Okla. Woman Shoots, Kills Intruder: 911 Operators Say It's Okay to Shoot

[vienna]

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

[GoldenRivet]

"Can i shoot the intruder if he gets into my home?"


"I CANT TELL YOU TO DO THAT BUT YOU DO WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO TO PROTECT YOUR BABY."

and yes... it is OK to shoot and kill an intruder, both the woman and the 911 operator acted within the confines of the law.

bury the intruder in a cheap cemetery plot and go back to raising the baby.

[Rockstar]

One thing's for certain the intruder won't be doing that again. Kudos to the operator and the mom.

[Sailor Steve]

Good for her! And, as GR said, the operator didn't actually tell her it was okay to shoot, but she did say what she was allowed to, and she said the right thing. The other intruder is probably grateful he's alive.

[Ducimus]

Castle Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine) for teh win.

[Jimbuna]

Strike up another win for the good folk :sunny:

[HunterICX]

Well guess it's obvious that you shouldn't screw around with a widow mom armed with a 12 gauge shotgun.

HunterICX

[Platapus]

Legal or not, shooting an intruder must be a terrible thing to live with. I hope she can deal with it or get help dealing with it.

[tater]

These guys were breaking in specifically because she was there. This was not a burglary gone wrong. They meant to at the very least rape her. Good for her.

She did herself, her kid, and society a favor. The only downside was that she didn't off both of them.

[Takeda Shingen]

These guys were breaking in specifically because she was there. This was not a burglary gone wrong. They meant to at the very least rape her. Good for her.

Source?

[tater]

What woman with an infant is out new years eve? Had they wanted to burgle, they'd have come a work day.

Sorry, source was OP story. It said New Years Eve. Any B&E at night has to assume the residents are home unless they watched them leave.

Besides, the story said:
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.


He attacked her.

[Takeda Shingen]

What woman with an infant is out new years eve? Had they wanted to burgle, they'd have come a work day.

Or they could have come to kill her. Or hold her child for ransom. Or kidnap her. Or conduct a home-invasion style robbery. The list goes on. You just seemed so assured that the crime was sexual in nature that I figured to ask if you had some additional information on the event.

[1480]

Or they could have come to kill her. Or hold her child for ransom. Or kidnap her. Or conduct a home-invasion style robbery. The list goes on. You just seemed so assured that the crime was sexual in nature that I figured to ask if you had some additional information on the event.

Regardless of their intent, if you break into a home when its more than likely someone is at home AND armed with weapon, or inflict bodily harm, its a home invasion. Why is that a big deal? Lawmakers finally figured out that if someone is not safe in their home, then where can they feel safe. Home invasion has enhanced penalties and more importantly, is a qualifier for felony murder, if that should be outcome.

Kudos to all involved and more importantly : I rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.

[Tribesman]

What woman with an infant is out new years eve? Had they wanted to burgle, they'd have come a work day.

What could a newly widowed teenage mom with a new infant ever be doing out on a workday as that would only be done by......
some non any or all?
pick the two possibly correct answers and remove the two definately incorrect answers and try again.

Sorry, source was OP story. It said New Years Eve. Any B&E at night has to assume the residents are home unless they watched them leave.

Follow the source.... it was the middle of the day on new years eve.
That means you are making an assumption about an assumption that is made by you on your faulty interpretatation of information


Regardless of their intent.....
Agreed, but tater wasn't satisfied with that and felt the need to ratchet up the rhetoric to sentationalise it.

[GoldenRivet]

Legal or not, shooting an intruder must be a terrible thing to live with. I hope she can deal with it or get help dealing with it.

agreed.

like something Clint Eastwood said in one of his movies...

When you kill a man you have to make a split second decision to take everything he has away from him, to take everything he will ever have away from him, to reduce everything he ever could be to nothing.

when an intruder breaks into your home with a 12" hunting knife... he has obviously already made those decisions regarding you.

fire away

[tater]

Or they could have come to kill her. Or hold her child for ransom. Or kidnap her. Or conduct a home-invasion style robbery. The list goes on. You just seemed so assured that the crime was sexual in nature that I figured to ask if you had some additional information on the event.

I did not say they came to rape her, I said at the very least they came to rape her. Worse violence also possible, my point was that ANY home invasion when the perps have the expectation of meeting the resident during their crime has to occur under the assumption that the perps mean grave bodily harm to anyone inside. If they were ONLY after goods, they'd come like the vast majority of burglars***8212;during the work day.

[GoldenRivet]

I did not say they came to rape her, I said at the very least they came to rape her.

that was my understanding of your comment.


we all know full well that they didnt bring a 12" hunting knife to help her change diapers and offer their condolences.

unless of course it was the late husband's 12" hunting knife they had been borrowing and they just really really really wanted to give it back like right now. :haha:

but something tells me thats not the case

[tater]

What could a newly widowed teenage mom with a new infant ever be doing out on a workday as that would only be done by......
some non any or all?
pick the two possibly correct answers and remove the two definately incorrect answers and try again.


Follow the source.... it was the middle of the day on new years eve.
That means you are making an assumption about an assumption that is made by you on your faulty interpretatation of information

Ah, poor writing. Eve means evening, or did when I took writing and grammar. Regardless, it's a holiday when any burglar would expect the victims to be home regardless of the time of day, NOT a work day (M-F, 8-6, say). When anyone I know wants to make plans to meet on New Year's Eve DAY, they always add the "day" because if they invite me over for a beer "new year's eve" I'll come, you know, in the evening.

Agreed, but tater wasn't satisfied with that and felt the need to ratchet up the rhetoric to sentationalise it.

No, it was a home invasion. When perps case the place (they did), and intentionally attack when the people are home (any weekend day, or any night (assuming they are not otherwise aware that the victims all work nights or weekends)), there is the presumption (a good one) that they mean harm to the homeowner/resident. If they meant no harm, and wanted goods, they come during the work week. You will find that burglary stats back this up. Most (the vast majority) US burglaries happen during the regular work week and work hours. They also last a surprisingly short period of time. Break in, and leave within a handful of minutes.

Coming when you expect people to be home is a de facto presumption of intent to harm. US law in most states agree, which is why she's not at all charged. That's the point of allowing this kind of self-defense in the home by law. The ;law in fact makes it clear that the perp has no standing to even claim he had no intent to harm, his presence inside a home without permission is proof of violent intent, and explicit permission for the resident to use deadly force.

So I am sensationalizing nothing. As I said above, rape was the least she should expect given armed intruders who knew she was home. I said "least" because rape doesn't require that they take her life, and there would be little reason for violence that would not take her life (if they'd be willing to assault her for no reason, then why not rape her?). NOte that that doesn't mean there is any certainty they would have, but she had no choice but to assume that this was the case. Failure to make this assumption is a very bad bet.

She did everyone a favor, they should give her an award.

[GoldenRivet]

IMHO it is dangerous to distinguish between intruders who intend to harm the occupants and intruders who do not intend to harm the occupants.

there is no distinction IMO

intruders - it must be assumed for the sake of your own life - intend to harm persons or property or both within the home.

[soopaman2]

As a legal firearms owner in a bad state to own them in I asked about this scenario to a cop buddy of mine.

He told me if I shot an intruder he would be forced to arrest me for manslaughter. He thinks it is crap, as our gun control laws are draconian here. Easier for a hood rat to get a gun, than an upstanding citizen.

He told me, not all states have "castle" laws.

I am glad most others haven't had their rights taken yet.

[GoldenRivet]

given my recent experiences... everything in New Jersey is draconian. :har:


:O::woot:

[Penguin]

Could it be that these (in)famous Castle Laws do not apply to this situation?
Since we are talking about an armed intruder self-defense laws would apply to this case imo.

However there are some idiotic sentences out there where judges underestiminate the lethality of a knife.
I don't know how judges would see it though if you don't give out a warning before using lethal force, but in this case you have given away the tactical advantage: your position and your armament status which are both unknown to the intruder.

[Tribesman]

I did not say they came to rape her, I said at the very least they came to rape her.
So you don't think the oxycontin hicks were after the dead husbands meds then?

Ah, poor writing. Eve means evening, or did when I took writing and grammar.
Christmas eve means christmas eve, new years eve means new years eve.
2pm new years eve means 2pm new years eve which is daytime and daylight unless you live in the land of the midnight sun.
Regardless, it's a holiday when any burglar would expect the victims to be home regardless of the time of day
Holidays are good for burglars because peoples routines are off any many houses will be vacant for days on end.




When perps case the place (they did), and intentionally attack when the people are home (any weekend day, or any night (assuming they are not otherwise aware that the victims all work nights or weekends)), there is the presumption (a good one) that they mean harm to the homeowner/resident. If they meant no harm, and wanted goods, they come during the work week.
Have you any evidence to show this teenage mother was ever working to flesh out your claim a little bit.

Coming when you expect people to be home is a de facto presumption of intent to harm.
Is it?
You seem to be doing a lot of assumptions and presumptions with either very little to back them up, or even worse, with evidence that contradicts your assumptions
If their intention was that clear why were they banging on the front door in broad daylight for over twenty minutes?

So I am sensationalizing nothing.
But you most certainly are, and on top of that you are ignoring many glaring inconsistancies in the story which should raise questions about the assumptions you have instantly jumped to.
Just for starters. considering their "first" meeting was less than a week before how many years has this young lady had contacts with the deceased for?

She did everyone a favor, they should give her an award.
Maybe, maybe not. But going on your way of thinking you would be handing out awards to every sort of criminal nut like candy simply because you do not view things before making your assumptions.

Still one good thing, isn't it nice that the second suspect turned himself in because his paretns told him to. P.erhaps if he had listened to more of what his parents told him then prescription drugs wouldn't have been such a problem

[Ducimus]

like something Clint Eastwood said in one of his movies...

When you kill a man you have to make a split second decision to take everything he has away from him, to take everything he will ever have away from him, to reduce everything he ever could be to nothing.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NelBNtNm8l0

Personally, im of the thought of putting the mangy animal down and then ill sleep like a baby. He won't be bothering me, or anyone else either again, and the world is a better place without them; and I sleep MUCH better knowing I'm safe.

The thing.. the real thing is, having the courage of conviction. To make the decision, and follow through. A lot of people can't do that.

[soopaman2]

given my recent experiences... everything in New Jersey is draconian. :har:


:O::woot:


meany!

It is nice where I live, far enough from Philly and NYC to get peace and decent property tax rates (highest in the nation thank you)

Our handgun laws are crap. you will see more "tyrones" with weapons than upstanding citizens. Plus the lack of self defense laws, they assume we should just bend over and let Tyrone and Jamaal rob us blind, then thank them for it. Because if we so much as punch them, we go to jail and get sued.

God bless Texas.

[Tribesman]

Nice link Ducimus, do you remember that crazy coot a little while back who murdered some kid because he thought he had walked on his lawn and somehow belieived that "castle laws" mean you can shoot kids you think walked on your lawn?

[Ducimus]

The reality is castle law doesnt apply to your lawn. Only if they enter your place of residence without your permission. I provided that link because it was an eastwood film with him saying the exact opposite of what GoldenRivet quoted.

Ill will say straight up though, anyone breaks into my house at night? They'll be leaving in a body bag if Mr Mossberg has any say in it.

The thing is, i have ZERO regard for a scumbags life. None... At... all. regardless of race, color, creed, gender or age. In my eye, all scumbags are equally worthless.

[GoldenRivet]

@Soopaman2

i must admit... the part of Jersey i was in was ghetto fabulous and a place where shipping containers go to die. (Newark, Jersey City and surrounding)

I saw more arrests in the 3 months i was there than i have seen anywhere else TOTAL in 32 years 10 months of living.

As a former airline pilot i have stayed in many many hotels in many many different parts of the country... but Jersey is the first place i heard "FREEZE! POLICE!!!" right outside my hotel door.

I drove through urban areas as large as my entire home town where the only signs not written in Arabic were the street signs and my white face was greeted with a sneer and a scowl at every corner.

however... my journeys did bring me to places in Jersey that seemed devoid of all but country roads and the golden brown trees and tiny river tributaries that surrounded them.

so yes... there are pretty parts of new jersey... like perhaps 3 of them

[soopaman2]

Huh?
In 1997, Larry Harris of Illinois broke into a bar owned by Jessie Ingram. Ingram, the victim of several break-ins, had recently set a trap around his windows to deter potential burglars. Harris, 37, who was under the influence of both alcohol and drugs, must have missed the warning sign prominently displayed in the window. He set off the trap as he entered the window, electrocuting himself. The police refused to file murder charges. Harris's family saw it differently, however, and filed a civil suit against Ingram. A jury originally awarded the Harris family $150,000. Later, the award was reduced to $75,000 when it was decided Harris should share at least half of the blame.
http://www.legalzoom.com/lawsuits-settlements/personal-injury/top-ten-frivolous-lawsuits

A few other American idiot stories there.


This one made me grin as well.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1711925/posts
If you don't want to click then here is the short of it.

Man tries to burglarize house, gets warned to leave, legal gun owner shoots once (with a full mag) scumbag sues.

If said scum loses it only costs him 500$ court fees. He expects to get paid for being somewhere he had NO RIGHT to be...

This is our country.

[Ducimus]

Man tries to burglarize house, gets warned to leave, legal gun owner shoots once (with a full mag) scumbag sues.


And what is one of the 4 big rules on Firearm safety?

Never point a gun at anything your not willing to destroy.

He didn't destroy his target. If he had, there would have been no lawsuit, (Dead men tell no tales. :arrgh!: ) As anyone is well within their rights to defend himself within their place of residence assuming the castle laws in the state are amiable.

[tater]

So you don't think the oxycontin hicks were after the dead husbands meds then?


Christmas eve means christmas eve, new years eve means new years eve.
2pm new years eve means 2pm new years eve which is daytime and daylight unless you live in the land of the midnight sun.

Holidays are good for burglars because peoples routines are off any many houses will be vacant for days on end.

People are home over the holidays here for the most part. Had they wanted to come when she was not around, they'd wait in a car down the block for her to leave.

I just edited this. followed a google to local OK news. She went in bedroom, but they don;t say if that's the door she was behind on the phone with 911. Doesn't matter, but if she was in bedroom, then they could have looted house freely without breaking door down.

Also, the OP story doesn't mention prescription drugs (not that it matters, again, anyone breaking in while you are home is presumed by law (and good sense) to be a threat for which deadly force may be used.

Have you any evidence to show this teenage mother was ever working to flesh out your claim a little bit.


Why would I need to, as I made no such claim? Again, the vast majority of residential burglaries happen to working people during the working day. If she was home all the time, that makes her a bad candidate for a real burglar***8212;but a good one for a robber or home invasion. I don't have to prove she worked, the point was general, that burglars burgle when people are not home as a matter of planning. Had they wanted goods, they'd have gone to the house next door where no one was home (assuming they cased such a house, and knew there was no one home there).

Is it?
You seem to be doing a lot of assumptions and presumptions with either very little to back them up, or even worse, with evidence that contradicts your assumptions
If their intention was that clear why were they banging on the front door in broad daylight for over twenty minutes?

They wanted her to open the door so they could force their way in easier? Dunno, don't care. They came armed, they came when they knew she was there (else why bang for 20 minutes?). They had intent to at the very least threaten deadly force (they were armed). They deserved to die. The legal intent of theirs is clear. They are presumed by law to have hostile intent by virtue of B&E (or forced entry) into an occupied house.

The law doesn't care why they came, and the woman had every right to presume a great threat (which is what the presumption of the law is).

But you most certainly are, and on top of that you are ignoring many glaring inconsistancies in the story which should raise questions about the assumptions you have instantly jumped to.
Just for starters. considering their "first" meeting was less than a week before how many years has this young lady had contacts with the deceased for?

I don't care how they knew her, or for how long. I make zero assumptions about that, or anything else in the OP story. I have not looked at the story anywhere else, so I have no idea about what else happened (and like the police there, I don't care as it is not relevant). They forced entry at a time when they knew she was home. She has the legal right to presume they meant her great bodily harm, and therefore the right to use deadly force. This is FACT as she will not be charged.

Maybe, maybe not. But going on your way of thinking you would be handing out awards to every sort of criminal nut like candy simply because you do not view things before making your assumptions.

Anyone who kills someone breaking and entering is doing society a favor. Doesn't matter if they are robbing a nice granny, or a crackhead. Home invasion is wrong, period, and the perps deserve whatever they get.

If someone invites another in, then kills them, then makes it look like a B&E, and a lawful shooting, then that is still a crime. If someone actually breaks in and gets shot, that's a net win for society, IMO, regardless of any other factors (factors that make it NOT breaking in obviously negate this---no forced entry, and it is possibly murder (she could let a salesman in, and get assaulted, then using deadly force also OK, but there are other scenarios where she is guilty instead without a B&E).

Still one good thing, isn't it nice that the second suspect turned himself in because his paretns told him to. P.erhaps if he had listened to more of what his parents told him then prescription drugs wouldn't have been such a problem.

OP story says nothing about drugs, though that doesn't surprise me, and it changes nothing. For the person in the home, the presumption is, and has to be that they mean to kill you if they enter while you are there. Killing the aggressors is always a better result than any of the alternatives, and many of the alternatives are very ugly. If they were just after drugs, and meant no harm, they should have burgled, not robbed. Even coming unarmed is not credible vs a woman, as 2 guys could easily overpower any unarmed woman bare-handed.

If 99 out of 100 home invasions had no violent action by perps, and the remaining 1 was violent, the victim would still be better off by killing any invader. Then the chances of the innocent being harmed remains 0 vs 1%. Harm to the aggressors doesn't matter. No one cares if they live or die, regardless of their intent as they chose their illegal action.

[soopaman2]

@Soopaman2

i must admit... the part of Jersey i was in was ghetto fabulous and a place where shipping containers go to die. (Newark, Jersey City and surrounding)

I saw more arrests in the 3 months i was there than i have seen anywhere else TOTAL in 32 years 10 months of living.

As a former airline pilot i have stayed in many many hotels in many many different parts of the country... but Jersey is the first place i heard "FREEZE! POLICE!!!" right outside my hotel door.

I drove through urban areas as large as my entire home town where the only signs not written in Arabic were the street signs and my white face was greeted with a sneer and a scowl at every corner.

however... my journeys did bring me to places in Jersey that seemed devoid of all but country roads and the golden brown trees and tiny river tributaries that surrounded them.

so yes... there are pretty parts of new jersey... like perhaps 3 of them

Yeah, small state, with almost 9 million people.

5 million of which are scum.
You sir witnessed the worse we have to offer.
Newark, where car theft is an Olympic sport.
Jersey City, where Martin Luther king Boulevard (a man who advocated peace) is the most dangerous place in town.
Elizabeth is where the shipping containers come off the boats, and after dark your wallet comes out of your pants at gunpoint.

Jersey is dying, Asbury Park used to be NJs music Mecca (Stone pony), now it is gangland.

I live the next town over, and our cops are adept at keeping that crap out of my town.

[Takeda Shingen]

Regardless of their intent, if you break into a home when its more than likely someone is at home AND armed with weapon, or inflict bodily harm, its a home invasion. Why is that a big deal?

It is not a big deal. Tater simply stated that the perpetrators entered with the intent of sexual assault, and given the one was shot before an actual assault was able to take place it would seem that this is extrapolation. They were intent on acting in some criminal fashion, but our society seems to have an unhealthy fixation on sexual crimes. And, it turns out, I was right about there being no proof of the intent to rape the woman. Now, why is pointing that out a big deal to you?

[GoldenRivet]

Tater simply stated that the perpetrators entered with the intent of sexual assault

tater stated that it was at their intent at the very least.

meaning - even if they were not going to kill her - they were likely to at least rape her.

or take the child

or kill them both

or kill the kid

or kill the mom

or loot the place and terrorize them both

moral of the story is that they didnt stop in for a friendly "ello"

[Takeda Shingen]

tater stated that it was at their intent at the very least.

meaning - even if they were not going to kill her - they were likely to at least rape her.

Which means that sexual assault was the primary motive. This is unknowable, which was my point all along. Not sure why this is so difficult to understand.

moral of the story is that they didnt stop in for a friendly "ello"

And here I was thinking that he just came over for tea. Well color me stupid.

[GoldenRivet]

And here I was thinking that he just came over for tea. Well color me stupid.

i still think it was all a misunderstanding and that the man borrowed the hunting knife from the late husband and was really really really excited about giving it back.

:D

[Takeda Shingen]

i still think it was all a misunderstanding and that the man borrowed the hunting knife from the late husband and was really really really excited about giving it back.

:D

So you are telling me that is was accidental after all? Now I am very confused.

[GoldenRivet]

So you are telling me that is was accidental after all? Now I am very confused.

here (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/joke)

:woot:

[Platapus]

For anyone who keeps a gun in the house for defense, I can highly recommend the book "In the gravest extreme" By Ayoob

A very educational read by one of the few truly experts.

[Tribesman]

People are home over the holidays here for the most part.
"most part" means bugger all.


Had they wanted to come when she was not around, they'd wait in a car down the block for her to leave.

Making assumptions again based on assumptions you already made.

I just edited this. followed a google to local OK news. She went in bedroom, but they don;t say if that's the door she was behind on the phone with 911. Doesn't matter, but if she was in bedroom, then they could have looted house freely without breaking door down.

Why bother with google? follow the OP link, she went to the bedroom to retrieve one of the firearms and had put the couch against the front door which they was knocking at.
It all matters unless you are just going to jump to assumptions:yawn:

Also, the OP story doesn't mention prescription drugs (not that it matters, again, anyone breaking in while you are home is presumed by law (and good sense) to be a threat for which deadly force may be used.

Follow the OP story, its all in the link. Once again you are saying "not that it matters" but you are going off only your assumptions not the details of the incident.(which really means you are still shooting blind to try and defend a comment you had made when you were shooting blind in the first place:yeah:)

Why would I need to, as I made no such claim?
If you claim that they could have come to her front door when she was working you should be able to show that she went out to work.

Had they wanted goods, they'd have gone to the house next door where no one was home (assuming they cased such a house, and knew there was no one home there).


Once again assumptions on assumptions on assumptions.
Is it really that hard for you to ask yourself to hold on a minute?


They wanted her to open the door so they could force their way in easier? Dunno, don't care.
For someone that doesn't know and doesn't care you seem to have a definate opinion on issues you choose to remain ignorant of.
Perhaps the question was too hard for you to think about or too hard to fit with your assumptions.

They came armed, they came when they knew she was there (else why bang for 20 minutes?). They had intent to at the very least threaten deadly force (they were armed).
Isn't that another assumption? the fella with the very shortrange shotgun blast to his torso still had a rather large knife gripped in his hand and that knife had came with him.

The law doesn't care why they came,
Actually it does, if its a drug deal gone bad then the law cares very much, in the same way as killing an "intruder" over a stolen playstation can play either way dependant on the facts, or shooting a "car thief" who you just lent your car to.....all fairly recent ones where the "good for them" crowd got burnt on the actual details after the initial headline had got them bleating.

I don't care how they knew her, or for how long.
Yet she seemed to think it important for her story until her mother let it slip that it wasn't the case.
Yet again you are showing that you don't care about the details on things you are willing to try and stick to your initial assumptions over.:hmmm:

I make zero assumptions about that, or anything else in the OP story.
But you have, demonstrably so.

I have not looked at the story anywhere else, so I have no idea about what else happened (and like the police there, I don't care as it is not relevant).
Yet you are still trying to defend comments you made while admiting you are in ignorance while making the comments:doh:

This is FACT as she will not be charged.

Sorry can you clarify the comment that the police have made and then wait for the state to decide before you go all CAPSLOCK
hey thats the first CAPSLOCK strikes again of the new year:har::har::har::har:

Anyone who kills someone breaking and entering is doing society a favor.
maybe yes maybe no.
If some local stalwarts of the community were breaking into the house of a nonce woukld the nonce be doing the community a favour by killing them?
Hows that for ratcheting up the rhetoric eh?:rotfl2:

OP story says nothing about drugs
But you not following the OP at all are you.
However even if you miss that simple chain, it is the first thing I thought of when it said about her husband in the OP, the link provided in the OP shows that it very may well be the case.

and it changes nothing
Actually it may change everything especially given the seemingly false account of when she claimed they first met.

@Ducimus
The reality is castle law doesnt apply to your lawn.
I know, but that crazy old coot I mentioned that murdered the kid thought it did apply, he even rang 911 to tell them to come and pickup the body of the ne'er do well he had just killed for maybe walking on his lawn.

@GR
moral of the story is that they didnt stop in for a friendly "ello"
moral of the story is that they may or may not have been after the drugs her husband was on for pain relief during terminal cancer and they may or may not have made prior arrangements with the teenage mom they had had contact with for the previous two years .....so it is too soon to call absolutes on it which some people are all too willing to do without even looking beyond an initial headline.

[Tribesman]

poor girl, she was only 15 when she moved in with her then 55 year old lover.
I blame the parents:03:

[CaptainHaplo]

poor girl, she was only 15 when she moved in with her then 55 year old lover.
I blame the parents:03:

I rarely agree with you Tribesman - but on this one I certainly do....

[elephantium]

From where are you guys getting all these extra details? Intent to rape. 55-year-old baby-father. Two-year acquaintance. I read none of these in the article.

[August]

I don't know why you guys are arguing with the troll. It was a righteous shooting. The other scumbag will likely go to jail for a very long time, especially if they charge him with homicide. Win win I say.

[Tribesman]

Get over youself august, it is you who is trolling again as usual.
Nice to see your lame attempt at making a comment show you are clueless on the subject at hand.
No "if" about it, he was charged with homicide on the day of his arrest.
Then again as you live with Skybird in the land of ignorance it is no surprise you simply troll irrelevantly without even the faintest idea of what you are on about

From where are you guys getting all these extra details?
"Intent to rape" was just something tater made up himself to ratchet up the poor victim angle as forced entry wasn't sensational enough.
The article in the OP carries a link to the local source it was getting its information from, while the bigger news station just wants the brief story the local one carries more detail and more follow ups.

I rarely agree with you Tribesman - but on this one I certainly do....
Get with the program Haplo, apparently I am trolling and you are supposed to argue:03: