If this was my daughter, I'd be proud of her!

Einhard

hondasam wrote: »

Knife versus gun, which one would win do you think?

But how was she to know that he wasn't more lethally armed?

Pedro K

hondasam wrote: »

weeder wrote: »

Fair play to her, warning shots or any of that **** could well have only enraged him and ,made him return fire, he was breaking in with a huge ****ing knife, he was going to use that if someone got in his way. shame if that happened here the mother would be up for murder and sued by the lad who ran for undue stress

Knife versus gun, which one would win do you think?

She may not have known just what (else) the intruder was armed with.

Biggins

hondasam wrote: »

Did that change from what we read yesterday?
I believe she did know him.

Thats fair enough - we should just judge on what we have to hand though.
...And apparently she says she didn't - until later when as her mother says, the pieces began to fall into place.
Innocent until proven guilty?
...And the have cops have a fuller recording of the whole incident through the phone which seems to give them the clearer picture that she was fully justified to do what she had to so - and they are in a better place to make that judgement.

opinion guy

Biggins wrote: »

Thats fair enough - we should just judge on what we have to hand though.
...And apparently she says she didn't. Innocent until proven guilty?
...And the have cops have a fuller recording of the whole incident through the phone which seems to give them the clearer picture that she was fully justified to do what she had to so - and they are in a better place to make that judgement.

I have to say Biggins, I'm not sure who much faith I have in those cops - did you see the guy interviewed ?? He seemed to be only interested in putting out the message 'its legal to shoot home intruders in Oklahoma'. did they actually investigate the back circumstances ?


I note also from the link I posted that she was weapons trained.

hondasam

Einhard wrote: »

But how was she to know that he wasn't more lethally armed?

Pedro K wrote: »

She may not have known just what (else) the intruder was armed with.

This is true.

Stewart told investigators that Martin knew of Kenneth McKinley's cancer treatment and suspected there were narcotics in the house.
Martin initially went to McKinley's house on the day of her husband's funeral, claiming to be a friendly neighbor but left when he saw that she had company.

How did he know if he did not know her or them?

Biggins

opinion guy wrote: »

I note also from the link I posted that she was weapons trained.

Given the rural area that they all lived in, I might say this should come as no surprise.

hondasam

Biggins wrote: »

Given the rural area that they all lived in, I might say this should come as no surprise.

Would that not put her at an advantage over the two men?
Do you not think she could have fired a warning shot or maybe just wound him?

Biggins

hondasam wrote: »

Do you not think she could have fired a warning shot or maybe just wound him?

It might have put her at an advantage if everyone was thinking rationally, and without being without wish, put in a high stress situation.
As it was she did what she had to do, given the advice also she got on the phone besides just fearing for herself and child.

hondasam wrote: »

Do you not think she could have fired a warning shot or maybe just wound him?

No, for reasons, I and others have stated already.

Manic Moran

opinion guy wrote: »

But this is really the nub of the issue isn't it. You, and those who share your opinion, WANT to shoot people.

Its not anything to do with self-defence. Its tribalism pure and simple. This is MY castle and how dare you be here! You don't care why they are there - merely the fact that they are here at all - in your space is good enough reason for you to shoot them, eh ?

If there is any one spot on the planet where a person is supposed to feel safe and secure, it is their home. As a result, there is a very strong presumption in the homeowner's favour.

Quoting the Irish courts:

This is a modern Irish formulation of a principle deeply felt throughout historical time and in every area to which the Common Law has penetrated. This is that a person’s dwellinghouse is far more than bricks and mortar; it is the home of a person and his or her family, dependents or guests (if any) and is entitled to a very high degree of protection at law for this reason

[...]

The offence of burglary committed in a dwellinghouse is in every instance an act of aggression, an attack on the personal rights of the citizen as well as a public crime and is a violation of him or her.

[...]

a dwellinghouse is a higher level, legally and constitutionally, than other forms of property. The free and secure occupation of it is a value very deeply embedded in human kind and this free and secure occupation of a dwellinghouse, apart from being a physical necessity, is a necessity for the human dignity and development of the individual and the family. It is in this sense that people who have been the victim of burglaries often speak of feeling personally debased by the experience

So yes, it is self defence. As the place most associated with your safety and security, the right for you to take action to ensure that safety is the most enshrined in that location. Various jurisdictions take the concept to various levels, such as 'on your property' or even 'anywhere where you have a legal right to be,' but the home is common grounds for them all.

Firstly, the cop that got shot was merely running through someones back garden. Secondly, so criminal says to jury - I didn't know they were cops I never heard nothing. Cites precedent.

There is an 'out' for that: If the police had the legal right to be on the property. There are rules which permit it, and procedures to follow. Way back when, I accompanied SFPD to a suspected break-in in progress. They announced their presence loudly and repeatedly before entering, and during entry and search. Turned out that the break-in was over, and the only person inside was the lawful resident who had slept through the event. He was confused as to just why the police were in his home, wth a very large dog barking at him, but not confused as to who they were. This precaution is not simply for legal reasons, but also the practical reality that cops very much would like to go home alive at the end of their shift, and getting shot by a panicked homeowner is not conducive to achieving this goal. As a result, the 'rules' are well known to all parties and generally work when they're followed.

There lies 'Dobsons choice'...
Short version: Do I give my presence away - IF they didn't know I was here or do I stay silent and hope they go away while I hide as best I can, they knowing of my presence?

Or, as the courts put it:

The householder knows that he must make the choice between attempting to arrest or scare off the burglar in which case he may find himself in serious danger, if the burglar turns out to be violent, and attacking the burglar first without a warning and possibly by inflicting death thus ensuring the safety of himself and his family”. (See Lanham Defence of Property in the Criminal Law [1966] Crim. L.R. 368)

(All quotes from DPP v Barnes)

With respect to warning shots, you will note that police in the US generally do not use warning shots, for a couple of reasons.

The standing orders I was under for dealing with civil disorder were specific that warning shots were not to be fired, that if you're sending lethal pieces of metal flying around the place, it had better be because you're trying to kill someone.

NTM

Micky Dolenz

hondasam wrote: »

Would that not put her at an advantage over the two men?
Do you not think she could have fired a warning shot or maybe just wound him?

Can't believe this is still rumbling on.

The woman is safe, her child is safe. Good result. If that guy didn't decide to break into her home, he would still be alive today.

she had a 12 gauge shot gun, a leg shot would have taken his leg off and he would have bleed to death. At close range, a shotgun is going to kill you no matter where you are hit.

Micky Dolenz

Manic Moran wrote: »

NTM

May I ask, Once engaged with an enemy. Where are you trained to shot, torso?

Mr.Biscuits

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

she had a 12 gauge shot gun, a leg shot would have taken his leg off and he would have bleed to death. At close range, a shotgun is going to kill you no matter where you are hit.

Okay, well then how would you explain John Connors living after the cyborg shot him in the arm so? :rolleyes:

Biggins

Mr.Biscuits wrote: »

Okay, well then how would you explain John Connors living after the cyborg shot him in the arm so? :rolleyes:

Conners is a legend - he couldn't die, they needed him for a sequel!

hondasam

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Can't believe this is still rumbling on.

The woman is safe, her child is safe. Good result. If that guy didn't decide to break into her home, he would still be alive today.

she had a 12 gauge shot gun, a leg shot would have taken his leg off and he would have bleed to death. At close range, a shotgun is going to kill you no matter where you are hit.

Yes you are right if he did not break into her home he would be alive.

If it turns out she knew him well and might have another motive will you think differently?

Suryavarman

Some of the rubbish being spouted in this thread is quite frankly ridiculous.

These two men made a conscious and calm decision to break into this woman's home. They also knew that her husband was recently deceased. They surely also knew that there is almost the same amount of guns in America as there is people, therefore there is a good reason to assume that this woman was armed and dangerous. They were also armed with a very large knife which signals that they were prepared to cause potentially fatal harm to this woman and leave her child an orphan. The fact that they spent quite some time attempting to break into her house would suggest that they were after something more than painkillers. If that was all they were after why not break into a pharmacy?

The way I call it is that she was well within her rights to shoot and kill the men. It doesn't matter if she spent ten years in the army as a sniper or never fired a gun before she was right to do what she did. If it was a teenage mother breaking into the house of two men, they would be within there rights to do the same. The robbers were well aware of the risks when they began the burglary and they lost. I have zero sympathy for the robbers and I applaud her for her actions.

Micky Dolenz

hondasam wrote: »

Yes you are right if he did not break into her home he would be alive.

If it turns out she knew him well and might have another motive will you think differently?

That she was extra freaked out? all the more reason to feel in even more danger. As already stated, her husband wasn't cold in the ground and a person known to her broke into her house armed.

Manic Moran

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

May I ask, Once engaged with an enemy. Where are you trained to shot, torso?

Center mass, unless at very close range against a target possibly wearing armour, in which case, head.

NTM

Raging_Ninja

stovelid wrote: »

Pinko liberal bit.

I wouldn't want to cross somebody that waited patiently and silently for the moment when it became legal to shoot somebody dead even if they were horrible people. She should have called out that she was armed.

Not shedding any tears for somebody that breaks into a house armed knowing a single mother is there, mind you. Just saying it sounds a little like clinical execution. Perhaps the law in that state helps by basically legally guaranteeing burglar turkey-shoots.

And if they were armed and shot in the direction of the sound of the voice?

As for shooting somebody in the leg - no guarantee of stopping somebody. That mentally deranged fella in Abbeylara was shot in both legs yet kept on advancing on unarmed Gardaí with his shotgun.

Also, shooting a person in the legs can be fatal - there are fairly large blood vessels there as well.

Besides, aiming at the torso is the best thing to do. It provides the largest target and the most likely place to get a hit. Aiming anywhere else would be irresponsible because the odds of missing are far higher.

She did everything right, and should be commended.

I like the law where the other criminal is being charged with homicide - in some states it is the criminals who get the blame when people defend themselves.

Micky Dolenz

Manic Moran wrote: »

Center mass, unless at very close range against a target possibly wearing armour, in which case, head.

NTM

We'll have to do coffee sometime. When the Zed war kicks off, I want you on my team

Lando Griffin

Fair play to her. But did it say she was 18 and her husband in his fifties and married two years? I wouldnt be very proud of my 16 year old daughter if she married someone old enough to be my father

Micky Dolenz

Lando Griffin wrote: »

Fair play to her. But did it say she was 18 and her husband in his fifties and married two years? I wouldnt be very proud of my 16 year old daughter if she married someone old enough to be my father

If you were old enough to have a 16 year old, and had a father young enough to be 50, it would be something that ran in the family.

Biggins

Lando Griffin wrote: »

Fair play to her. But did it say she was 18 and her husband in his fifties and married two years? I wouldnt be very proud of my 16 year old daughter if she married someone old enough to be my father

Biggins wrote: »

...but to be clear - I'd be proud of her staying calm, thinking of feeding the child a bottle with one hand to keep it quiet and not give away her position, hold two guns with the other hand and still holding them all, managed to stop an incoming danger - while still on the phone!

The above to do takes a person of exceptional composure!
Thats why I say I'd be proud of her.

Post 35.

CodeMonkey

Liam Byrne wrote: »

He is most certainly taking sides mentioning that they were "encouraged" to break in via the lack of a warning shot.

Decent people don't need a warning shot in order to be discouraged from breaking down someone's door and invading a house.

So saying she didn't try to warn them she's armed and discourage them is the same as being on their side? Not discouraging someone now is the same as encouraging them? Nice logic.

CodeMonkey

Biggins wrote: »

You have a point about the later aspects - but to be clear - I'd be proud of her staying calm, thinking of feeding the child a bottle with one hand to keep it quiet and not give away her position, hold two guns with the other hand and still holding them all, managed to stop an incoming danger - while still on the phone!

The above to do takes a person of exceptional composure!
Thats why I say I'd be proud of her.

I could also claim that she's cold and calculating and made damn sure she won't get into legal trouble before shooting the intruder without considering other options. She was clearly calm enough to despite the repeated attempt of people making her out to be a complete victim. You probably also think she married a 48 yr old for love too. Poor girl. Bless her etc etc.

Overheal

hondasam wrote: »

Would that not put her at an advantage over the two men?
Do you not think she could have fired a warning shot or maybe just wound him?

Weapons training gave a young woman an advantage over two grown men?

I'd say it made her even, if that.

This almost reminds me of the discussion we had a few years ago about "prescription" handguns, ie. Guns designed for use by the disabled or elderly.

With respect to warning shots, you will note that police in the US generally do not use warning shots, for a couple of reasons.

The standing orders I was under for dealing with civil disorder were specific that warning shots were not to be fired, that if you're sending lethal pieces of metal flying around the place, it had better be because you're trying to kill someone.

NTM

QFT.

Mr.Biscuits wrote: »

Okay, well then how would you explain John Connors living after the cyborg shot him in the arm so?

Hollywood? :P

CodeMonkey wrote: »

I could also claim that she's cold and calculating and made damn sure she won't get into legal trouble before shooting the intruder without considering other options. She was clearly calm enough to despite the repeated attempt of people making her out to be a complete victim. You probably also think she married a 48 yr old for love too. Poor girl. Bless her etc etc.

It certainly wasn't the money. Or else she wouldn't have had to sell his other guns for the funeral.

battries not included

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1370815297001/young-mother-kills-home-intruder

CodeMonkey

Overheal wrote: »

It certainly wasn't the money. Or else she wouldn't have had to sell his other guns for the funeral.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082716/Sarah-McKinley-Teen-mom-shoots-dead-intruder-Justin-Shane-Martin-looking-prescription-drugs.html

The 18-year-old Oklahoma widow who shot dead a man after he broke in to her house won't face charges over his death, police said yesterday.
The man was looking for the prescription drugs belonging to Sarah McKinley's dead husband, an affidavit released on Wednesday revealed.
Ms McKinley's 58-year-old husband Kenneth had died from lung cancer on Christmas Day, leaving behind their three-year-old son Justin, and an arsenal of cancer medications.
Justin Martin, 24, was addicted to prescription drugs, his friend told police, and was looking for his next fix.
Painkillers had gone missing from their home in recent weeks, Ms McKinley said, and suspected someone was breaking in.

Does the updated information regarding the intention of the intruders make a difference to people's indifference to how he was gunned down?

Quiet you

CodeMonkey wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082716/Sarah-McKinley-Teen-mom-shoots-dead-intruder-Justin-Shane-Martin-looking-prescription-drugs.html

Does the updated information regarding the intention of the intruders make a difference to people's indifference to how he was gunned down?

Nope....

Overheal

CodeMonkey wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082716/Sarah-McKinley-Teen-mom-shoots-dead-intruder-Justin-Shane-Martin-looking-prescription-drugs.html

Does the updated information regarding the intention of the intruders make a difference to people's indifference to how he was gunned down?

Allow me to put this into perspective for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRXNNqNfQBs

stupidusername

CodeMonkey wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082716/Sarah-McKinley-Teen-mom-shoots-dead-intruder-Justin-Shane-Martin-looking-prescription-drugs.html

Does the updated information regarding the intention of the intruders make a difference to people's indifference to how he was gunned down?

wait, three year old son? but she was 18, and i thought they only got together when she was 16.

Overheal

stupidusername wrote: »

wait, three year old son? but she was 18, and i thought they only got together when she was 16.

Rural Oklahoma. /shrug

I suppose he could be charged posthumously for statutory rape under OK's laws. Not sure what make's it relevant here, but hell it's AH.

Spunge

Overheal wrote: »

Rural Oklahoma. /shrug

I suppose he could be charged posthumously for statutory rape under OK's laws. Not sure what make's it relevant here, but hell it's AH.

It would mean, by AH standards, her husband deserved to die much more than this guy.

stupidusername

Overheal wrote: »

Rural Oklahoma. /shrug

I suppose he could be charged posthumously for statutory rape under OK's laws. Not sure what make's it relevant here, but hell it's AH.

it's hardly that odd to go a little off topic in AH

/shrug

Spunge wrote: »

It would mean, by AH standards, her husband deserved to die much more than this guy.

oh ffs

Overheal

But he is dead...

CodeMonkey

stupidusername wrote: »

wait, three year old son? but she was 18, and i thought they only got together when she was 16.

He's also 58 and not 48. 3 year old son means she got preggers at 14. Doesn't mean dead husband is father but this info doesn't really matter.

hondasam

stupidusername wrote: »

wait, three year old son? but she was 18, and i thought they only got together when she was 16.

Did you click the link? does that baby look small for a 3yr old?
scroll to the bottom.

@ codemonkey, you posted the link, did you read it?

stupidusername

hondasam wrote: »

Did you click the link? does that baby look small for a 3yr old?
scroll to the bottom.

@ codemonkey, you posted the link, did you read it?

yeah and the text in the story says:

Ms McKinley's 58-year-old husband Kenneth had died from lung cancer on Christmas Day, leaving behind their three-year-old son Justin, and an arsenal of cancer medications.

hondasam

stupidusername wrote: »

yeah and the text in the story says:

Look at the pic, it is a typo in that piece. baby is 3 mths. did you stop reading there?

Liam Byrne

CodeMonkey wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

He is most certainly taking sides mentioning that they were "encouraged" to break in via the lack of a warning shot.

Decent people don't need a warning shot in order to be discouraged from breaking down someone's door and invading a house.

So saying she didn't try to warn them she's armed and discourage them is the same as being on their side? Not discouraging someone now is the same as encouraging them? Nice logic.

Why do you think she needs to warn them ? Would you be on a thread saying that they should have warned her ? No ?

Then you are biased.

Also, she was 100% entitled to be in her home and defend it as she saw fit.

They weren't entitled to be anywhere near it.

CodeMonkey

hondasam wrote: »

Did you click the link? does that baby look small for a 3yr old?
scroll to the bottom.

@ codemonkey, you posted the link, did you read it?

Yeah I did and agree that baby looks way too small to be 3yr. Again, ages of baby and dead husband don't really matter. Just wondering if people still think the shooting was excessive knowing that the dead loser was just after some pills.

Liam Byrne

CodeMonkey wrote: »

hondasam wrote: »

Did you click the link? does that baby look small for a 3yr old?
scroll to the bottom.

@ codemonkey, you posted the link, did you read it?

Yeah I did and agree that baby looks way too small to be 3yr. Again, ages of baby and dead husband don't really matter. Just wondering if people still think the shooting was excessive knowing that the dead loser was just after some pills.

Makes no difference. It wasn't known at the time and he still wasn't entitled to be there.

Raging_Ninja

CodeMonkey wrote: »

Yeah I did and agree that baby looks way too small to be 3yr. Again, ages of baby and dead husband don't really matter. Just wondering if people still think the shooting was excessive knowing that the dead loser was just after some pills.

dead loser might have been after pills. why did they feel the need to bring a 12-inch knife?

what would have happened to the mother and kid? is it beyond the realms of possibility that might they would have decided to have had some 'fun' with them? maybe things could have gotten a little bit rapey?

CodeMonkey

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Why do you think she needs to warn them ? Would you be on a thread saying that they should have warned her ? No ?

Cause that's what people do instead of just shooting someone. That's why if she didn't consider warning them then the shooting in my eyes are very excessive. Look, can't people just admit that maybe...just maybe she didn't make the best decision just like other parts of her life? And that if she's not a teen mom with a baby you would agree with me?

Then you are biased.

No I am not. You on the other hand are super biased towards gunning that intruder down because she's seen as a vulnerable teen mom.

Raging_Ninja

CodeMonkey wrote: »

No I am not. You on the other hand are super biased towards gunning that intruder down because she's seen as a vulnerable teen mom.

i assume he's super biased against people violently entering their homes with lethal weapons, as most people would be.

CodeMonkey

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

dead loser might have been after pills. why did they feel the need to bring a 12-inch knife?

what would have happened to the mother and kid? is it beyond the realms of possibility that might they would have decided to have had some 'fun' with them? maybe things could have gotten a little bit rapey?

This crap again? That's like me saying if she didn't intend on shooting some trespassing hicks, why did she keep those 2 guns? Is it beyond the realms of possibility that they might just have taken the drugs and left? The knife was just to threaten the girl for drugs?

CodeMonkey

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

i assume he's super biased against people violently entering their homes with lethal weapons, as most people would be.

Me too but i'd tell those incompetent fools who took 30mins to break in to go away and I have a gun and not afraid to use it instead of taking aim and waiting for them to walk in.

Raging_Ninja

CodeMonkey wrote: »

This crap again? That's like me saying if she didn't intend on shooting some trespassing hicks, why did she keep those 2 guns? Is it beyond the realms of possibility that they might just have taken the drugs and left? The knife was just to threaten the girl for drugs?

it's not crap. if they didn't have any intentions of hurting somebody, they wouldn't have needed to bring weapons with them.

besides, you don't know that they ONLY would have wanted the drugs. you don't need to go very far to see incidents where people were 'only' wanting to steal a bit of cash, and the victims of the robbery end up dead.

as for keeping shotguns - they are useful tools, good for killing pests that endanger livestock, as well as home protection.

Raging_Ninja

CodeMonkey wrote: »

Me too but i'd tell those incompetent fools who took 30mins to break in to go away and I have a gun and not afraid to use it instead of taking aim and waiting for them to walk in.

and if they hadn't had knives but instead had a gun or two of their own? if she had shouted out, its not unlikely that they could have just started shooting at the sound of her voice?

remember, these were drug addicts wanting to steal pills - not exactly in a rational frame of mind.

CodeMonkey

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

it's not crap. if they didn't have any intentions of hurting somebody, they wouldn't have needed to bring weapons with them.

besides, you don't know that they ONLY would have wanted the drugs. you don't need to go very far to see incidents where people were 'only' wanting to steal a bit of cash, and the victims of the robbery end up dead.

I've asked this over and over again....let's try one more time. Is the worst case scenario in your head enough justification for shooting someone dead without giving them warning?

as for keeping shotguns - they are useful tools, good for killing pests that endanger livestock, as well as home protection.

Keeping a knife is a useful too in case you meet resistance when trying to nab some dead mans drugs. And he might grab a steak dinner later, as well as shaving if it's sharp enough, not much access to razors in them hick towns.

Raging_Ninja

CodeMonkey wrote: »

I've asked this over and over again....let's try one more time. Is the worst case scenario in your head enough justification for shooting someone dead without giving them warning?

absolutely. i don't want to risk getting killed because some idealistic do-gooder wants me to give up possibly the only advantage i'll have in a situation where i am definitely outnumbered and possibly outgunned and on the receiving end of a home invasion.

Keeping a knife is a useful too in case you meet resistance when trying to nab some dead mans drugs.

so you agree they were prepared to use a little bit of violence, yeah? they had the right tools with them anyways.