Oklahoma mom shoots and kills intruder

MaxwellEdison

New member
Sep 30, 2010
732
0
0
Blablahb said:
GistoftheFist said:
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.
Well, she murdered someone. How is it not unusual to press charges for murder?

That murder is legal in the US whenever someone walks onto your lawn is a different story, but at least that is still being regarded as 'crime untill otherwise'.


Anyway, there's a world of difference hidden in that story that Yahoo doesn't tell us. 'as they enter the home' could've been anything from opening a door while intending to try and steal a few dollars worth of stuff, to being an actual threat.

Obviously, since I have morals, I don't approve of murdering someone who wants to steal $ 10. We had the medieval ages where they did stuff like that, it didn't work. And since it's unclear if the burglars were any dangers, I can't call this justified.

But judging as the first thing the murderer did was run for firearms, and the first question to the dispatcher was if it was okay to murder that guy, I'm betting she's a gun nut who opened fire the moment they stepped inside.

That's murder, no matter how much a pro-violence gun nut wants to twist the story. Someone's not a threat by opening a door.
It's not murder. Murder is an illegal killing. No matter how much you dislike it, it is currently legal to own the weapon she owned, and use it in the way she did.
 

Valanthe

New member
Sep 24, 2009
655
0
0
My opinion on this? "It's too bad she couldn't get the other bastard as well."

Though, and I'm not sure if it's been said already,but according to the article, she was on hte phone with 911 for twenty minutes, what the hell was going on to justify that response time? You have an armed robbery in progress with a woman and child in clear and present danger, and after -twenty- minutes, no cops are around so she has to shoot one of the intruders? This is one of the very few times I hope she des sue her local PD, because that's disgraceful.
 

senordesol

New member
Oct 12, 2009
1,302
0
0
Valanthe said:
My opinion on this? "It's too bad she couldn't get the other bastard as well."

Though, and I'm not sure if it's been said already,but according to the article, she was on hte phone with 911 for twenty minutes, what the hell was going on to justify that response time? You have an armed robbery in progress with a woman and child in clear and present danger, and after -twenty- minutes, no cops are around so she has to shoot one of the intruders? This is one of the very few times I hope she des sue her local PD, because that's disgraceful.
She can't sue. The police do not have a legal obligation to rescue her, plus it took them forever to find her.
 

Double A

New member
Jul 29, 2009
2,270
0
0
PlasticTree said:
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.
And just how do you know that the robbers wouldn't have stabbed her or her child? I have a pretty strong gut feeling that says they would have.

If guns were outlawed in America, in this one particular case, two innocent people probably would have died instead of a guilty one.

On to the national level: Criminals would still have them. They'd just be breaking another law. What's it to them if they already deal drugs or murder people? And if they can get drugs, they can probably get guns, and definitely get ammo. The War on Drugs is about as effective as a wet noodle is against a charging elephant, and the only thing Prohibition did was make Al Capone rich. Banning guns would have roughly the same effect, except innocent people wouldn't be able to defend themselves as easily, and the people who do want to defend themselves would be breaking the law.
 

Sammaul

New member
Nov 25, 2009
115
0
0
I'm not going to get into a gun-argument here, but would that have happened in the Netherlands, the woman would be in her full right to shoot the intruder, but would have to face charges for possessing an illegal firearm, think that goes for most European countries.
 
Mar 25, 2010
130
0
0
RubyT said:
How does Switzland make my argument invalid? I know a guy who fell out of the 4th story window and didn't even have a scratch on him. Doesn't mean it's generally a good idea to fall out of a 4th story window.

Still, you might be right, it's not the amount of guns in America, it's the amount of nutjobs.
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.
 

Adam Galli

New member
Nov 26, 2010
700
0
0
An inturder would not have gotten that far into my house before they ate lead from my 12 guage. We have the right to bear arms and this is the reason why.
 

Imperium9990

New member
Jul 24, 2011
41
0
0
I don't know if someone mentioned this. But one of the would be robbers/killers actually confronted her during her on the day of her husbands funeral.

"Sarah McKinley says that a week earlier a man named Justin Martin dropped by on the day of her husband's funeral, claiming that he was a neighbor who wanted to say hello. The 18-year-old Oklahoma City area woman did not let him into her home that day.

On New Year's Eve Martin returned with another man, Dustin Stewart, and this time was armed with a 12-inch hunting knife. The two soon began trying to break into McKinley's home."

Source. http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder911-operators-shoot/story?id=15285605#.Tw7Xr29SSU_

Yeah.. That guy deserved death.
 

Cyrus Hanley

New member
Oct 13, 2010
403
0
0
Blablahb said:
salinv said:
First off, this has nothing to do with being in the US, it is because Oklahoma has a "make my day" law; if someone is trespassing on your personal property (or maybe just your house, I don't remember), the homeowner has every legal right to use lethal force.
That Oklahoma and much of the US has legalised murder, doesn't change the fact that it was most likely murder. Laws aren't self-justifying.

Besides, didn't you just claim they broke in to find medication, meaning they were after getting high? Then they were clearly no threat. Their intent was not do harm, but to steal something. No run of the mill burglar would engage in violence as it would only add to their possible punishment.

But apparently for that mother, if you want to steal something, anything, even something totally useless to her, that is reason enough to commit murder. To end someone's life, deny him everything else he could've had, and to throw an entire family into mourning.

Well mom, I hope you have fun with that medication worth $ 0 to you. I also hope your child never wakes up in the night and goes for a glass of water, only to be shot dead by his own paranoid mom. Certainly wouldn't be the first time some gun nut kills their own family thinking they're someone else.
Hey there, can I have your home address so I can break into your house and take your dead husband's meds?

Assuming your answer is yes, how do you wanna go about this? Should I bring a friend? Will you lock the door and call the police, or will you leave the door unlocked and wait in the living room for me to arrive? Do you want me to wait a couple of days so that you can buy a pistol and shotgun with ammunition or are you fine without firearms? If so, do you want me to wait until after you've asked the police if you can shoot me before I charge in? I'll be bringing a knife, a 12" hunting knife to be exact. But don't worry, I won't be using it, I just want the meds and maybe a little sexual assault on the side. Tell you what, I'll even arrange for a babysitter.

Is that okay with you?
 

Vryyk

New member
Sep 27, 2010
393
0
0
Vegosiux said:
CM156 said:
Vegosiux said:
CM156 said:
Such as? A baseball bat? You want to get close to someone with a 12 inch knife? A stun gun? A one-shot thing that sometimes doesn't work because of clothes. Pepper spray? Something that can leave them just pissed off or still a threat till the cops finally show up? You're an 18 year old woman with a child and these are two large men who are breaking in. Non-lethal options put you at a huge risk. A gun, however, has great stopping power.
I believe we discussed this already in the thread I mentioned, no?
I don't remember your answer though. "Non-lethal" weapons have severe drawbacks to them, for the user. And again, look at her. She's not some sort of Navy SEAL (If you don't know, those are specially trained Navy guys). She's an 18 year old girl. Who is also a mother. What. Other. Choice. Did. She. Have? I'm not aware of any non-lethal weapon as effective at taking down bad guys as a gun is.
I'll concede that once you're barricaded in there the way it was, okay, once the door slams open there aren't that many options left.

But in that case why didn't she just fire a warning shot? Sure, as you said, it might have just pissed them off, but in that case the result would be exactly the same, wouldn't it? They break in, she shoots them dead.

But what if it worked? What if it made them back off? Then nobody would die at all. What I'm saying is, there was no "worse" possible outcome from a warning shot an a potential for a "better" one - so why was it not used?

Bottom line is, once that door goes down and the cops aren't anywhere in sight, yeah, you shoot, even I can see that. I'm talking about things that happened (or did not) before that point.
You don't seem to have any idea about how guns and combat work. A warning shot looks cool in the movies, but an untrained 18 year old girl protecting a baby might have trouble getting that second shot off if they decide to ignore the warning.

The second she makes that shot, she would forfeit her and her baby's right to life and place it in the hands of the two criminals. My roommate is a trained soldier, and he can rack another shell and prepare to make another aimed shot every two seconds. Two seconds is enough time to move three feet, grab the gun, redirect it, and stab her with the deadly weapons they were carrying.

Yes, the warning shot may have worked, but she should not have to gamble the lives of both her and her baby to preserve the lives of two armed intruders trying to force there way into her room, presumably with either rape or murder in their plans.

I don't care how they do things wherever you live, that's your countries' decision, but if you were to come to mine, force your way into my home, and point weapons anyone I care about, I'd put you in the fucking ground without so much as thinking about a warning shot.
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
Vryyk said:
I don't care how they do things wherever you live, that's your countries' decision, but if you were to come to mine, force your way into my home, and point weapons anyone I care about, I'd put you in the fucking ground without so much as thinking about a warning shot.
As said in the other thread I'd just dress up as the Grim Reaper, scythe included and stare through your windows, really.

You may want to lower your tone too, because it's rude to assume I'd do something like that, you know. Even hypothetically.
 

Vryyk

New member
Sep 27, 2010
393
0
0
Blablahb said:
salinv said:
First off, this has nothing to do with being in the US, it is because Oklahoma has a "make my day" law; if someone is trespassing on your personal property (or maybe just your house, I don't remember), the homeowner has every legal right to use lethal force.
That Oklahoma and much of the US has legalised murder, doesn't change the fact that it was most likely murder. Laws aren't self-justifying.

Besides, didn't you just claim they broke in to find medication, meaning they were after getting high? Then they were clearly no threat. Their intent was not do harm, but to steal something. No run of the mill burglar would engage in violence as it would only add to their possible punishment.

But apparently for that mother, if you want to steal something, anything, even something totally useless to her, that is reason enough to commit murder. To end someone's life, deny him everything else he could've had, and to throw an entire family into mourning.

Well mom, I hope you have fun with that medication worth $ 0 to you. I also hope your child never wakes up in the night and goes for a glass of water, only to be shot dead by his own paranoid mom. Certainly wouldn't be the first time some gun nut kills their own family thinking they're someone else.
"Legalized murder" is an oxymoron, murder is by definition "illegal killing", so what you're saying is "legal illegal killing".

Also, how was she to know what the intruder was after, even if you are right? If I were to break into your home, put your money in my pocket, and shove my gun in your face you would have every right to drop me the second you had a chance. When someone threatens you with a deadly weapon assuming the best puts the decision on whether you get to live or die in their hands. You of course can do as you like, but no law-abiding citizen should have to entrust their life to a criminal, especially in their own home, and I know that if someone ever puts a gun in my face they won't get the benefit of the doubt.
 

Vryyk

New member
Sep 27, 2010
393
0
0
Vegosiux said:
As said in the other thread I'd just dress up as the Grim Reaper, scythe included and stare through your windows, really.

You may want to lower your tone too, because it's rude to assume I'd do something like that, you know. Even hypothetically.
I'm not suggesting you would, I'm just saying I agree with the woman and I would do the same with no regrets. I wouldn't be thrilled about having to do it, but I also wouldn't feel guilty in the slightest.
 

Zorg Machine

New member
Jul 28, 2008
1,304
0
0
if it was a machine gun and she was 100m away, it would be excessive to shoot him fifty times. she had two shells and two intruders with knives, therefore not excessive to skip the warning shot.
 

RubyT

New member
Sep 3, 2009
372
0
0
Jeffrey Crall said:
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.
 

CoL0sS

New member
Nov 2, 2010
711
0
0
kiri2tsubasa said:
CoL0sS said:
She lived on the very edge of the jurisdiction, for whatever reason her call was bounced between various police departments before someone answered, and the part of town was essentially the "middle of bumfrack nowhere".
Well that sucks. Fact that there was no police in close vicinity (something she must have been aware of) makes what she did more justifiable (in my mind at least).
 

ElPatron

New member
Jul 18, 2011
2,130
0
0
jdun said:
If you think rubber bullet is almost as damaging as real ammunition you're on crack. Don't mix fantasy with reality.
If you think you can survive a rubber bullet from 2m away, dead centre in the chest, you're delusional.

It will break your sternum/ribs, that will puncture your lungs. The hydrostatic shock can make your heart stop. You will die with a collapsed lung, cardiac arrest or by bleeding out.

There is also danger of penetration, that's why beanbags and rubber ammo is considered "Less than lethal" and not "non-lethal".


Google for a bit, and try to find evidence that nobody died from "less than lethal ammo".

Blablahb said:
Switserland is a prime example of that firearms possession always lead to a lot of problems.
Must gun crime in Switzerland is done with illegal weapons.

The service weapons are almost always used for domestic violence. It basically negates your belief that a bunch of people with fully automatic rifles are going to have shoot-outs every day.

Let's not forget that if there were no Sig assault rifles in the house, husbands and wives could still kill their spouse with knifes, so you can't blame firearms for creating crime anyway.