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

[tater]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.