Oklahoma mom shoots and kills intruder

[KaiusCormere]

Mind if I have your address? Seeing as how you're against self-defense of any kind I figured I may as well try stealing some stuff from your house. Don't worry though, I'm not gonna harm you or threaten you in anyway so it's totally okay by your logic right?

Why are you talking about self-defense here? The topic was committing murder with firearms if someone wants to steal something. That has nothing to do with self-defense.

There seems to be a small collection of posters on this site who are either exceptional trolls, or honestly believe that it would be better for that mother and her child to have been left lying in pools of their own blood, satisfied in the knowledge that even though they were dying, they were "morally right".

Speaking of trolling, pretending that if you can't murder anyone who dares tread on your land equals being helpless, is a good trolling attempt.

Not to mention the irony of accusing that people who oppose murder would allow it, while it's the pro-violence gun lobby that promotes murder as being justified and legal.

The fact remains that if the woman followed your principles she would have been raped or killed.

She wouldn't have had a gun with which to threaten the attackers, who would have broken in and had their way with her.

 

[Zethrax]

As the story was described there all I can say is that it's a shame she didn't shoot both of them. I'm not a great fan of guns normally, but in this situation things could have gone horribly for the woman if she didn't have the gun at hand.

 

[anthony87]

Mind if I have your address? Seeing as how you're against self-defense of any kind I figured I may as well try stealing some stuff from your house. Don't worry though, I'm not gonna harm you or threaten you in anyway so it's totally okay by your logic right?

Why are you talking about self-defense here? The topic was committing murder with firearms if someone wants to steal something. That has nothing to do with self-defense.

There seems to be a small collection of posters on this site who are either exceptional trolls, or honestly believe that it would be better for that mother and her child to have been left lying in pools of their own blood, satisfied in the knowledge that even though they were dying, they were "morally right".

Speaking of trolling, pretending that if you can't murder anyone who dares tread on your land equals being helpless, is a good trolling attempt.

Not to mention the irony of accusing that people who oppose murder would allow it, while it's the pro-violence gun lobby that promotes murder as being justified and legal.

Yeah...I think I'm gonna break this out for you:

This has EVEERYTHING to do with self-defense. In that she was DEFENDING herSELF nd her child from two armed men who entered her home by force and then tried to enter the room she had locked herself in.

 

[Agayek]

It is possible that this would have happened, yes. However, by allowing every American to own a gun, and by allowing every American to shoot to kill whenever something like this happens, the chance of someone dying is way, way bigger than it is otherwise. Maybe the ratio dead criminal/dead victim will change a bit in the victim's favor, but apply this on a national scale and it will an enormous increase in deaths. And only a very small part of that group would have been given the death penalty (not to mention that they would have deserved a trial of course).

Ah well, as a non-American I can accept the fact that gun-ownership is such a big deal in the U.S., especially when taking the whole culture in consideration, but anecdotes should never be the basis for any kind or large-scale decisions, really.

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.

 

[thahat]

She should be happy she lives in a country that allowed her to properly defend both herself and her child.

It doesn't get any more cut-and-dry than this. The other cases you mentioned are controversial due to the gray areas they cover.

agreed. wish we in the netherlands were allowed to defend ourselves XD we cant have firears or arms of any kind actualy. which sucks since the criminals can get them anyway from eastern europa XD

 

[Leninv3l]

Good on her. To many people these days wouldn't take action like this. People like this are helping to rid the population from such people, which is a good thing in my mind. It's better to have this happen, then just have him face minimal charges and get out just to do the same thing all over again.

 

[Idlemessiah]

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.

 

[Helloo]

There seems to be a small collection of posters on this site who are either exceptional trolls, or honestly believe that it would be better for that mother and her child to have been left lying in pools of their own blood, satisfied in the knowledge that even though they were dying, they were "morally right".

It's easy for anyone to give their opinion from the comfort of their own home without ever being in such an extraordinary situation.

All I know is that it is a dangerous thing to come between a mother and her baby. For her, it wasn't a case of being morally right or wrong; it was a case of her baby's safety. And that's what she did, protect her baby.

Personally, if I was in the same situation, I would have reacted the same way.

All I want to know is why was she on the phone for 20 minutes to the police and they couldn't arrive within that time?

Here in England, in such extreme circumstances, the police will be at the scene within 2/3 minutes.

 

[FamoFunk]

Justified. I wish I was allowed to defend myself in my own home with my baby. Sadly, I'd be the one locked up.

 

[Saltyk]

Mind if I have your address? Seeing as how you're against self-defense of any kind I figured I may as well try stealing some stuff from your house. Don't worry though, I'm not gonna harm you or threaten you in anyway so it's totally okay by your logic right?

Why are you talking about self-defense here? The topic was committing murder with firearms if someone wants to steal something. That has nothing to do with self-defense.

There seems to be a small collection of posters on this site who are either exceptional trolls, or honestly believe that it would be better for that mother and her child to have been left lying in pools of their own blood, satisfied in the knowledge that even though they were dying, they were "morally right".

Speaking of trolling, pretending that if you can't murder anyone who dares tread on your land equals being helpless, is a good trolling attempt.

Not to mention the irony of accusing that people who oppose murder would allow it, while it's the pro-violence gun lobby that promotes murder as being justified and legal.

You are such a troll...
But, in the event you are actually serious:

STOP CALLING IT MURDER! We are not talking about your perfect ideal world where all people are innocent little babies, which she was incidentally actually protecting, we're talking about a woman who shot and killed an intruder who had entered her home illegally with ill intent. You do not know what that man's intent was. No one does, but that man. But there are a few facts that you conveniently gloss over.

These men were in her house while she was there. This is a dangerous situation. A criminal who is willing to enter your home while you are there, wants a confrontation, or, at least, isn't afraid of a confrontation. If they didn't want her to be there, they could have simply waited for her to leave for the grocery store, or her mothers house, or work, or wherever she might go. You said they just wanted her dead husband's medicine that she didn't need, but if that were true, they could have just waited. And before you rush to their defense claiming that they were junkies and junkies do desperate things to get high, that would only make this matter more dangerous.

At least one of the men had a knife. Now, I took a few years of martial arts and one thing I was taught is that if someone brandishes a knife, they are trying to kill you. There can be no other assumption on your part if you want to live. And in the event that someone is trying to kill you, you have the right to meet that with deadly force. To not do so, is practically suicide. And even if no one had a knife, as I already stated, they had entered her home fully aware that she was there. This implies that they were not afraid to get violent. So, the point still stands. Especially since it puts her baby in danger either way.

They went after her in a locked bathroom. No matter how long they were there, they were willing to go after the woman in a locked bathroom. This is a confrontation. You know that thing that I was talking about this whole time. And considering that the door was locked, it obviously involved breaking the door down in a violent fashion. Seriously, what else is there to say? This action speaks for itself. They literally had to go out of their way to do this. At the very least, he wasn't afraid to violently enter the same, very small, room with her.

You do not know their intent. Just because there is plenty of reason to believe that they were after something else, like her dead husband's cancer medicine, doesn't mean that was the only thing they were after. The fact that they were willing to break in while she was there implies that they were after more. Most likely her. I'll let you use your imagination for what that could mean, as I would rather not go there right now. But there are very good chances that they would kill her. Dead people aren't great witnesses, after all. And even if they just wanted her dead husband's cancer medicine, and this might shock you, it wasn't theirs to take. They have no right to it. They most certainly do not have the right to break in to a widow's house and steal it. They have no excuse. Whatsoever. Defending them is disgusting.

I seriously hope you never find yourself in a similar situation. Odds are you won't make it out in one piece. But, you never answered my, or anyone's, question about what you would have done? Seriously, what would you have done? Would you help them load your things into their car? Because, so far, that seems to be what you are advocating.

Now, I have no illusions that I can convince you that you are wrong. But I don't want anyone else thinking that you might have a point. No one can question this woman's actions. She did the right thing. She protected herself and her baby. There is no question about that. She is a hero. She deserves our praise. Not your, or any other self-appointed moral crusader's, commendation. Funny enough, I have found that even anti-gun groups don't have a tendency to condemn people for this kind of action nearly as strongly as you are. You're pretty extreme in your hate.

Interesting fact: I don't even own a gun. I have the right, but I don't exercise that right. But I'm not afraid of guns. I'm not afraid of the people with guns. I'm only afraid of the criminals with guns. And, even then, not too much. It doesn't keep me up at night.

 

[orangeban]

Warining! The following argument may sound like I stepped out of a time machine straight out of the "wild west." Do not be alarmed. This is to be expected since I live in an area where we still follow the code of law of the "wild west."

We know return to "In favor of the Death penalty."

*puts on stereotypical sheriff outfit, grows beard, and starts speaking in a drawl*

First off, let me start by saying I think that there have been more than a few times where innocents have been killed following death penalty. I think the death penalty should only be used if you are 100% sure they are guilty of a most henios crime. If it is 99.99999999%, they shall be spared until it hits 100%.

Now, as for the morality of it, there is no morality. If you kill or try to kill someone in cold blood, you *deserve* to swing from the tallest oak tree in town with a sign under you: "You have been warned, criminals." Plus, as it is written in the constitution of this great nation, Treason is the ONLY crime with will ALWAYS carry a death penalty.

As a proponent of the death penalty, I've considered that very logical point before. The problem is that if you're willing to deprive someone of all of their liberties being 99% sure, why not take that last step?

Also, isn't that a self defeating argument? The means by which people are not convicted of a crime is based upon the "reasonable doubt" standard. If even the prosecutor is not so confident of the proof of the crime that they should be killed, why should we believe their case is so strong as to be good enough to "just" jail them? Is not the proof of the prosecutors lack of conviction strong enough proof of the defendants innocence? Even if there's no physical evidence to support the idea, it will inevitably screw with the minds of the jurors and the defense attorney would certainly hammer that point home.

We need to go back to the founding principles of the judiciary. "It is better that 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent go to prison." That, in and of itself, makes the death penalty viable and if it were adhered to, we wouldn't have to worry about the wrong people going to the chair.

I stand by you, though. String 'em up.

You can never be sure, as long as there is the death penalty, innocent people will die, it's an unavoidable fact.

 

[Saltyk]

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.

I assume that you mean you hate the justice system in your country.

But yeah, that is one of the things I don't get about the UK. I once heard of a woman who was washing dishes when she saw some teenagers jump her fence and stand in her back yard. She knocked on the window with a knife and they ran off. She called the police to tell them about the situation and they warned her that they could actually take her in because she threatened them with a knife. They didn't, though.

I gotta know. Is this possible? Or was someone making it up?

 

[BaronUberstein]

Perfectly justified, and I commend her on thinking clearly enough during a crisis situation to be able to discuss the situation with the police.

 

[Idlemessiah]

snip

I'm really not making this up.

Heres the wikipedia page for Tony Martin. He actually doesn't live far from me but this case was all over the news for like, 2 years and the trial went on for ages. Basically he's this old farmer, lives in a run down cottage, bunch of teenagers break in, the bloke gets jumpy cause he'd had vandals break in before and blows off with a shotgun, killing one and wounding another. It sparked off a huge nationwide debate on the limits you should be allowed to go to to defend your property.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_%28farmer%29

 

[Jfswift]

I wouldnt have asked 911 for permission if it was my house. I think her actions were justified.

 

[iRevanchist]

of course it was justified, i would've done the same. she was just lucky to have had a gun.

 

[ElPatron]

It says nothing about threatening in the story. It only says they apparently had a knife, and broke an entry. All the rest, you're merely assuming.

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

Breaking into private property armed is highly threatening.

Breaking into a house, armed, and breaking into the bathroom is horror movie threatening.

For all you know she was right behind the door and pulled the trigger the moment she saw someone. Breaking into a locked bathroom to find the occupant makes a ton of sense if you knew there was a lot of cash or valuables in a house, but have been unable to find them.

For all you know, you can't prove your supposition. It does not make sense to follow an occupant because it means that they have isolated themselves and can't pose a threat to you.

Threat level is zero. All the burglars would want, is where to find something worth stealing. Tell them, and they go away.

Well, other sources mention that she warned them she had a gun.

It's her fault they did not believe in them?

It's hear fault criminals can't find anything wroth stealing? No. She and her children were facing immediate danger.

You are defending the rights of burglars! Listen to yourself: you're defending that burglars have the right to walk into your home while you have the duty to flee the situation and let them have anything they want.

Or even enter the room you are locked in and kill you, because you don't believe that you should shoot someone who is armed and dangerous.

If someone breaks into your home and you're armed, you shoot to kill.

Gosh, I hope the neighbours daughter never walks into your kitchen to ask for sweets... With such a pro-violent attitude, disasters would happen.[/quote]

Do your neighbours force their entry into your house, knife in hand?

And nice usage of the "children" argument. Anyone who is trying to "defend" his house will not attack a child for fear of hitting one of their own.

Oh, and you do realise that if this is known about you, all you succeed in is drawing more violence towards yourself? Burglars will still enter your house at the same rate they do with others, except they do so with weapons drawn and safeties off in case of your house, because for them, seeing you awake or present is a life or death situation.

Burglars are not SWAT operatives. In close quarters and with the plant of the house in your mind, you have a huge advantage.

And do you think burglars are going to risk going head to head in a shootout? One thing is killing the opposite gang, other is trying to kill someone who might have been in the military/law enforcement, or who might have just trained a lot with his gun.

If they don't kill you to defend themselves, you will murder them for trying to steal something.

If you're in someone's house after breaking in, you have no "stand your ground" rights.

The only way you'll get off the hook is by proving you were invited in/lured into the house, and that you had a reason to use lethal force.

Try to explain a judge that you broke into a house and tried to "defend" yourself from someone who was just following the law.

It will be the chair or "25 to life", depending where you live.