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.

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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

here

[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.

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

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)

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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

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.

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