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

ScumLord

Chuck Stone wrote: »

OKAY I GET IT

Can I have a gun now too please?

Only if you promise to shot to kill, none of these fancy Hollywood shots.

hooradiation wrote: »

Unless his knife had the ability to fly and attack on it's own I think she'd have been just fine. Basically, the only scenario in which what took place was the only possible recourse involves magic weapons is what I'm saying here.

I think any home invader in the states would work under the assumption the home their breaking into has a gun in it. Especially the homes of 50 year old kiddie fiddlers I'd say.

They're intentions when getting in where obviously going to be something bad or worse, they probably thought she wouldn't have the guts to shot someone. With they're prolonged attempt to get into the house their bad intentions where clear and in America the rules are simple, you break into some ones house you get shot, they took the risk and lost.

Chuck Stone

44leto wrote: »

No you ffing can't.

No-one in Ireland should possess a legal firearm.

Do you really think so?

Stiffler2

"His accomplice, Stewart, told police he fled after he heard the gunshot and later was later driven to the police station by his parents, Newson6.com reports.
He’s being held in Grady County jail on felony murder charges and will be arraigned later today, NewsOK.com reports"

Am I missing something in the article?
Why is he being charged for murder and not burglary ?

44leto

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Do you really think so?

Yeah

Except for me, I should be allowed one because I think guns would be fun.

Biggins

Stiffler2 wrote: »

"His accomplice, Stewart, told police he fled after he heard the gunshot and later was later driven to the police station by his parents, Newson6.com reports.
He’s being held in Grady County jail on felony murder charges and will be arraigned later today, NewsOK.com reports"

Am I missing something in the article?
Why is he being charged for murder and not burglary ?

Maybe he's wanted for other more terrible previous crimes?
...And if so, might indicate the two guys CERTAINLY were not just going to treat the young girl and baby too nicely?

Spread

stovelid wrote: »

True.

The local men are going to lining up to ride her after this.

Still not 19 and already one life notch on the bedpost.

Yee-Hah!

Calm down now and take your meds

Horsefumbler

husband was in his 50s... married at 16 ... :eek:

hooradiation

Overheal wrote: »

Are you forgetting about his accomplice? And were you there, so do you know he would have *had* to throw a 12" hunting blade at her?

Well, unless you were there, as per the shitty caveats you've tenderly laid down, I find your faked incredulence to be just fucking marvellous to behold.

Overheal wrote: »

Still does not negate the other good reasons she couldn't just shoot him in the legs. A sofa being one of them. But no don't let me stop your video game fantasy. You earn +3 light side points.

video game fantasy, nice one. You really worked hard repeating that same shitty accusation over and over. Top marks, have a fucking medal.
Got any more glib shit you'd like to say? I just need to know because my schedule for scorning your drivel is kinda tight and if I could skip another coruscating example of this particular brand of wretched nonsense that'd be amazing.

Chuck Stone

ScumLord wrote: »

Only if you promise to shot to kill, none of these fancy Hollywood shots.

As long as I could hold the gun sideways and kill people in a cool way I spose I'd be okay with that.

Stiffler2

Biggins wrote: »

Maybe he's wanted for other more terrible previous crimes?
...And if so, might indicate the two guys CERTAINLY were not just going to treat the young girl and baby too nicely?

perhaps ?? I just find it a bit strange that he didn't murder anybody, legged it once he heard the gunshot & is being charged for Murder instead of burglary.

Why would they have even mentioned that in the article without including that he was up for other crimes.

American Justice = odd
Lesson here = don't f**k around in America or they'll throw the book at you and charge you for crimes that didn't fit the crime itself.

Overheal

Stiffler2 wrote: »

"His accomplice, Stewart, told police he fled after he heard the gunshot and later was later driven to the police station by his parents, Newson6.com reports.
He’s being held in Grady County jail on felony murder charges and will be arraigned later today, NewsOK.com reports"

Am I missing something in the article?
Why is he being charged for murder and not burglary ?

Biggins wrote: »

Maybe he's wanted for other more terrible previous crimes?
...And if so, might indicate the two guys CERTAINLY were not just going to treat the young girl and baby too nicely?

prosecutors have charged Martin's alleged accomplice, Dustin Louis Stewart, 29.Stewart, who called 911 shortly after the home invasion, told a dispatcher he fled the scene when Martin made his way into a Blanchard home, reports CBS affiliate KWTV.
"My name is Dusty Stewart and I think it was my friend that got shot."
Stewart reportedly told the dispatcher, "I don't know what he was trying to do. I stood at the fence and told him to come on and I don't know what he did."
Stewart was charged with first-degree murder.
"When you're engaged in a crime such as first-degree burglary and a death results from the events of that crime, you're subject to prosecution for it," Walters said.
Stewart was arraigned Wednesday and was being held in the Grady County jail. A bond hearing was set for Thursday.
According to court documents, Martin and Stewart might have been looking for prescription drugs. McKinley said it took the men about 20 minutes to get through her door, which she had barricaded with a couch.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57352784-504083/okla-mom-sarah-mckinley-wont-face-charges-for-shooting-intruder/

If they were looking for just drugs seems strange of them to go in when she was there. Unless, she was quiet enough that they didn't even realize it. Would seem odd though.

Biggins

Overheal wrote: »

...If they were looking for just drugs seems strange of them to go in when she was there. Unless, she was quiet enough that they didn't even realize it. Would seem odd though.

If as it turns out, they had killed off her dogs in preparation for breaking in, it sure indicates that they knew her - her possible routine and from studying the whole situation, about her baby.
They surely would have know then more so when she would be in or not.

They had planned in advance - even if it was just by arming themselves with a weapon.
The prescription pills story? I don't swallow it.

CodeMonkey

DISPATCHER: Okay. Alright. Do you have like an alarm on your car that you can set off with your remote control that might scare him and get him away?

I don't blame the mother for shooting after one of them entered the house but the dispatcher could've suggested a warning shot with the pistol or the shotgun to scare them off. Seems excessive.

Stiffler2

Overheal wrote: »

prosecutors have charged Martin's alleged accomplice, Dustin Louis Stewart, 29.Stewart, who called 911 shortly after the home invasion, told a dispatcher he fled the scene when Martin made his way into a Blanchard home, reports CBS affiliate KWTV.
"My name is Dusty Stewart and I think it was my friend that got shot."
Stewart reportedly told the dispatcher, "I don't know what he was trying to do. I stood at the fence and told him to come on and I don't know what he did."
Stewart was charged with first-degree murder.
"When you're engaged in a crime such as first-degree burglary and a death results from the events of that crime, you're subject to prosecution for it," Walters said.
Stewart was arraigned Wednesday and was being held in the Grady County jail. A bond hearing was set for Thursday.
According to court documents, Martin and Stewart might have been looking for prescription drugs. McKinley said it took the men about 20 minutes to get through her door, which she had barricaded with a couch.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57352784-504083/okla-mom-sarah-mckinley-wont-face-charges-for-shooting-intruder/

If they were looking for just drugs seems strange of them to go in when she was there. Unless, she was quiet enough that they didn't even realize it. Would seem odd though.

Wow - not sticking up for them or anything but that justice seems a little too hard to me. For a murder sentance in the states he will face life in jail more than likely and for what ?

For standing at the back door, he didn't even get into the house and certainly didn't kill anyone.

That's a bit harsh. granted IF they had have broken in could have killed her but the justice system usually either doesn't or shouldn't work under the "What If" statement

Fromthetrees

http://www.herald.ie/multimedia/archive/00187/2306_nally_h_187635t.jpg

CodeMonkey

Stiffler2 wrote: »

Wow - not sticking up for them or anything but that justice seems a little too hard to me. For a murder sentance in the states he will face life in jail more than likely and for what ?

For standing at the back door, he didn't even get into the house and certainly didn't kill anyone.

That's a bit harsh. granted IF they had have broken in could have killed her but the justice system usually either doesn't or shouldn't work under the "What If" statement

People going nuts because it involved a young mother and a new born. They're making the other guy pay and completely over looking the fact that she killed someone who could've been scared off with warning shots before they broke in.

44leto

Stiffler2 wrote: »

Wow - not sticking up for them or anything but that justice seems a little too hard to me. For a murder sentance in the states he will face life in jail more than likely and for what ?

For standing at the back door, he didn't even get into the house and certainly didn't kill anyone.

That's a bit harsh. granted IF they had have broken in could have killed her but the justice system usually either doesn't or shouldn't work under the "What If" statement

How about self defence. You are allowed to defend yourself.

Biggins

CodeMonkey wrote: »

I don't blame the mother for shooting after one of them entered the house but the dispatcher could've suggested a warning shot with the pistol or the shotgun to scare them off. Seems excessive.

Maybe she hadn't enough shells to spare a warning shot?

Maybe in the time he got from the door to getting his hands around her throat, she wouldn't have time to fire, put down baby with bottle, put down phone, open up gun, reload it, raise it calmly and fire again?

Just a quick thought!

Excessive my arse!

CodeMonkey

Biggins wrote: »

Maybe she hadn't enough shells to spare a warning shot?

Maybe in the time he got from the door to getting his hands around her throat, she wouldn't have time to fire, put down baby with bottle, put down phone, open up gun, reload it, raise it calmly and fire again?

Just a quick thought!

Excessive my arse!

You're just making excuses for her cause you are on her side. She had a shotgun AND a pistol and 21 mins with the dispatcher. And I did say warning shots when they are outside when the dispatcher suggested car alarm to scare them off.

ScumLord

Stiffler2 wrote: »

For standing at the back door, he didn't even get into the house and certainly didn't kill anyone.

Because he didn't get the chance too, not that he didn't intend too. If she wasn't armed it could have been a completely different story.

woodoo

hooradiation wrote: »

Unless his knife had the ability to fly and attack on it's own I think she'd have been just fine. Basically, the only scenario in which what took place was the only possible recourse involves magic weapons is what I'm saying here..

You're watching too many movies where a perfect shot is always dispatched and he falls to the ground clutching his leg? Shooting him in the leg may not have been enough to stop him reaching another few metres towards her. Why take the risk just to preserve his life??

God damn it if it was legal in Ireland to kill people stealing oil. I'd have a gun trained on the tank permanently... Yeee haaa!!

hondasam

I think she was protecting herself from the intruders, she probably knew them.
I can't imagine they were going to harm the baby. I'm not sure if I agree with shooting someone dead.

44leto

CodeMonkey wrote: »

You're just making excuses for her cause you are on her side. She had a shotgun AND a pistol and 21 mins with the dispatcher. And I did say warning shots when they are outside when the dispatcher suggested car alarm to scare them off.

You are right she should have rang her horoscope or someone who does tarot cards and found out first HAD he OR his accomplish got a gun.

She is 18 alone, vulnerable and going by the picture rather attractive, the scumbags intentions could have been burglary or rape.

She was right in what she did.

Biggins

CodeMonkey wrote: »

You're just making excuses for her cause you are on her side. She had a shotgun AND a pistol and 21 mins with the dispatcher. And I did say warning shots when they are outside when the dispatcher suggested car alarm to scare them off.

The man was attacking her home for 21 minutes ALSO.
Do you seriously think a warning shot was going to deter that type of person, whom we can assume, might have done this type of thing before?
...A person that by his stalking alone, greatly knew what exactly was in the home?

Warning shot my backside.
We are talking about a trapped, scared 18 year, alone with a baby and there is men at her door breaking in!
...And you want to see niceties being carried out? Where was their niceties for fcuks sake!

Jeasus, some people are unreal!

P.S.

Firing a warning shot means:

1. Short version - Having to go outside - that means indicating she was at home with her baby, leaving both vulnerable by opening a fairly secure entrance/exit.
* As the second man was breaking in from behind ALSO, she would have had to possibly put down her baby too inside, leaving it alone while she herself going out the front (scared out of her wits!) to fire this marvellous warning shot - where she might be further jumped upon from any side!

or

2. INSIDE - Firing a guns at what exactly? The walls? The roof?
Walls? Hit the wiring - start a possible fire?
The roof? Might bring part of it down?

Daftness!

Overheal

Stiffler2 wrote: »

Wow - not sticking up for them or anything but that justice seems a little too hard to me. For a murder sentance in the states he will face life in jail more than likely and for what ?

For standing at the back door, he didn't even get into the house and certainly didn't kill anyone.

That's a bit harsh. granted IF they had have broken in could have killed her but the justice system usually either doesn't or shouldn't work under the "What If" statement

Subject to prosecution. Meaning they require the circumstances to be judged in court. It doesn't mean he will actually face first degree murder charges.

EL_Loco

If robbery was the aim then wait til she's gone out.
Why call in the night before?
Why the knife?
Why 2 people?
Why kill the dogs?
Why attempt to get in for 21 minutes?

These boys were up to more than breaking and entering, it wasn't a crime of opportunity, it was calculated with more than likely murderous intent, preying on a young widow with a child in the house.

So thinking she's the cold one because she was asking when it was ok to shoot? maybe she didn't want the child to end up in state care, was making sure if she had to defend herself she was doing it "correctly".

Brave and smart if you ask me.

hondasam

Take away some of the drama from the story, young widow, small baby, alone in the house. What type of person shoots someone.
If the same thing happens in six months will she still get as much sympathy?

CodeMonkey

Biggins wrote: »

The man was attacking her home for 21 minutes ALSO.
Do you seriously think a warning shot was going to deter that type of person, whom we can assume, might have done this type of thing before?

I guess that's why the other guy charged in after instead of running.

Warning shot my backside.
We are talking about a trapped, scared 18 year, alone with a baby and there is men at her door breaking in!
...And you want to see niceties being carried out? Where was their niceties for fcuks sake!

Jeasus, some people are unreal!

Again, I don't really care that she fired after the guy broke in. She probably was scared. I am commenting on the fact that the dispatcher did not suggest warning shots after suggesting the use of a car alarm.

Jesus christ. Some people's attitude are unreal when a baby is involved.

Overheal

hondasam wrote: »

Take away some of the drama from the story, young widow, small baby, alone in the house. What type of person shoots someone.

The kind of person who is a young widow, alone in a house, with their small baby.

Sorry but it happened like that.

I am commenting on the fact that the dispatcher did not suggest warning shots after suggesting the use of a car alarm.

Might have been against their rules to suggest so. Just as the dispatcher could not say to shoot them or not.

ScumLord

hondasam wrote: »

I think she was protecting herself from the intruders, she probably knew them.
I can't imagine they were going to harm the baby. I'm not sure if I agree with shooting someone dead.

If they killed the mother and left the baby would be harmed through neglect. I doubt they would have informed anybody that they'd just killed a mother and the baby needs attention.

As far as I'm concerned the intruders have only themselves to blame. If they weren't trying to break into a house containing a mother and child he wouldn't be dead. If they had tried to break into a grizzly bears den we wouldn't be at all surprised that they ended up dead we'd just say "well that was stupid of them, what did they think would happen?" Grizzly bears and a mother are almost exactly the same thing.

You can't come between a mother and child no matter what species they are, it's just going to end up with someone getting seriously hurt.

CodeMonkey

Biggins wrote: »

1. Short version- Having to go outside - that means indicating she was at home with her baby, leaving both vulnerable by opening a fairly secure entrance/exit.

or

2. INSIDE - Firing a guns at what exactly? The walls? The roof?
Walls? Hit the wiring - start a possible fire?
The roof? Might bring part of it down?

Daftness!

I don't know. The door they were banging on. Wow, you always this insulting when someone don't agree with you? Daft my arse. Won't reply back, you seem way too emotional to discuss things rationally. Wouldn't want to be shot like that other dude cause the lady was emotionally stressed.

Biggins

hondasam wrote: »

Take away some of the drama from the story, young widow, small baby, alone in the house. What type of person shoots someone.

A scared one for her life?

CodeMonkey wrote: »

...I am commenting on the fact that the dispatcher did not suggest warning shots after suggesting the use of a car alarm.

Jesus christ. Some people's attitude are unreal when a baby is involved.

Maybe in the long phone call that we DO NOT fully know about, it was ascertained that firing a warning shot would not have been the best thing to do?
...And it wasn't JUST about the baby, it was a young girl fearing for her life - knowing a man that was previously staking her - was outside.

Overheal

Dramatized re-enactment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBoP2l7VBeo

Oddly, nobody bitched in the reviews of Kill Bill why he didn't give her any warning.

44leto

CodeMonkey wrote: »

I guess that's why the other guy charged in after instead of running.

Again, I don't really care that she fired after the guy broke in. She probably was scared. I am commenting on the fact that the dispatcher did not suggest warning shots after suggesting the use of a car alarm.

Jesus christ. Some people's attitude are unreal when a baby is involved.

Its called being human.

Human's get very primal when it concerns their children, you may find that out someday.

Sir Gallagher

CodeMonkey wrote: »

Biggins wrote: »

1. Short version- Having to go outside - that means indicating she was at home with her baby, leaving both vulnerable by opening a fairly secure entrance/exit.

or

2. INSIDE - Firing a guns at what exactly? The walls? The roof?
Walls? Hit the wiring - start a possible fire?
The roof? Might bring part of it down?

Daftness!

I don't know. The door they were banging on. Wow, you always this insulting when someone don't agree with you? Daft my arse. Won't reply back, you seem way too emotional to discuss things rationally. Wouldn't want to be shot like that other dude cause the lady was emotionally stressed.

Don't break into somebody's gaff so.

Biggins

CodeMonkey wrote: »

I don't know. The door they were banging on. Wow, you always this insulting when someone don't agree with you? Daft my arse. Won't reply back, you seem way too emotional to discuss things rationally. Wouldn't want to be shot like that other dude cause the lady was emotionally stressed.

Ok... fire at the door!
He was on the outside at that point? Legal shooting?
What if she had killed him by her firing a warning shot though the door - while he was there - on the outside?

She would have been possibly facing even by an accidental shooting, a charge of second degree manslaughter - at the very least!

Seems she and the dispatcher was using their heads more than your using yours right now.

ScumLord

CodeMonkey wrote: »

I don't know. The door they were banging on. Wow, you always this insulting when someone don't agree with you? Daft my arse. Won't reply back, you seem way too emotional to discuss things rationally. Wouldn't want to be shot like that other dude cause the lady was emotionally stressed.

There's no need for a warning shot, there's already a law that says you can't break into other peoples houses, if she gave him a warning it was too much, what's to stop him coming back another time while she's asleep?

He kicked in the door after 20 minutes of trying we should all be so lucky to have a shotgun on hand to protect ourselves from scum like that.

Overheal

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

Don't break into somebody's gaff so.

And kill their dogs. And plan stupid **** like this.

CodeMonkey

Biggins wrote: »

...And it wasn't JUST about the baby, it was a young girl fearing for her life - knowing a man that was previously staking her - was outside.

Oh bollocks. You're just making excuses cause you are on her side. She had no clue who it was.

Det. Huff told KFOR-TV that he and his fellow detectives believe the home invasion to have been ‘premeditated.’
The attack, as new reports reveal, may have been premeditated. Ms McKinley’s mother told Newson6.com that Martin stalked her daughter at a rodeo two years ago.
The two have since bumped into each other at a nearby convenience store. Ms McKinley said she didn’t know who he was until after the shooting, when she pieced everything together.

CodeMonkey

Biggins wrote: »

Seems she was using her head more than your using yours right now.

Seems your not cause she can do no wrong or anything different. She was right, guy had to die. I really am out of here.

Biggins

CodeMonkey wrote: »

Seems your not cause she can do no wrong or anything different. She was right, guy had to die. I really am out of here.

The guy didn't have to die - but he didn't have to possibly break into her home either!

So she kopped on later that she had been stalked.
He wasn't breaking in to wish her "Happy new year" armed with a knife and an accomplice.

...And you want a teen to just fire warning shots while holding a baby, being scared out of her wits and alone?
I'd like to see anyone acting so bloody perfectly in such a situation, in their own home.

Overheal

CodeMonkey wrote: »

Oh bollocks. You're just making excuses cause you are on her side. She had no clue who it was.

She knew enough.

SARAH MCKINLEY'S 911 CALL TO GRADY COUNTY SHERIFF

DISPATCHER: What's going on?
SARAH MCKINLEY: There's a guy at my door. I’ve got some dogs that keep coming up missing. This guy’s up to no good. My husband just passed away. I’m here by myself with my infant baby. Can I please get a dispatch out here immediately?

CodeMonkey

You 2 are right. Completely justified killing. QED. Sorry I got involved.

Overheal

CodeMonkey wrote: »

You 2 are right. Completely justified killing. QED. Sorry I got involved.

No problem man, take it easy.

hondasam

Biggins wrote: »

...And it wasn't JUST about the baby, it was a young girl fearing for her life - knowing a man that was previously staking her - was outside.

This is where the story changes for me, she knew him, was it revenge?
He was after her so protecting the baby is a non runner imo.

SeanW

aaronh007 wrote: »

Scared of getting shot... that would stop me going back!

They could just come back with a bigger gun?

Dermighty

She should have shot herself too.

Biggins

hondasam wrote: »

This is where the story changes for me, she knew him, was it revenge?
He was after her so protecting the baby is a non runner imo.

I was rightly corrected on the above.
She later learned he's been stalking her.


....And as SeanW suggested, firing a warning shot might have led to one of the two attackers going back somewhere and getting just better weapons?
Maybe thats why the dispatcher might not have suggested the young girl fire one off from within?

Overheal

Dermighty wrote: »

She should have shot herself too.

Why?

hondasam

Dermighty wrote: »

She should have shot herself too.

why would she do that and leave the baby alone?