in a country where you can't do anything to someone breaking into your home and robbing you.

Forum members say a 15 year old stabbing an attacker 11 times is excessive, or police shooting a kid with a pellet gun three times is excessive, so was this justified in your eyes?

 

[Kevlar Eater]

Of course it was justified. I would have done the same thing if I were in the mother's shoes (though I would have been arrested solely because of my maleness).

 

[Lilani]

I think this is perfectly justified. Not much more to say, really. It was either she shoots first or her and her baby both die. I'm sure some here will argue "she didn't have to shoot AT them to scare them off," to which I would reply "If someone's coming at me with a weapon, I'm sure as hell not going to take chances by wasting my shots at the floor." Really, those guys threw out their chances of a peaceful resolution when they invaded her home with a knife.

 

[him over there]

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.

 

[Emergent System]

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.

 

[xvbones]

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.

 

[xvbones]

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.

You should go listen to the 911 dispatch call where she asked what she should do.

She feared for her life and the life of her child.

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.

You attribute yourself tremendous grace under incredible pressure, if you think this is not how you would respond.

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.

This is as cut and dry as it gets. He tried to harm her, she defended herself. That is the end of this story.

 

[Digitaldreamer7]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Muspelheim]

If I met her, I'd say "Bloody well done!" and give her a firm handshake and a big, fat basket of fruit.

She was in severe danger, and there were people threatening in her own home. She did what she had to, to defend herself and her kid. It's entirely justified, and I honestly don't think a dead burglar is a big blow to humanity... They kicked the door in, who knows what they were going to do? And taking advantage of a recent widow like that... No, I'd go as far as say that she did us a favour. She defended herself and her child when no other help were available. Justified, one hundred percent. Furthermore, she was given permission by the emergency services, the fact that she asked first really makes it justified beyond doubt. Again, she deserves a big, bloated basket of fruit.

And for the robber and his? He knew the risks when he started breaking into people's homes like that. If he hadn't, or had at least been that kind of burglar who doesn't actively endanger the persons her robs, he wouldn't be lying on a gurney with leadpellets instead of a face now. Simple.

Now, in Sweden, this sort of thing would definatly land her a punishment. Mostly because the Swedish police takes nothing more serious than their monopoly of force. The "correct" way to act, it seems, is to sit around and hope they're kind enough not to kill or rape you until they leave, and then let the police do their thing. Killing a burglar in self-defence almost certainly will land you in court on manslaughter charges, and that is messed up. There are exceptions, thankfully, but their main idea seems to be that you shouldn't resist if threatened. I mean, it's not like burglars ever hurt anyone am I right?

 

[Ziadaine_v1legacy]

I guess...

If you can't stand the heat, keep out of her kitchen.
http://mirrors.rit.edu/instantCSI/

 

[almostgold]

I guess...

If you can't stand the heat, keep out of her kitchen.
http://mirrors.rit.edu/instantCSI/

That made my day and foreseeably will increase my fun of the internet for the rest of my life.

OT: Justified. People who say differently are products of a society gone soft and complacent. Personal defense is the most basic human right.

 

[xvbones]

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.

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.

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.

I learned about this story over the internet, i followed a link that said "911 GIVES WOMAN LICENSE TO KILL".
I saw another link to it somewhere else that had a similar tone to it, '911 GIVES WOMAN GO AHEAD TO KILL' or something really similar.

And then I read the story and became extremely fucking sickened at those links for violently misrepresenting this story.

If you know this woman, please tell her some random guy on the internet said, "Way to protect your family, lady. Every ancestor you have is proud as hell of you."

 

[Berithil]

Anyone who even comes to saying the woman did the wrong thing needs a nice big reality slap across the face. Like what you said, o.p., it doesn't get anymore black and white as this. Heck, I wouldn't even ask the dispatcher for permission. It's either the recent widow or the home intruder. Anyone who is against what the woman did should just go....... Gah, I don't know!
I'm actually sad that she had to ask permission to shoot him. There should be no question about it. Unfortunately, todays society causes people to fear repercussions for doing the right thing.

 

[Dr. Pepper Unlimited]

I read about this a few days ago and she was completely justified in what she did. If I man is breaking into your house and isn't deterred by the fact that he knows you're there, then he probably won't care about hurting you or your child. She was justified in shooting him - hands down.

 

[an874]

The only thing that I think is wrong with this story is that fact that the woman felt that she needed to ask permission to defend herself. I don't want to come across as too hard line in favor of deadly force but this case is pretty black and white.

 

[Signa]

To do anything else would be totally inconsistent with cultural values, such as the placing of an inherent value to human life.

I'm shocked and appalled at this entire comment. What possible intrinsic value of life could these intruders hold? The moment you break the most basic social contracts of intending to (probably rape and) kill some one who is assumed defenseless, you don't deserve any basic considerations for your own life. EVER.

 

[JoJo]

Actually I don't think she was justified at-all.

Ha ha, just kidding.

This is about as cut-and-dry justified as you can get, one young woman having to defend her child against two armed intruders. Hope the one who didn't get shot enjoys his stay in prison ;-)

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.

I'm not a fan of killing for the sake of killing, I oppose the death penalty for example. In this case however it was a choice between her own and the baby's life and the intruder's lives. Even if the intruder's lives had inherent value, that doesn't mean that there wasn't a net gain if you consider that her life was very likely worth more than theirs and the baby's definitely was.

 

[JesterRaiin]

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.

There's this saying. It goes somewhat like this :
"If one decides to fall down, let him"

If you enter somebody's home with a knife, gun, or some other weapon, then, my friend, you're no longer the citizen. You decide to resign from your rights, you throw them away, and even if somewhere, deep inside there's still a human being, it's your problem, not the person's who defends herself, her family and her property.

 

[teqrevisited]

My point of view is that if you break into someone's house with the intent of harming the occupants or taking their possessions you deserve to get shot.

This would only have been going too far if she hunted down the one that ran away and shot him as well.