Oklahoma mom shoots and kills intruder

[Shycte]

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?

Not quite right, in Brottsbalken 24 kap § 6 [https://lagen.nu/1962:700#K8P4] it clearly says that you are allowed to use more violence than what was actully necessary if you it was obvious that you couldn't think straight (like if you are being attacked and paniced or something). But yes there has been bullshit cases, most famous is the taxi driver who defended a woman from a junkie attacking her by hitting him in the head with a tire iron. Thing was, he was not being attacked, so I guess they thought that he would know how much violence that was necissary? I don't know, I just know that it's bullshit.

 

[MaxwellEdison]

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.

Now you're confusing laws and ethics. The fact that this type of murder was legalised in the US, doesn't change the fact that it was murder.

No matter how big a proponent of violence one is, how else do you call the concious killing of someone who is no threat at all? She waited for almost half an hour with a gun with the sole intent of committing murder if that person came in, and when he did, she immediatly murdered him.

What? No, murder is a legal term. It was not murder because it's legal. "this type of murder is legal" makes no sense.
Proponent of violence? Is that what they call people who support ownership of guns now, or are you addressing me as someone who actually supports just shooting people? Instead of using buzzwords, stick to addressing the issue.

OT: No threat? I'm sorry, if two people break the law (and your locks) by entering your house, they're a threat. He brought a twelve inch hunting knife. Is breaking into someone's house with a lethal weapon now not a threat? What do you call a threat?
She waited for twenty minutes *as an armed man broke into her house*.
Again, murder is a legal term. Stop abusing it.

 

[monkey_man]

Even if it was self-defense taken to the extreme, she was protective of her child. It's nature. Every mom should defend her child when they are in serious danger. She could not leave, she could not take the men in a fair fight, and she couldn't wuss out. So it was the only thing left.

And the child can say when he's older that his mother is a total bad ass. That is worth something too.

 

[Sammaul]

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.

Now you're confusing laws and ethics. The fact that this type of murder was legalised in the US, doesn't change the fact that it was murder.

No matter how big a proponent of violence one is, how else do you call the concious killing of someone who is no threat at all? She waited for almost half an hour with a gun with the sole intent of committing murder if that person came in, and when he did, she immediatly murdered him.

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.

Using illegal weapons, especially in a premeditated fashion, always leads to at least a charge of manslaughter. Murdering someone on purpose with illegal weapons can never fall under self-defense, because both the purchase of the weapon with the intention of murdering people with it, and lying in wait for a non-threatening burglar for minutes with the intent of murdering them, are criminal acts and deeply criminal thinking.

Considering the fact so much time passed between the initial burglars showing up, and her pulling the trigger, it would likely even be a murder charge, because she had plenty of time to reconsider, but made the concious decision to commit murder.

I think you are overstating the premeditation on her part, yes the burglar was present in her home for almost half an hour, the moment when her decision was forced, was when the burglar, holding a knife, kicked in the door to the room where she had been hiding with her infant the whole time.
She did not have the burglar in her sights the entire time he was in her house, so saying the time she had to consider killing the man was ample enough to make a ''better'' choice is pure nonsense.
Had the burglar left the house leaving her in that room, he would still be alive.

 

[PlasticTree]

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.

Hi. I already responded to most of your points in other posts, but I'll summarize:
- In this particular case it could indeed have turned out badly. On a national scale it's completely different.
- Some criminals would still have guns, of course, but it's very easy to provide evidence for the fact that it will still save a lot of lives: just look at other countries. The amount of deaths by gun shot (and the total amount of violent deaths) in countries like Germany, Francy, Holland is not even close to the one in the U.S., which is directly related to allowing gun ownerships. And yes, the difference is still there when you control for country size.
- Sure, some people who intrude homes would probably get the death penalty, but this is only a very, very small percentage, since the overwhelming majority consists of robbers. Thus, anecdotal evidence like this, is not of any use for making nation-wide decisions.
- As someone else said, this is probably just a cultural difference: I don't think you should be allowed a 'license to kill' when someone enters your home, you probably do.


For a more nuanced message, I'll gladly refer you to those other posts of mine.

 

[slackbheep]

It's only a shame she's not faster on the reload, we could have gotten rid of two shit bags in one go. Oh yes, boo hoo I'm sure both those pieces of human trash had really sad stories, and they were going to rob this woman in order to set up an orphanage. Save your breath.

 

[Double A]

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.

Hi. I already responded to most of your points in other posts, but I'll summarize:
- In this particular case it could indeed have turned out badly. On a national scale it's completely different.
- Some criminals would still have guns, of course, but it's very easy to provide evidence for the fact that it will still save a lot of lives: just look at other countries. The amount of deaths by gun shot (and the total amount of violent deaths) in countries like Germany, Francy, Holland is not even close to the one in the U.S., which is directly related to allowing gun ownerships. And yes, the difference is still there when you control for country size.
- Sure, some people who intrude homes would probably get the death penalty, but this is only a very, very small percentage, since the overwhelming majority consists of robbers. Thus, anecdotal evidence like this, is not of any use for making nation-wide decisions.
- As someone else said, this is probably just a cultural difference: I don't think you should be allowed a 'license to kill' when someone enters your home, you probably do.


For a more nuanced message, I'll gladly refer you to those other posts of mine.

Even if I thought killing criminals was immoral, I wouldn't want guns banned in this country. Our society is too violent compared to other 1st world countries to warrant a gun ban.

 

[tsb247]

No matter how big a proponent of violence one is, how else do you call the concious killing of someone who is no threat at all? She waited for almost half an hour with a gun with the sole intent of committing murder if that person came in, and when he did, she immediatly murdered him.

You conveniently ignore the fact that the man who showed the dedication to continue to attempt to break in the door to get at her for 20 minutes was armed. As stated in the article that I linked earlier in this thread, it was stated that he charged at her with his knife.

You would have had her do nothing and die? You seem to be the one legitimizing murder here.

Using illegal weapons, especially in a premeditated fashion, always leads to at least a charge of manslaughter. Murdering someone on purpose with illegal weapons can never fall under self-defense, because both the purchase of the weapon with the intention of murdering people with it, and lying in wait for a non-threatening burglar for minutes with the intent of murdering them, are criminal acts and deeply criminal thinking.

The first portion of this is moot since nowhere was it implied that her weapon(s) were illegal. Second, how is an armed burglar not a threat? You seem to keep forgetting that the man who broke through the door was armed - A. R. M. E. Duh. As in, he was carrying a weapon. Intent can only be assumed hostile because assuming otherwise puts the victim in mortal danger.

How is a man who kicks in your door and ransacks your home while armed with a knife not a threat?

Considering the fact so much time passed between the initial burglars showing up, and her pulling the trigger, it would likely even be a murder charge, because she had plenty of time to reconsider, but made the concious decision to commit murder.

Given how events unfolded, she would have likely been dead had she, "reconsidered." You say she had 20 minutes to change her mind? No. Just no. In fact she only had the second it took for the man (armed with a knife) to attempt to charge at her and then stop him from doing it.

EDIT: The man breaking through the door also had 20 minutes to reconsider; and live.

I also noticed that you dodged my last response to you - post 339 on page 10 on this thread. I'm beginning to think it's because it pokes holes in your argument; as have many other people thusfar.

 

[senordesol]

Using illegal weapons, especially in a premeditated fashion, always leads to at least a charge of manslaughter. Murdering someone on purpose with illegal weapons can never fall under self-defense, because both the purchase of the weapon with the intention of murdering people with it, and lying in wait for a non-threatening burglar for minutes with the intent of murdering them, are criminal acts and deeply criminal thinking.

Considering the fact so much time passed between the initial burglars showing up, and her pulling the trigger, it would likely even be a murder charge, because she had plenty of time to reconsider, but made the concious decision to commit murder.

There is so much wrong with this paragraph I can only conclude that Blahblahb is either a troll, or -honest to goodness- is a professional theif or lawyer (Sorry for the redundancy).

A 12Ga. Shotgun is not illegal in the US, so it is not an illegal weapon. 'Prepared' is not the same as 'premeditated'. I don't fasten my seatbelt because I plan on getting into a car crash.

Since when is 'hiding in own house, fearing for own and child's safety' considered 'lying in wait'? And since when is an intruder armed with a knife; or any intruder who has violently broken into your home, considered non-threatening?

And I think we need to establish the definition of 'intent' here. Intent means that you plan on doing something, meaning that you are actively taking steps to set it into action. There was no way she could know she would be robbed, there was no way she could know it would take police so long to reach her, and there was no way she could know what the armed men planned to do to her after spending 20 MINUTES breaking down the door of her hiding place.

So where's the premeditation? How could she possibly have planned this?

 

[tsb247]

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.

I'm still waiting for you to show up. We've got the coffee pot going and everything. It's cold out there!

 

[tsb247]

Oops! Accidental Douple post. Please ignore this one!

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

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.

Then again, Americans have that whole blood-lust thing, so this should probably seem tame over there.

No, some of us just understand that sometimes life-or-death scenarios do occur, and we'd prefer that the victim be the one to live.

The blood-lust comment was more about the defense of trigger-happy police and the support of the death sentence, which are much more morally-iffy subjects than this.

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

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. Then again, Americans have that whole blood-lust thing, so this should probably seem tame over there.

We have fire extinguishers for fires and criminal extinguishers for criminals. There's no blood-lust involved.

Because that statement doesn't sound in anyway ridiculous.

 

[Savryc]

[snip]

Please never procreate. I'd hate to think that somewhere a child might have to endure seeing their parent butchered and their house ransacked because apparently in your strange world defending yourself and your child from the man who spent 20 minutes breaking in with a 12" hunting knife for god only knows what = premeditated murder. That is of course if the burglar in question didn't just off the kid anyway.

Are you one of those blokes/birds that just has to disagree with the general consensus on everything? What is it with the Escapist and churning these folk out?

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

You clearly don't live on a farm or in the wilderness, which is what some 70% of America's land is made of. If you live in a city, you know not the dangers of wolves and bears and really horny bucks. A pistol would do shit against a bear; a shotgun is the most appropriate firearm, along with a regular old rifle, for a rural-to-suburban person to have, and is a necessity if you make a living off of your land (where you'll need to shoot the occasional fox/wolf/etc)

Europe doesn't have the same predators as America has, and most people in Europe live in (as far as stereotypes say) cities or at least pretty-damn-urban areas, whereas in the United States, a great deal of our citizenry live in the middle of nowhere, with no neighbors for miles, or at least no neighbors within eyesight.

Guns here aren't weapons, they are tools. They can be used for self-defense, too, but most people that own shotguns aren't owning them for defense as the main reason.

There is no "blood-lust thing" to explain why owning a shotgun is tame. It's purely utilitarian. Pistols are what people buy for self-defense, since it's the most versatile. Also, pistols are what are used for (most?) gang crimes (the majority of our gun crime, done in cities where *gasp* people don't carry guns for self-defense), shotguns are not used for crimes in the majority of cases.

I don't blame you for being ignorant about the United States. It's a HUGE country, made of many distinct states with widely-varying laws. In the cities, guns are treated far differently compared to rural gun ownership, where guns still serve a use as a tool, and I can see how a non-native seeing only news stories and shows that take place in cities could make the mistake.

TL;DR: Owning a shotgun is perfectly tame and is used in the US for plenty of uses. A pistol is arguably better for home defense anyway, and serves few uses outside of defense/offence.

Actually I'm from rural Ireland, and reside in one of the more underpopulated counties in the country. I also recognise that the possession of a shotgun is almost a necessity for farmers, especially for chasing children out fields with. Oh, and for preventing cattle theft. There probably isn't much for me to argue on, I has I have no statistics, but I would think that the relative ease of access to firearms in the US probably exacerbates the issue of crime. But again, I have no data to support this view. I can simply say I'm glad things are the way they are over here.

 

[jdun]

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".

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.

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

 

[jdun]

Under the SCOTUS rulings the police are not under the law to protect its' citizens. They are task with keeping the general peace and enforce the laws on the book. That's means you can't sue the police for failure to protect. It's up to the citizen to insure their own safety. Cops aren't body guards and are allow to leave where they know crimes are being committed as seen in the LA riots.

Other counties have these type of laws too. Does your country allows you to sue the police for failure to protect? If No than the police aren't under the law to protect you or your property.

Actually in the country that I live in if you call the cops and say somebody is breaking into your house they will come immediatly. Since you know multiple laws are being broken. If they didnt come and you were injured because of that then yes actually you could sue the police where I live.

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.

 

[jdun]

She was in the right espically when she ask for permission to shoot in self defence. I mean she was somewhat clear headed about the situation (she's aware that she may have to shoot them to defend her child) and the law for doing do.

/thread

Though I will state my opnion that I firmly beilve that making rubber/plastic ammunition more available (it's actually HARDER to get then metal bullets/shot in some areas)would help.

So long as he's coming at me with a rubber or plastic knife.

Har har.

At close range, rubber/plastic ammunation is almost as damaging as real ammunation, and it's still like getting punched in the gut further out than that.

You have to remember it's still a dense object flying at you the speed of a car many time over.

Unless the guy is on something. In that case there are a lot of smaller bullets that may not do the trick even.

Ru

She was in the right espically when she ask for permission to shoot in self defence. I mean she was somewhat clear headed about the situation (she's aware that she may have to shoot them to defend her child) and the law for doing do.

/thread

Though I will state my opnion that I firmly beilve that making rubber/plastic ammunition more available (it's actually HARDER to get then metal bullets/shot in some areas)would help.

So long as he's coming at me with a rubber or plastic knife.

Har har.

At close range, rubber/plastic ammunation is almost as damaging as real ammunation, and it's still like getting punched in the gut further out than that.

You have to remember it's still a dense object flying at you the speed of a car many time over.

If you think rubber bullet is almost as damaging as real ammunition you're on crack. Don't mix fantasy with reality.

Ima interject, Im not agreeing with him but at that range any ammunition fired out of a shot gun is going to leave you dead or dying on the ground.

Edit : that kinda kills his point now that I think about it

Samurai vs Non-Lethal weapons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PptWBUo7sOY

Ninja vs Non-Lethal weapons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo5Giml2yzs

 

[BrassButtons]

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.

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.