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

Takeda Shingen · 01-04-12, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tater

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 · 01-05-12, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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.

01-05-12, 02:44 AM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

Quote:

Regardless of their intent.....

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

tater · 01-05-12, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Quote:

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 · 01-05-12, 11:49 AM

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.

Takeda Shingen · 01-05-12, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1480

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 · 01-05-12, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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 · 01-05-12, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

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.

Quote:

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 · 01-05-12, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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.

Takeda Shingen · 01-05-12, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

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.

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

tater · 01-05-12, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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 · 01-05-12, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tater

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.

but something tells me thats not the case

01-05-12, 11:49 AM	#5
GoldenRivet Subsim Aviator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 8,726 Downloads: 146 Uploads: 0	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. __________________