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

opinion guy

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What ?????

Where did I mention shooting anyone on sight or ones who aren't criminals ?

I specifically mentioned the phrase "breaking in".

We're not talking the electricity meter reader or postman here.

Again read the thread. I gave a link to a school teacher who was a pillar of th ecummunity entering someones house one night drunk and getting shot. Dude wasn't a criminal, and he wasn't a threat to anyone. He was simply drunk and lost.

opinion guy

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Well, in America at least when the cops call to your door with a reason to enter they have to announce that they are the cops.

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.

Biggins

stupidusername wrote: »

are you saying they must've been stabbing the house to try get in?? :pac: She might have been aware of it,

I'm saying they might have used the knife to further aid their actions.
We don't know either way - its only a possibility - but I think a good one.
If I had to do what they did (I WOULDN'T) - I would use any aid near to hand possible, for me to achieve my intended target.

stupidusername wrote: »

...that makes for even more of a case against her not firing a warning shot!

Seriously?
Talking into account the opposing arguments about giving herself and her baby away alone?
...Sorry, your ignoring those arguments and dismissing them!

stupidusername wrote: »

...I read the extensive discussion on why not blast away inside the house, but none of the reasons are good enough.

...In your opinion.

stupidusername wrote: »

...surely your instinct is to do whatever you can to keep the intruders away from you and your baby, so why not try scare them, instead of waiting till they get into the house?

There lies 'Hobsons 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?

Logical Fallacy

opinion guy wrote: »

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.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is. When calling to a suspects house there would never be just one cop on their own, there would be multiple cops and as such, multiple witnesses.

It seems to be that this entire thread is simply turning into a argument about who's hypothetical situations are better. When hypotheticals or other situations have no baring on this case, the same way as this case has no baring on what i would deem the murder of the cop in the story you posted.

I personally have no issue with the actions of the woman in the story in the OP, I already clearly stated i don't think you should be allowed to shoot someone just for being on your property but can understand use of force when they try to venture into your house.

So you are basically arguing with me when i already agree with you?

opinion guy

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

So you are basically arguing with me when i already agree with you?

Yes I am dammit!!! And what of it? ? Thats my right isn't it ???:P

Biggins

opinion guy wrote: »

Yes I am dammit!!! And what of it? ? Thats my right isn't it ???:P

Classic After Hours!

gsxr1

That woman is a legend.

Protecting her child and her self like that is instinctive.

I wise we had the same laws in Ireland.

stupidusername

Biggins wrote: »

I'm saying they might have used the knife to further aid their actions.
We don't know either way - its only a possibility - but I think a good one.
If I had to do what they did (I WOULDN'T) - I would use any aid near to hand possible, for me to achieve my intended target.

ok let's agree that they could've been using the knife to try get into the house

Biggins wrote: »

Seriously?
Talking into account the opposing arguments about giving herself and her baby away alone?
...Sorry, your ignoring those arguments and dismissing them!

I really don't know what that first sentence is meant to say/mean. I am dismissing them because we're talking about a young mother with a baby in a fight for their lives, and so rather than taking the chance of waiting till the intruders got into the house, it strikes me as more instinctive to act before that, and this would be to fire warning shots.

Biggins wrote: »

...In your opinion.

I never said otherwise.

Biggins wrote: »

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?

Yes, and that would make sense, only for, and as you've pointed out ad nauseum they spent 28 minutes trying to get into the house. At some point it had to have occurred to her that they weren't going to go away easily, and so why not take the lesser risk of taking warning shots?

Biggins

stupidusername wrote: »

...Yes, and that would make sense, only for, and as you've pointed out ad nauseum they spent 28 minutes trying to get into the house. At some point it had to have occurred to her that they weren't going to go away easily, and so why not take the lesser risk of taking warning shots?

Well to me, after 28 minutes of continuous home assault, one might conclude/fear that they were not going to be too pleasant to her either?

Would anyone be willing to take a gamble in her situation or finally fire after being remarkably able to wait 28 minutes, to finally and ultimately protect two possible lives?

stupidusername

Biggins wrote: »

Well to me, after 28 minutes of continuous home assault, one might conclude/fear that they were not going to be too pleasant to her either?

Would anyone be willing to take a gamble in her situation or finally fire after being remarkably able to wait 28 minutes, to finally and ultimately protect two possible lives?

Of course it wasn't going to be pleasant. Never said otherwise.

To me it seems more of a gamble to wait till they got into the house before taking a shot.

opinion guy

stupidusername wrote: »

Of course it wasn't going to be pleasant. Never said otherwise.

To me it seems more of a gamble to wait till they got into the house before taking a shot.

Yes but it was less of a legal gamble.

Biggins

stupidusername wrote: »

Of course it wasn't going to be pleasant. Never said otherwise.

To me it seems more of a gamble to wait till they got into the house before taking a shot.

...And to be fair, to me, the gamble of firing a warning shot in this case (they being so determined, there was two of them, the possible weapon, the isolated place, the long police response time, etc) would have been a hell of a worse gamble in this particular situation.

stupidusername

opinion guy wrote: »

Yes but it was less of a legal gamble.

Biggins wrote: »

...And to be fair, to me, the gamble of firing a warning shot in this case (they being so determined, there was two of them, the possible weapon, the isolated place, the long police response time, etc) would have been a hell of a worse gamble in this particular situation.

All of which someone in that kind of situation isn't instinctively going to be thinking through!

my thoughts when someone breaks in (and I have been in a lot of these situations) is first, if they don't know i'm here, leave them get what they want and leave. second if they're not going away, how can I get escape. none of this is going to be about legality or response time etc, it's about surviving.

Biggins

stupidusername wrote: »

All of which someone in that kind of situation isn't instinctively going to be thinking through!

my thoughts when someone breaks in (and I have been in a lot of these situations) is first, if they don't know i'm here, leave them get what they want and leave. second if they're not going away, how can I get escape. none of this is going to be about legality or response time etc, it's about surviving.

While you and I might be right in thinking the above according to our known laws, the girl I assume was thinking along her own lines/fears with the phone information/already learned knowledge, her state laws, in conjunction with her situation as it was actually occurring.

opinion guy

stupidusername wrote: »

All of which someone in that kind of situation isn't instinctively going to be thinking through!

my thoughts when someone breaks in (and I have been in a lot of these situations) is first, if they don't know i'm here, leave them get what they want and leave. second if they're not going away, how can I get escape. none of this is going to be about legality or response time etc, it's about surviving.

True. But there is nothing about this story, how she acted, hearing her voice on the 911 call, seeing her interviewed after, nothing gives me the impression she was panicked.

bruschi

stupidusername wrote: »

All of which someone in that kind of situation isn't instinctively going to be thinking through!

my thoughts when someone breaks in (and I have been in a lot of these situations) is first, if they don't know i'm here, leave them get what they want and leave. second if they're not going away, how can I get escape. none of this is going to be about legality or response time etc, it's about surviving.

her escape route was blocked. there was one man at the front door, one at the back. how was she to get out with a baby and get away from an isolated place?

and where should she fire the warning shot? into her ceiling, or her floor? or out the door, and possibly injure/kill the man and thereby be in legal trouble as he wouldnt be inside. She could well have said she was armed, and even if she didnt, the whole thing goes back to the fact she didnt ask for any of this to happen. Her house was being broken into by 2 criminals.

jackie1974

stupidusername wrote: »

oh sweet jesus. of course she may have thought he could have raped her. i'm not talking about that! I'm saying you are jumping to that conclusion about the man.

my point is... ok I stole penny sweets from time to time when I was younger from my grannies shop. i've told you that now, so does that mean that you'd have me down as someone who would be likely to..i dunno...sexually abuse someone, because i stole those penny sweets?

do you assume anyone that would break into a house, would rape someone too?

Everybody is jumping to conclusions about the man because nobody knows what his intentions were, you are assuming he was a burgular others are assuming he intended on raping the girl.

IMO a burgular comes and goes quietly, they don't usually bang your door down for 25 mins. That is very aggressive behaviour if his intention was to rob and given those circumstances I would want my daughter to save herself and my grandchild.

CodeMonkey

Biggins wrote: »

From what we can possibly conclude NOW, is that they were aware of the girl and her situation for some time.
I'm assuming that after a possible two years of (again) possible stalking, one of the two at least might have learned that there could be weapon in the home belonging to someone?

Yeah, or maybe they're just after the money kept by the redneck dead husband and they were too chickens**t to rob the house before when the husband was alive. Small community, everyone in town was probably aware of her situation as the teen bride to an old man. Possible stalking? Please, all we know so far is the mother of the teen mom thinks this dead guy stalked her in a rodeo 2 years ago. Enough of making excuse and scenarios in her favour for using excessive force.

...And still they came... with a knife for some reason!

Big deal he got a knife in a country where gun ownership is rampant. Most burglars and thugs here in ireland carry knifes too. They probably thought the 2 of them is enough to overpower an 18 year old girl. You have no idea what the intention was or if they even thought that far. Guy probably always carry the knife with him. Excuses excuses excuse...all i hear...

stupidusername

opinion guy wrote: »

True. But there is nothing about this story, how she acted, hearing her voice on the 911 call, seeing her interviewed after, nothing gives me the impression she was panicked.

which, to me, is very odd.

bruschi wrote: »

her escape route was blocked. there was one man at the front door, one at the back. how was she to get out with a baby and get away from an isolated place?

and where should she fire the warning shot? into her ceiling, or her floor? or out the door, and possibly injure/kill the man and thereby be in legal trouble as he wouldnt be inside. She could well have said she was armed, and even if she didnt, the whole thing goes back to the fact she didnt ask for any of this to happen. Her house was being broken into by 2 criminals.

I'm not saying she should've tried to escape.I assume because she didn't, there was no means.

she could've fired the shot anywhere. as long as it's not in the direction of a person, ,what difference? simple. I'm not saying she asked for it, i'm saying she had other options.

jackie1974 wrote: »

Everybody is jumping to conclusions about the man because nobody knows what his intentions were, you are assuming he was a burgular others are assuming he intended on raping the girl.

IMO a burgular comes and goes quietly, they don't usually bang your door down for 25 mins. That is very aggressive behaviour if his intention was to rob and given those circumstances I would want my daughter to save herself and my grandchild.

you're right, it is aggressive behaviour, again, I didn't say it wasn't.

Wossack

tbh, unless I'd a tiney tiny pair of ear defenders for the tot, I wouldnt have been popping warning shots either

CodeMonkey

Wossack wrote: »

tbh, unless I'd a tiney tiny pair of ear defenders for the tot, I wouldnt have been popping warning shots either

Yes, so if you have a shotgun in your home. There are 2 guys trying to break for half an hour. You don't know either if they are armed. One of them eventually break in without you warning them that you are armed. You shoot him in the chest. This is acceptable for everyone and not just a frightened teen mom who wasn't that panicked anyway from the sound of things.

Overheal

CodeMonkey wrote: »

Yes, so if you have a shotgun in your home. There are 2 guys trying to break for half an hour. You don't know either if they are armed. One of them eventually break in without you warning them that you are armed. You shoot him in the chest. This is acceptable?

I don't think he said that, only that firing extra rounds (warning shots) would have caused more damage to her child's hearing.

There is also the case that warning shots could have made them flee. Great. Except if they come back with guns. Worse still, they would have been gone long before the police might have had time to arrive, meaning they would have remained at large.

And of course theres also the consideration that they may not have fled at all and she'd be sitting there trying to reload a shotgun with one hand.

she could've fired the shot anywhere. as long as it's not in the direction of a person, ,what difference?

The difference is one might scare him, but the other definitely stops him.

DonalK1981

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.

Extreme Multitasking

Einhard

Might have been asked already...but how is it that the accomplice is being charged with felony murder?

CodeMonkey

Overheal wrote: »

I don't think he said that, only that firing extra rounds (warning shots) would have caused more damage to her child's hearing.

Well, the sound from a boomstick would've done more damage than a pistol if it's not a .44mm gun.

There is also the case that warning shots could have made them flee. Great. Except if they come back with guns. Worse still, they would have been gone long before the police might have had time to arrive, meaning they would have remained at large.

And of course theres also the consideration that they may not have fled at all and she'd be sitting there trying to reload a shotgun with one hand. The difference is one might scare him, but the other definitely stops him.

Or maybe they'd have been so scared of possible retaliation with a gun from a batsh*t crazy, gun toting teen mom that they won't come back. Why is your worse case scenario more likely than what i've just said? What are the thugs background? They harden criminals? What are their records? Again, it's ok to shoot first because of worst case scenarios?

jackie1974

Einhard wrote: »

Might have been asked already...but how is it that the accomplice is being charged with felony murder?

Apparently the law in that state allows anybody involved in carrying out the crime is deemed liable for the death of any person resulting from said crime.

stupidusername

Overheal wrote: »

There is also the case that warning shots could have made them flee. Great. Except if they come back with guns. Worse still, they would have been gone long before the police might have had time to arrive, meaning they would have remained at large.

CodeMonkey wrote: »

Or maybe they'd have been so scared of possible retaliation with a gun from a batsh*t crazy, gun toting teen mom that they won't come back. Why is your worse case scenario more likely than what i've just said? What are the thugs background? They harden criminals? What are their records? Again, it's ok to shot first because of worst case scenarios?

yeah i'm just giving up.

St.Spodo

She obviously felt an immediate threat to her life and the life of her baby. The law protected her so she could protect herself. Good on her I say.

opinion guy

CodeMonkey wrote: »

Small community, everyone in town was probably aware of her situation as the teen bride to an old man. Possible stalking? Please, all we know so far is the mother of the teen mom thinks this dead guy stalked her in a rodeo 2 years ago.

stupidusername wrote: »

which, to me, is very odd.

Yeah you see - these two thing together - very odd. I suspect there is more to this story than we've been told. Seems like a history to these events.

bruschi

CodeMonkey wrote: »

Yes, so if you have a shotgun in your home. There are 2 guys trying to break for half an hour. You don't know either if they are armed. One of them eventually break in without you warning them that you are armed. You shoot him in the chest. This is acceptable for everyone and not just a frightened teen mom who wasn't that panicked anyway from the sound of things.

has it been reported she knew they were armed?
has it been reported she didnt shout to them she was armed?

there has been a lot on this thread already, so could be answered, but I just have not seen either of those 2 points confirmed which you are saying above.

Einhard

jackie1974 wrote: »

Apparently the law in that state allows anybody involved in carrying out the crime is deemed liable for the death of any person resulting from said crime.

WTF? That's just dumb. Fair enough, the girl shouldn't be charged. But to charge someone else for murder when she shot the man is ludicrous.

Optimalprimerib

Shooting an intruder is all well and good, but people are missing the most important issue: did she make a catchy one-liner doing so?

SVI40

CodeMonkey wrote: »

She could've fired warning shots with the pistol to make sure they know she's serious, it will buy time for the police arrive.

At what does she aim the "warning shot" at? Where would the "warning shot" go?

CodeMonkey

SVI40 wrote: »

At what does she aim the "warning shot" at? Where would the "warning shot" go?

What does it matter? The point is to let them know she's armed and not afraid to fire the guns she has. There's a good chance they would've ran off when shots were being fired....just like the friend at the back who ran off when the shots were fired.

Look at the kind of people involved in this. Two guys, armed with a knife, took half an hour to break down a door. One ran away when shots were fired. Guy who ran away gave himself in. They sound like hardened criminals or just 2 thugs trying to terrorise and take advantage of a lone single teen mom? The teen mom might have felt threatened and feared for her life but there's no report that she really was physically threatened with the knife. They deserve to be shot with no warning for being a**holes?

Jay D

Married to a guy 3 times your age at 16? Hardly something to be proud of I'd be very annoyed at that. Would have to be a shallow family to allow that in fairness.

Otherwise great job and the incident handled like a pro.

Einhard

CodeMonkey wrote: »

What does it matter? The point is to let them know she's armed and not afraid to fire the guns she has. There's a good chance they would've ran off when shots were being fired....just like the friend at the back who ran off when the shots were fired.

Look at the kind of people involved in this. Two guys, armed with a knife, took half an hour to break down a door. One ran away when shots were fired. Guy who ran away gave himself in. They sound like hardened criminals or just 2 thugs trying to terrorise and take advantage of a lone single teen mom? The teen mom might have felt threatened and feared for her life but there's no report that she really was physically threatened with the knife. They deserve to be shot with no warning for being a**holes?

I'm not one to cheer those who shoot intruders, and I won't cheer this girl either, but if I were in a house with a baby, and two men were kicking down my door to get in, I don't know if I could take the sanguine approach you're advocating, and think to myself "ah they're probably just assholes." How was she to know that? Indeed, how was she to know that they weren't more heavily armed? It's very easy to advocate yourapproach when you're sitting safe at home, but I imagine it's entirely different when one is cowering in one's home, terrified for one's life and that of a child, as two men batter down one's front door.

opinion guy

Optimalprimerib wrote: »

Shooting an intruder is all well and good, but people are missing the most important issue: did she make a catchy one-liner doing so?

She got in the catchy one liner at the end of her TV interview. Check it out. Something like - "There's nothing more dangerous than a mother with her child"

hondasam

opinion guy wrote: »

Yeah you see - these two thing together - very odd. I suspect there is more to this story than we've been told. Seems like a history to these events.

I agree, she knew how to handle the guns, I suspect she knew the dead guy better than she is admitting.
The more I think about it, two men, one woman, they would have broke in if they really wanted to in the 28 minutes it went on.
Does anyone know if her son's name is Justin?

SVI40

CodeMonkey wrote: »

What does it matter? The point is to let them know she's armed and not afraid to fire the guns she has. There's a good chance they would've ran off when shots were being fired....just like the friend at the back who ran off when the shots were fired.

Of course it matters. You can't fire indiscriminately. Bullets can travel for very significant distances, and have to land somewhere. Do you take the risk of an innocent person being hit, to fire a warning shot? Even shotgun pellets can travel up to 300 meters, a 9mm up to 1800 meters. Warning shots into the air happen in Hollywood films.

hondasam

SVI40 wrote: »

Of course it matters. You can't fire indiscriminately. Bullets can travel for very significant distances, and have to land somewhere. Do you take the risk of an innocent person being hit, to fire a warning shot? Even shotgun pellets can travel up to 300 meters, a 9mm up to 1800 meters. Warning shots into the air happen in Hollywood films.

Did you see where she lived? it was in a remote area.

CodeMonkey

SVI40 wrote: »

Of course it matters. You can't fire indiscriminately. Bullets can travel for very significant distances, and have to land somewhere. Do you take the risk of an innocent person being hit, to fire a warning shot? Even shotgun pellets can travel up to 300 meters, a 9mm up to 1800 meters. Warning shots into the air happen in Hollywood films.

Pretty I've seen pictures of the house and it's in the middle of no where. Otherwise the guys wouldn't have been able to bang on the doors for 30mins without worry about neighbours intervening.

You sir need to learn how to quote properly.

CodeMonkey

Einhard wrote: »

I'm not one to cheer those who shoot intruders, and I won't cheer this girl either, but if I were in a house with a baby, and two men were kicking down my door to get in, I don't know if I could take the sanguine approach you're advocating, and think to myself "ah they're probably just assholes."

Firing a gun inside the house in the hope of scaring people off is a sanguine approach? No wonder people think shooting down someone with no warning is fair.

How was she to know that? Indeed, how was she to know that they weren't more heavily armed? It's very easy to advocate yourapproach when you're sitting safe at home, but I imagine it's entirely different when one is cowering in one's home, terrified for one's life and that of a child, as two men batter down one's front door.

Because she doesn't know then it's ok to imagine the worse and shoot on site with no warning? That's not excessive? No attempt to scare them off?

Liam Byrne

CodeMonkey wrote: »

[No wonder people think shooting down someone with no warning is fair.

Well you seem to be firmly on the side of two armed thugs breaking in with no warning and who - you suggest - always carry knives and are therefor always a threat to society.

What's "fair" about their actions ?

CodeMonkey

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Well you seem to be firmly on the side of two armed thugs breaking in with no warning and who - you suggest - always carry knives and are therefor always a threat to society.

What's "fair" about their actions ?

Sides? You're seriously accusing me of picking sides when all I am saying is there might have been no warning that the girl was armed which encouraged them to break in....which took them 30mins...hardly no warning on their part...and yes one of them might always carry a knife...is it a knife he's been known to use to cut up little teen moms and their babies? Such a big threat to society that he needs to be blown up with a shotgun when given the chance and I can't question this and suggest that it might be a little excessive? Really? Sides? Ha.

Think_then_talk

Looking at the Home Invasion Fact sheets on the U.S.D.J.
She was more likey to have beem raped..Page 60/61 Nice Reading not...
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus98.pdf

Jay D wrote: »

Married to a guy 3 times your age at 16? Hardly something to be proud of I'd be very annoyed at that. Would have to be a shallow family to allow that in fairness.

The age of consent in Oklahoma is 16 so get over it.
Fair play to her. A good mother.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma

Einhard

CodeMonkey wrote: »

Firing a gun inside the house in the hope of scaring people off is a sanguine approach? No wonder people think shooting down someone with no warning is fair.

I don't think breaking into a teenage mother's house with a knife is fair either. Maybe she should have given them a warning, but as I said, it's very easy to advocate such things when it's not you in the middle of the night with two intruders battering their way into the house.

Because she doesn't know then it's ok to imagine the worse and shoot on site with no warning? That's not excessive? No attempt to scare them off?

Well yes it was ok to imagine the worst. You're stating that the two guys were lightly armed assholes, probably local hicks rather than hardened criminals likely to do her serious harm. You've have the luxury of forming that opinion through reading reports on the incident in the safety of your own home. Yet you expect that this girl should have done the same while said men were battering the doors to her house down as she cradled her child? I don't think that's reasonable. How was she to know that the men weren't well armed? How was she to know that there were but two? How was she to know that, having fired a warning shot, they wouldn't have resorted to using their own guns in retaliation?

hondasam

Think_then_talk wrote: »

The age of consent in Oklahoma is 16 so get over it.
Fair play to her. A good mother.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma

Age of consent or not. does not make it right, she was 18yrs he was 58yrs.
how come she was alone on new years eve considering her husband had just died. we know she has a mother.

WoollyRedHat

Pics or it didn't happen

Jimoslimos

Been browsing some of this thread and I'll admit there's still a lot I'm confused about, but I'm slightly alarmed by the amount of people who think her actions were completely justifiable, or even worse, something to be "proud" of.

To my mind, she was cowardly, regardless of whether there was scumbags involved of not. She took someones life without warning or knowledge of the actual danger they posed. Just because her husband died doesn't grant her any special status above the law over the rest of us.

The law I believe is wide open for abuse - what is there to stop anyone 'inviting' someone into their house and shooting them, then staging/pretending a 'break-in' was in progress.

Is it also possible the young lady could have shot first - made the phone call later? Although the accomplice's phone call should verify this.

WoollyRedHat

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Been browsing some of this thread and I'll admit there's still a lot I'm confused about, but I'm slightly alarmed by the amount of people who think her actions were completely justifiable, or even worse, something to be "proud" of.

To my mind, she was cowardly, regardless of whether there was scumbags involved of not. She took someones life without warning or knowledge of the actual danger they posed. Just because her husband died doesn't grant her any special status above the law over the rest of us.

The law I believe is wide open for abuse - what is there to stop anyone 'inviting' someone into their house and shooting them, then staging/pretending a 'break-in' was in progress.

Is it also possible the young lady could have shot first - made the phone call later? Although the accomplice's phone call should verify this.

A knife would scream out "danger danger" to me.