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

hawkelady

KeithAFC wrote: »

Well I don't really buy into the whole holding the baby argument. She could have easily put the baby down in the corner of the room and went and shot him in a place which would just wound him. Then he would go to prison and possibly learn a valuable lesson.

Seriously, what you typed there is utter nonsense. His mate will learn the lesson for the two of them! the intruder learned a quick lesson, dont burst down front doors to steal.. he deserved everything that he got.
The putting the baby down nonsense you speak of, you obviously dont have kids as you wouldnt just put your flesh and blood down calmly while there was a man bursting down your door to cause you or your child harm.
pity that law isnt in Ireland, beating a thief with a hurl to within an inch of his/her life would cut down burglarly rates fairly quick.......

Overheal

the_syco wrote: »

Also, don't forget that a police officer could have been at the other side of the door, or an innocent child could have been passing my at that time...

I find that extremely unlikely Stray children? Certainly not a cop. A cop wouldn't act like that, and she was on the phone with 9-1-1 and she knew no police officers were on the scene.

Also, who the f**k burglars armed with a knife in a country that allows you to own a firearm? You go in with a gun, and shoot anyone that gets in your way, so you can steal as much cash as possible. Unless of course you intended to rape the house owner, that is.

People that can't pass the background check. Or as soup suggests, people who don't want to make a load of noise.

Biggins

KeithAFC wrote: »

Well I don't think all parents are the same. In the UK and the ROI, I doubt every parent would have killed this robber. But in America, there is this aggressive instinct when it comes to protecting the home and it seems to have came out in this case.

In the UK and ROI we would possibly fear the consequences of the law more-so (knowing its a joke sometimes when it comes to such situations).
As the girl was on the phone to the police and might have been made aware of the "Castle Doctrine" (if she didn't know about it already!), she might have been put on firmer footing as to her rights.
It certainly in some way, seems to be that way.

Overheal

KeithAFC wrote: »

Well I don't think all parents are the same. In the UK and the ROI, I doubt every parent would have killed this robber. But in America, there is this aggressive instinct when it comes to protecting the home and it seems to have came out in this case.

Yes. Clearly it is just something in our water supply that makes us savage beasts over here. You've come up with a lot of nonsensical posts this morning. As if an Irish person would be more inclined to just open the door for them, warm the kettle and lie face down on the bed with their skirt pulled up.

If anything I agree with Biggins, and that UK and Irish people have more ramification to think about. That is all. In reality, everyone would want to defend themselves from a home invader. Except your law says you basically are forced to flee your home rather than fight back. Good luck if you live on the second floor.

plein de force

Even if i was in that house on my own i would've done what she did never mind being there with a child to protect. The piece of scum got what he deserved

candy-gal1

fair play to her i say!

if someone forces there way into your home uninvited with even a hint of threat, you do what you can to survive, whatever needs to be done.
your home, your life, youve the right to defend both.

KeithAFC

hawkelady wrote: »

Seriously, what you typed there is utter nonsense. His mate will learn the lesson for the two of them! the intruder learned a quick lesson, dont burst down front doors to steal.. he deserved everything that he got.
The putting the baby down nonsense you speak of, you obviously dont have kids as you wouldnt just put your flesh and blood down calmly while there was a man bursting down your door to cause you or your child harm.
pity that law isnt in Ireland, beating a thief with a hurl to within an inch of his/her life would cut down burglarly rates fairly quick.......

Well I think it is perfectly reasonable to put the baby in the corner and go and stop the intruders with reasonable force. The guy who got shot didn't learn any lesson as he is now dead. Perhaps if he had lived and went to prison, he could have learnt a lot from this experience and went on to improve his life and do a lot for his community and charity. We will never know now.

MonkieSocks

If the intruder hadn't walked within the range of the gun, he would have lived.

He should have watched where he was going:eek:

bruschi

KeithAFC wrote: »

The lesson would have been learnt much more if she had just wounded him and he had time to think about what he did. But the way the United States is at the moment, it is no surprise this is happening. People are desperate.

if he had time to think about what he did? he had enough time when he preplanned the 'job'. He had enough time when it seems he was killing off her dogs. he had enough time while he spent 20 minutes trying to break down her door. fcuk him. she didnt intend to kill him, she shot him when he broke into her house.

Overheal wrote: »

I just think it's odd, that in half of these AH threads where say some Irish case happens where some guy has been raping a girl for 20 years everyone's like "Blast his balls off!" and all this crap. Now here we are and it's like "Aww, that's kinda mean."

in fairness, there is only what, 3 people so far who have made any sort of case for the poor dead burglar.

most here are saying she was right in her actions.

Penn

KeithAFC wrote: »

Well I think it is perfectly reasonable to put the baby in the corner and go and stop the intruders with reasonable force. The guy who got shot didn't learn any lesson as he is now dead. Perhaps if he had lived and went to prison, he could have learnt a lot from this experience and went on to improve his life and do a lot for his community and charity. We will never know now.

Nobody puts baby in the corner

Overheal

KeithAFC wrote: »

Well I think it is perfectly reasonable to put the baby in the corner and go and stop the intruders with reasonable force. The guy who got shot didn't learn any lesson as he is now dead. Perhaps if he had lived and went to prison, he could have learnt a lot from this experience and went on to improve his life and do a lot for his community and charity. We will never know now.

Yes it's a shame that wasn't running through her head. "Oh god he has a knife. My child. I'm cornered. Here he comes. But aww I'm sure he's a nice enough fella, maybe I should offer him a chance to repent".

Cop the fcuk on. Not every situation is going to end up like this.

Never heard so much bullsh*t at once in my life.

plein de force

KeithAFC wrote: »

Well I think it is perfectly reasonable to put the baby in the corner and go and stop the intruders with reasonable force. The guy who got shot didn't learn any lesson as he is now dead. Perhaps if he had lived and went to prison, he could have learnt a lot from this experience and went on to improve his life and do a lot for his community and charity. We will never know now.

You can't expect someone scared of being killed, with a child to protect to be thinking of the poor misguided man that's breaking into your home probably ready to kill or seriously injure you after already heinously planning the attack, put yourself in her position. Survival instinct always takes over. I know talk is cheap but if i was in her position, thinking i was going to be killed by this piece of scum i'd have done the exact same thing

mikemac1

Someone brought a knife to a gun fight so

And lost

kfallon

KeithAFC wrote: »

Well I think it is perfectly reasonable to put the baby in the corner and go and stop the intruders with reasonable force. The guy who got shot didn't learn any lesson as he is now dead. Perhaps if he had lived and went to prison, he could have learnt a lot from this experience and went on to improve his life and do a lot for his community and charity. We will never know now.

LOL

Yeah maybe she should have conducted a 25 min interview with him before she pulled the trigger to see if he was the remorseful kind and to see what the affects of her not shooting would have on him. A lovely little case study!

It's only the 5th of January but already we have the funniest post of the year award wrapped up!

But you could be right, with that shooting we may have just lost the man who was about to find the cure for cancer :P

KeithAFC

Overheal wrote: »

Yes it's a shame that wasn't running through her head. "Oh god he has a knife. My child. I'm cornered. Here he comes. But aww I'm sure he's a nice enough fella, maybe I should offer him a chance to repent".

Cop the fcuk on. Not every situation is going to end up like this.

Never heard so much bullsh*t at once in my life.

Well that is my point. He could have ended up going to prison and turning his life around. I know she doesn't have long to think about it but it is an outcome which would have been nice and perhaps if she did go down that route, it would have been the best outcome.

krudler

KeithAFC wrote: »

Well I think it is perfectly reasonable to put the baby in the corner and go and stop the intruders with reasonable force. The guy who got shot didn't learn any lesson as he is now dead. Perhaps if he had lived and went to prison, he could have learnt a lot from this experience and went on to improve his life and do a lot for his community and charity. We will never know now.

you have to be trolling now.

Oranage2

"I'm so proud of you" would not be a sentence I'd use.



EDIT: Though I wouldnt be against what she did

DaveDaRave

Overheal wrote: »

I just think it's odd, that in half of these AH threads where say some Irish case happens where some guy has been raping a girl for 20 years everyone's like "Blast his balls off!" and all this crap. Now here we are and it's like "Aww, that's kinda mean."

Burglary vs 20 years of rape.

hmm

mikemac1

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Why not shoot him in the legs?

Because this is not a computer game

Same armchair experts after every event.

That video of the American sniper who shot a gun out of a persons hands has inflated peoples views of what is possible


And this was a shotgun, two shells. Miss and the lady could be getting carved up

Stiffler2

ScumLord wrote: »

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.

Ye - but this all falls under the "What If" statement which I stated earlier.
What if I won the lottery tomo. - not going to happen.

Their justice system is based on "what if's"

complete bull$hit if you ask me.

stupidusername

While I agree that you should be allowed do whatever you want to someone that breaks into your home, I do find some things about this unusual. She was described as feeding the baby, holding two guns (one of which is a shot gun) supposedly in one hand, and on the phone (presumably not through a headset). It seems weird that she was so rational about it all. To think to feed the baby... to think to get the guns... and most importantly to ask if it's ok to shoot him? Some are dismissing her shooting him in the torso out of lack of thinking (and other very valid things) but she was thinking enough to be aware that she may be accountable for someones life as she was about to shoot someone. she doesn't sound like a very scared person to me. (or I suppose I should replace person with young mother)

Oh and I don't know where the idea the intention of rape came from

Biggins

Stiffler2 wrote: »

Ye - but this all falls under the "What If" statement which I stated earlier.
What if I won the lottery tomo. - not going to happen.

Their justice system is based on "what if's"

complete bull$hit if you ask me.

What IF he didn't possibly kill her dogs, attack the house, terrify a young girl?
...I guess he's still be alive!

...But thats a big IF too - we will never know.
We just know what happened approximately and how one brave person dealed with the situation in real time.

stupidusername wrote: »

While I agree that you should be allowed do whatever you want to someone that breaks into your home, I do find some things about this unusual. She was described as feeding the baby, holding two guns (one of which is a shot gun) supposedly in one hand, and on the phone (presumably not through a headset). It seems weird that she was so rational about it all. To think to feed the baby... to think to get the guns... and most importantly to ask if it's ok to shoot him? Some are dismissing her shooting him in the torso out of lack of thinking (and other very valid things) but she was thinking enough to be aware that she may be accountable for someones life as she was about to shoot someone. she doesn't sound like a very scared person to me. (or I suppose I should replace person with young mother)...

If you watch the video's on the Mail's site, you will see that STILL the girl is shaking from the experience.
Its explained repeatedly that the dispatcher managed to keep the girl relatively calm at the time.
She was rational - to the extent of thinking of herself and the child - who wouldn't try hopefully to be at least this?

...And she asked TWICE about "is it ok to shoot?" - so clearly she was not that sure and calm about some then ongoing aspects.
She needed/sought reassurance.
She just didn't go 'gung-ho' and blast away. She knew there would be consequences.

Conor108

This thread is crazy! She had a baby to think about. Maybe she wasn't trained to use the gun, she's going to aim for the largest target area, the torso. They broke in to harm her/her baby, no great loss.

stupidusername

Oh and this mention of the baby obviously from her point of view, yeah I get it, but for everyone to assume he was breaking in to rape her and ..what..shoot the baby? seriously, get a grip.

KeithAFC

stupidusername wrote: »

While I agree that you should be allowed do whatever you want to someone that breaks into your home, I do find some things about this unusual. She was described as feeding the baby, holding two guns (one of which is a shot gun) supposedly in one hand, and on the phone (presumably not through a headset). It seems weird that she was so rational about it all. To think to feed the baby... to think to get the guns... and most importantly to ask if it's ok to shoot him? Some are dismissing her shooting him in the torso out of lack of thinking (and other very valid things) but she was thinking enough to be aware that she may be accountable for someones life as she was about to shoot someone. she doesn't sound like a very scared person to me. (or I suppose I should replace person with young mother)

Oh and I don't know where the idea the intention of rape came from

Good information. Doesn't sound scared at all. Is making me think twice about this case.

hondasam

I have read the story again and I'm not sure the dogs were killed on the same night.

''After her husband’s funeral the previous week, a man named Justin Martin stopped by McKinley’s house, claiming he was a neighbour and only wanted to introduce himself
McKinley, 18, was suspicious. She said he was calling late at night, when it was "pitch black outside".

''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''.

She had to have known it was him at the door, how come she did not tell the dispatcher his name?

Conor108

stupidusername wrote: »

Oh and this mention of the baby obviously from her point of view, yeah I get it, but for everyone to assume he was breaking in to rape her and ..what..shoot the baby? seriously, get a grip.

Yeah he was probably gonna nurse her and rock her to sleep.

hawkelady

stupidusername wrote: »

Oh and this mention of the baby obviously from her point of view, yeah I get it, but for everyone to assume he was breaking in to rape her and ..what..shoot the baby? seriously, get a grip.

whats your point,exactly?? he was breaking in....end of .. whether it was to rape or to steal an effing mircowave!! he still got what coming to him.

Mother 1 Burglar 0
Good result

jackal

Make My Day law - gotta love the name. Also I support the concept, intrude into somebody else's home, be prepared to die. That's the deal over there, it is perfectly clear. Unlike here in Ireland, where some posters would rather win the intruders over with a hearty motivational talk, and an all you can rape\steal\murder buffet, for fear that said intruder does not fulfil their potential as a valuable member of society.

du Maurier

Biggins wrote: »

Short version:

* After burying her husband a week before - 18 Year old girl with her baby inside their home, trapped but armed - shoots robber dead with her gun. He was armed too. He had an accomplice.

* She asked the police twice was it ok to shoot!

* Self-Defense - she will NOT be charged.

---

By the looks of things, the crooks might have killed off her dogs too in preparation for their attack.
Having a go at her so soon after burying her husband, what they didn't reckon for is the calibre of the girl to stay calm!

Well done to her! fair play to her. I wish her well.

Moral of the story: NEVER underestimate anyone - especially a person willing to defend their baby and home!

I'm not sure about the title of your thread. Why pride, of all feelings, toward the matter?

Edit: Okay, just copped your reasoning as to the proud thing. Still though..

Overheal

stupidusername wrote: »

While I agree that you should be allowed do whatever you want to someone that breaks into your home, I do find some things about this unusual. She was described as feeding the baby, holding two guns (one of which is a shot gun) supposedly in one hand, and on the phone (presumably not through a headset). It seems weird that she was so rational about it all. To think to feed the baby... to think to get the guns... and most importantly to ask if it's ok to shoot him? Some are dismissing her shooting him in the torso out of lack of thinking (and other very valid things) but she was thinking enough to be aware that she may be accountable for someones life as she was about to shoot someone. she doesn't sound like a very scared person to me. (or I suppose I should replace person with young mother)

They had attempted to gain entry to the home a few days before, posing as neighbors. She had some time to think about what she might do ahead of time, and when the time came she did it.

Oh and I don't know where the idea the intention of rape came from

Because she's 18 and a widowed mother and the kind of people that break into homes with hunting knives are poor-minded enough as it is.

stupidusername

Conor108 wrote: »

Yeah he was probably gonna nurse her and rock her to sleep.

Yeah cause if it's not one extreme it'd have to be the opposite.

hawkelady wrote: »

whats your point,exactly?? he was breaking in....end of .. whether it was to rape or to steal an effing mircowave!! he still got what coming to him.

Mother 1 Burglar 0
Good result

My point wasn't about her right to shoot him if you read my post at all.

Biggins

hondasam wrote: »

I have read the story again and I'm not sure the dogs were killed on the same night.

She had to have known it was him at the door, how come she did not tell the dispatcher his name?

They weren't.
Its explained they were killed previously and others again, also going missing too!

As regards names, who is to say that name was real anyway - and maybe she DID give the dispatcher the name that was said at her husbands funeral.
In the 28+ minutes of her being in the house, the cops not getting there, while they were outside, the knowledge of names would have been little use anyway on site!

Biggins

du Maurier wrote: »

I'm not sure about the title of your thread. Why pride, of all feelings, toward the matter?

Read back to a previous post where I have EXACTLY explained that.

stupidusername

Overheal wrote: »

They had attempted to gain entry to the home a few days before, posing as neighbors. She had some time to think about what she might do ahead of time, and when the time came she did it.

Hmm, fair enough argument. I still think it a little odd.

Overheal wrote: »

Because she's 18 and a widowed mother and the kind of people that break into homes with hunting knives are poor-minded enough as it is.

Well that's just a poor argument. Burglary and rape are very different classes of crime.

Dohnny Jepp

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?

I think the murder charge would relate to his mate getting shot. When someone dies in an attempt at robbery/crime, their accomplices are charged with the murder as they put the person in the position to be shot. In america at least

Overheal

stupidusername wrote: »

Well that's just a poor argument. Burglary and rape are very different classes of crime.

It doesn't really matter either way at this point all that mattered is that she was considering her safety and that of her child, and the men were armed. Doesn't really matter if they waved it at her and told her to sit in a corner or we'll kill you, or, if they tried to rape her and told her if you resist, we'll kill you. Or, they could have just been there to kill her. Hell, I've read more sadistic things.

The laws that protected her don't make the distinction. These men were armed, broke in, and had some form of criminal intent. She had every right.

Gandhi

The article said she gave the baby a bottle, presumably to calm the baby down. A baby in that situation would most likely be very upset by the noise and would also pick up on how stressed the mother was. Giving a baby a bottle in that case would be the best way to calm him enough that she could put him into a crib or carseat in a safe place and not worry about him wriggling out.

She wasn't calmly cooking fish fingers for the kid with a shotgun under her arm impatiently waiting for this dude to break in so she could have an excuse to shoot him.

stupidusername

Overheal wrote: »

It doesn't really matter either way at this point all that mattered is that she was considering her safety and that of her child, and the men were armed. Doesn't really matter if they waved it at her and told her to sit in a corner or we'll kill you, or, if they tried to rape her and told her if you resist, we'll kill you. Or, they could have just been there to kill her. Hell, I've read more sadistic things.

The laws that protected her don't make the distinction. These men were armed, broke in, and had some form of criminal intent. She had every right.

I KNOW SHE HAD THE RIGHT TO! I'm not disputing that. I'm saying why would you jump to the conclusion that they were going to rape her!? Doesn't make any sense.

It's like you're just trying to make it more ok for her to have shot him. it doesn't come into the argument.

hondasam

Biggins wrote: »

They weren't.
Its explained they were killed previously and others again, also going missing too!

As regards names, who is to say that name was real anyway - and maybe she DID give the dispatcher the name that was said at her husbands funeral.
In the 28+ minutes of her being in the house, the cops not getting there, while they were outside, the knowledge of names would have been little use anyway on site!

This is a man who had stalked her, she had met him in the town and he called to her house after her husband died.
She was so organised with the guns etc I would think telling the cops the name of the person who is about to kill her would be important.

Conor108

stupidusername wrote: »

Yeah cause if it's not one extreme it'd have to be the opposite.

What I'm saying is I don't think the baby would have got off scott-free if the situation hadn't gone as it did. If the mother had gone for and messed up the 'warning shots' that seem to be preferred by the seasoned veterans of AH, the baby could well be growing up without both parents.

I'm just saying the 18 year old girl was in a really tough situation, under attack and managed to keep her head.

JONJO THE MISER

Best news story ive heard all year, its a petty she did not hunt down and shoot the other guy as well.

Think_then_talk

ScumLord wrote: »

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.

Captain McDuck wrote: »

Dead husband was a sick cnut. At 48 marrying a 16 year old. Pure Durt.

The age of consent in Oklahoma is 16.

Fair play to her. A good mother.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma

Biggins

hondasam wrote: »

This is a man who had stalked her, she had met him in the town and he called to her house after her husband died.
She was so organised with the guns etc I would think telling the cops the name of the person who is about to kill her would be important.

Even so (She found out about the stalking LATER it now appears).

Rather than blast away - for 21 minutes she somehow managed to stay calm enough, put up with their aggression and still not to be stupid to just blast away within the first 21 minutes!

Would we all have done likewise?

Thats 21 minutes by the way that the man could have walked away and left!
He didn't!

Overheal

stupidusername wrote: »

I KNOW SHE HAD THE RIGHT TO! I'm not disputing that. I'm saying why would you jump to the conclusion that they were going to rape her!? Doesn't make any sense.

It's like you're just trying to make it more ok for her to have shot him. it doesn't come into the argument.

Because I can't think of any other reason for after having stalked her to pick a time she would be home to break into her place just to steal her stuff or as the court paper's mention, her husband's medication. Evidently, they wanted to be sure she was there, which leads to a very short list of possibilities that include rape, torture, and coercion. All of which place her and her child in danger.

Gandhi

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Best news story ive heard all year, its a petty she did not hunt down and shoot the other guy as well.

I don't think Oklahoma's castle doctrine covers hot pursuit. I think she could have done so quite legally in Texas, though.

stupidusername

Conor108 wrote: »

What I'm saying is I don't think the baby would have got off scott-free if the situation hadn't gone as it did. If the mother had gone for and messed up the 'warning shots' that seem to be preferred by the seasoned veterans of AH, the baby could well be growing up without both parents.

I'm just saying the 18 year old girl was in a really tough situation, under attack and managed to keep her head.

So now you're saying that the babies life would've been ruined because it'd have no parents? not suggesting it'd have been shot by the intruders? right.

Overheal wrote: »

Because I can't think of any other reason for after having stalked her to pick a time she would be home to break into her place just to steal her stuff or as the court paper's mention, her husband's medication. Evidently, they wanted to be sure she was there, which leads to a very short list of possibilities that include rape, torture, and coercion. All of which place her and her child in danger.

What I read about the stalking was that he had stalked her at one event two years previous. that, to me, doesn't necessarily mean someone is a rapist.

Overheal

stupidusername wrote: »

What I read about the stalking was that he had stalked her at one event two years previous. that, to me, doesn't necessarily mean someone is a rapist.

Doesn't mean it wasn't being thought about in those 20 minutes either.

stupidusername

Overheal wrote: »

Doesn't mean it wasn't being thought about in those 20 minutes either.

you mean he started considering raping her because he was breaking in?

hondasam

Biggins wrote: »

Even so (She found out about the stalking LATER it now appears).

Rather than blast away - for 21 minutes she somehow managed to stay calm enough, put up with their aggression and still not to be stupid to just blast away within the first 21 minutes!

Would we all have done likewise?

Thats 21 minutes by the way that the man could have walked away and left!
He didn't!

She knew who he was, probably the reason she did not shoot straight away.
I don't know what his intentions were I don't think it was burglary tbh.
Yes I would protect my children at all costs, that's a given.