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

Einhard

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.

I think her actions were justified, but not to be celebrated. She had two unknown men, with unknown but malign motives, breaking into her house in the dead of night, while she cradled her infant child. Rightly, her first intincts were the protection of her life and that of the child. What exactly would you have done? More precisely, if you can, put yourself in the mind of a teenage mother, and imagine how you would have reacted in the same situation.

CodeMonkey

Einhard wrote: »

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.

It happened in the middle of the day. Would people stop embellishing the story with elements that might seem scary to a lone teen mom to justify the shooting?

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?

So you are saying it's ok to imagine the worse and it's perfectly ok to possibly over react without using other options such as maybe scare them off? Great. Glad we understand each other.

I'll stop responding unless someone else have something concrete to say.

Jimoslimos

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

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

How (from indoors) did she know they had a knife? I carry a knife too (a utility one) - should I be gunned down everywhere I go.

Einhard wrote: »

I think her actions were justified, but not to be celebrated. She had two unknown men, with unknown but malign motives, breaking into her house in the dead of night, while she cradled her infant child. Rightly, her first intincts were the protection of her life and that of the child. What exactly would you have done? More precisely, if you can, put yourself in the mind of a teenage mother, and imagine how you would have reacted in the same situation.

What difference does the infant make? Not a good idea to bring emotions into the mix if you are trying to make an argument for legal homicide. Emotional people do stupid, crazy things.

jackal

Jimoslimos wrote: »

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.

Ever been alone in bed at 3am and seen your door handle start to open? Pontificating about this from behind a computer screen is all very well, but thankfully the lawmakers there had the sense to realise that you are not in a position to make rational, well considered decisions about the appropriate use of force when someone is in your house. You have to assume the worst. The Castle Doctrine (in the US) is there to protect people because believe it or not, when someone invades your house, you do not parse their motives and ponder the finer points of the law. Their welfare is no longer your problem once they cross the threshold of your home.

Yes its somewhat open to abuse, but murder is murder and the kind of people who would consider using this law to their advantage to commit a murder are few and far between and would probably find another way to do it anyway.

CodeMonkey

Einhard wrote: »

She had two unknown men, with unknown but malign motives, breaking into her house in the dead of night, while she cradled her infant child.

I think she was actually cradling a boomstick in the middle of the day.

WoollyRedHat

Jimoslimos wrote: »

How (from indoors) did she know they had a knife? I carry a knife too (a utility one) - should I be gunned down everywhere I go.

Yes

hondasam

CodeMonkey wrote: »

I'll stop responding unless someone else have something concrete to say.

This made me giggle. you sound like a spoilt child:D

jackal

Jimoslimos wrote: »

How (from indoors) did she know they had a knife? I carry a knife too (a utility one) - should I be gunned down everywhere I go.

If you invade someone's home in the US, then you know that yes, you should expect to be gunned down/stabbed/hit over the head with a poker/attacked by a dog/trip up on scattered marbles...

Biggins

Einhard wrote: »

I think her actions were justified, but not to be celebrated. She had two unknown men, with unknown but malign motives, breaking into her house in the dead of night, while she cradled her infant child. Rightly, her first intincts were the protection of her life and that of the child. What exactly would you have done? More precisely, if you can, put yourself in the mind of a teenage mother, and imagine how you would have reacted in the same situation.

Nicely and appropriately summed up.

CodeMonkey wrote: »

It happened in the middle of the day. Would people stop embellishing the story with elements that might seem scary to a lone teen mom to justify the shooting?

Any attack is scary - day or night.
Possibly one during the day is worse?
If they are that aggressive to do it during the day and knowingly be visible more, just how desperate and possibly violent are they!

---

Originally Posted by CodeMonkey
I'll stop responding unless someone else have something concrete to say.

O' you mean like the below?

Originally Posted by CodeMonkey
I think she was actually cradling a boomstick in the middle of the day.

Huh?

CodeMonkey

Biggins wrote: »

Nicely and appropriately summed up.

Yeah, it came complete with imagery of the teen mom alone in the middle of the night cradling a child...nice touch on Einhard's part.

Any attack is scary - day or night.
Possibly one during the day is worse?
If they are that aggressive to do it during the day and knowingly be visible more, just how desperate and possibly violent are they!

Just pointing out the many attempts by yourself and einhard and overheal on embellishing the story. It's wonderful job you guys are doing. Yeha, just how desperate and possibly violent are they indeed. You guys know the story and timeline like the back of your hands. Good job again.

Einhard

CodeMonkey wrote: »

It happened in the middle of the day. Would people stop embellishing the story with elements that might seem scary to a lone teen mom to justify the shooting?

Ok, middle of the day/middle of the night. It doesn't really change things if she were living in a remote area/

So you are saying it's ok to imagine the worse and it's perfectly ok to possibly over react without using other options such as maybe scare them off? Great. Glad we understand each other.

Yes, of course it is. If she underestimated the threat and though, "hmmmm might be some pranksters", she could be dead or raped by now. People always over-estimate a potential threat. I don't imagine that you, if you heard someone kicking in your window in the dead of night, would chuckle to yourself, "ah those silly local kids, what will they do next?" She had two men battering her door down while her child was in the house. How is it unreasonable for her to imagine that they might be armed with something other than a knife? How is it unreasonable to fear that they wanted to cause her or her baby serious harm? I think it entirely unreasonable for her to put her life, and that of her baby, at risk, by potentially under-estimating the threat to her safety.

WoollyRedHat

The lengths Mtv go to ey

Einhard

CodeMonkey wrote: »

Yeah, it came complete with imagery of the teen mom alone in the middle of the night cradling a child...nice touch on Einhard's part.

Ok, I'll change it...

Yeah, it came complete with imagery of the teen mom alone in the middle of the night day cradling a child...

I don't see how the time of day or night makes any difference really. She was still alone in the house. With a baby. With two men hammering her doors down. And you think she over-reacted by shooting one once he had gotten into the house? Had she not taken that action, she would have been exposing herself and her child to harm and potentially death.

Biggins

CodeMonkey wrote: »

Yeah, it came complete with imagery of the teen mom alone in the middle of the night cradling a child...nice touch on Einhard's part.

Just pointing out the many attempts by yourself and einhard and overheal on embellishing the story. It's wonderful job you guys are doing. Yeha, just how desperate and possibly violent are they indeed. You guys know the story and timeline like the back of your hands. Good job again.

Forgive for not taking you serious, on a serious topic when you come out with the following daftness:

Originally Posted by CodeMonkey
I think she was actually cradling a boomstick in the middle of the day.

Liam Byrne

CodeMonkey wrote: »

there might have been no warning that the girl was armed which encouraged them to break in

Yes, you are definitely taking sides.

There was no "encouragement" for them to break in because decent people don't break in.

Someone could "encourage" me all they like and I still wouldn't break in.

Biggins

SVI40 wrote: »

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?

SVI40 wrote: »

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.

Sadly, reality and talking sense here doesn't seem to go down well with some.

Einhard

CodeMonkey wrote: »

Just pointing out the many attempts by yourself and einhard and overheal on embellishing the story. It's wonderful job you guys are doing. Yeha, just how desperate and possibly violent are they indeed. You guys know the story and timeline like the back of your hands. Good job again.

Yes, we do know the story. As do you. We've had the luxury of reading about it in comfort and in safety, and in making up our minds on the motivations and characters of the intruders in such a setting. You expect that the girl involved should have done the same thing in entirely different circumstances, when she likely, and not unreasonably, feared for her life and that of her child. How on earth is that a reasonable expectation?

simit

Fair play to her! Pity she didn't get the other scum bag too.

Jimoslimos

Biggins wrote: »

Forgive for not taking you serious, on a serious topic when you come out with the following daftness:

Sheesh....lighten up! It's AH ffs, if it was completely serious replies you were looking for I'm sure there's a thread in Legal Discussion.

Biggins

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Sheesh....lighten up! It's AH ffs, if it was completely serious replies you were looking for I'm sure there's a thread in Legal Discussion.

Aaa yes...
Life must always boil down to just a legal discussion and not just about the value of life!

hondasam

Einhard wrote: »

Yes, we do know the story. As do you. We've had the luxury of reading about it in comfort and in safety, and in making up our minds on the motivations and characters of the intruders in such a setting. You expect that the girl involved should have done the same thing in entirely different circumstances, when she likely, and not unreasonably, feared for her life and that of her child. How on earth is that a reasonable expectation?

In all honesty the two guys were at a disadvantage, she was in control and she had two guns which her husband taught her how to use.
She did not panic and shoot randomly,she waited 28 minutes to shoot.
She has experience with guns, she could have fired a warning shot.
I don't buy into protecting the baby, if she had no baby she would have done the same thing imo.

opinion guy

Jimoslimos wrote: »

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.

No the shot was recorded on the 911 call.

jackal wrote: »

If you invade someone's home in the US, then you know that yes, you should expect to be gunned down/stabbed/hit over the head with a poker/attacked by a dog/trip up on scattered marbles...

You've been watching home alone again haven't you ??

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Yes, you are definitely taking sides.

There was no "encouragement" for them to break in because decent people don't break in.

Someone could "encourage" me all they like and I still wouldn't break in.

He's not taking sides on this case. He's asking questions. And quesitons should be asked. Its not good enough just to say - ah well it was a home invasion - fair cop. Any incident like this should be investigated fully as any other killing - regardless of whether charges are brought or not.
There are questions need answering here - particularly as to how well the deceased and the mom know each other. What prior contact did they have etc ?

hondasam

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Sheesh....lighten up! It's AH ffs, if it was completely serious replies you were looking for I'm sure there's a thread in Legal Discussion.

If someone says that to me I go ballistic, I find it so rude.

Jimoslimos

I've just had a thought regarding warning shots (apologies if it has been mentioned before). Maybe she was relucant to because firing a gun inside her own house would undoubtedly result in damage to her property

hondasam

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I've just had a thought regarding waring shots (apologies if it has been mentioned before). Maybe she was relucant to because firing a gun inside her own house would undoubtedly result in damage to her property

I'm sure there is windows in her house, easy to replace a pane of glass.

stupidusername

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I've just had a thought regarding waring shots (apologies if it has been mentioned before). Maybe she was relucant to because firing a gun inside her own house would undoubtedly result in damage to her property

well yes but the alternative would be shooting a person. and yes it was an intruder bla bla bla but a life nonetheless, and when faced with the reality of that I imagine it'd be a big deal to do. and yet she still chose not to fire a warning shot.

Jimoslimos

opinion guy wrote: »

No the shot was recorded on the 911 call.

She could have fired a second shot whilst on the phone

hondasam wrote: »

If someone says that to me I go ballistic, I find it so rude.

Sheesh!

hondasam wrote: »

I'm sure there is windows in her house, easy to replace a pane of glass.

Easy, but windows cost money - especially for widowed teenage mothers.

Biggins

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I've just had a thought regarding waring shots (apologies if it has been mentioned before). Maybe she was relucant to because firing a gun inside her own house would undoubtedly result in damage to her property

Yes, I brought that up already and there was also no guarantee that such damage might not hit wiring, gas pipes, flooding from water pipes and/or something else which might either fall upon her and baby or cause further fire - add to that she might still have hit someone outside?

...But lets all let off warning shots in a house like they do in the films and everything will be perfect!

Einhard

hondasam wrote: »

In all honesty the two guys were at a disadvantage, she was in control and she had two guns which her husband taught her how to use.
She did not panic and shoot randomly,she waited 28 minutes to shoot.
She has experience with guns, she could have fired a warning shot.
I don't buy into protecting the baby, if she had no baby she would have done the same thing imo.

In fairness, we know that now because we've read the story. I sincerely doubt that this teenage girl, alone in a house with her baby, while two men (who, for all she knew, coulld have been well armed and intent on rape or murder) hammered their way in, thought that she held the advantage.

It's a tragic situation all around. I'm glad the other guy got away, and I'm sorry that one of them ended up dead. But I'm not going to condemn a teenager using lethal force to protect herself and her child from potential rapists and murderers.

BTW, before someone has a go at me for using dramatic licence re the rapists and murderers, she had no idea that they weren't thus motivated.

hondasam

Biggins wrote: »

Yes, I brought that up already and there was also no guarantee that such damage might not hit wiring, gas pipes, flooding and or something else which might either fall upon her and baby or cause further fire - add to that she might still have hit someone outside?

...But lets all let off warning shots in a house like they do in the films and everything will be perfect!

Biggie you are clutching at straws here and over dramatic if you don't mind me saying so.
This is a woman who is experienced in the use of guns, forget your teenage mom crap, she is well capable of defending herself.
If someone broke into your house the first thing you would think is can't damage the furniture wrestling with a burglar. come on.

markc1184

This might be a silly question but why is the accomplice being done for felony murder? I presume it's because he was apart of the action which led to the death but is that the case?

Liam Byrne

opinion guy wrote: »

He's not taking sides on this case. He's asking questions. And quesitons should be asked. Its not good enough just to say - ah well it was a home invasion - fair cop.

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.

Biggins

hondasam wrote: »

Biggie you are clutching at straws here and over dramatic if you don't mind me saying so.
This is a woman who is experienced in the use of guns, forget your teenage mom crap, she is well capable of defending herself.
If someone broke into your house the first thing you would think is can't damage the furniture wrestling with a burglar. come on.

You say she was well experience - fair enough.
...and she STILL managed to have the sense to talk to the radio operator AT THE POLICE STATION - wait 28 minutes before having sadly to fire!
She just didn't just go gung-ho as some might try and espouse.
She put some serious deep thought into her actions - as can be verified by her words on the phone itself.

We don't know what else she was told to do or not to do - but clearly she was trying to follow advice given on the phone as far as we can read this so far!

Biggins

markc1184 wrote: »

This might be a silly question but why is the accomplice being done for felony murder? I presume it's because he was apart of the action which led to the death but is that the case?

Apparently so.
Its some sort of legal technicality where his joint actions with his attacking partner, put themselves at risk?

opinion guy

So it turns out the baby's name is......wait for it..........Justin!!!

hondasam

Einhard wrote: »

In fairness, we know that now because we've read the story. I sincerely doubt that this teenage girl, alone in a house with her baby, while two men (who, for all she knew, coulld have been well armed and intent on rape or murder) hammered their way in, thought that she held the advantage.

It's a tragic situation all around. I'm glad the other guy got away, and I'm sorry that one of them ended up dead. But I'm not going to condemn a teenager using lethal force to protect herself and her child from potential rapists and murderers.

I'm not condemning her but not one hundred percent with her either tbh.
I think she could have fired a warning shot. How long after the shot did the cops arrive?
I think they could have forced their way in all the time if they wanted, there may have been a conversation between her and the dead guy.
I would say the other lad was not involved at all, he just waited for him.

Einhard

hondasam wrote: »

Biggie you are clutching at straws here and over dramatic if you don't mind me saying so.
This is a woman who is experienced in the use of guns, forget your teenage mom crap, she is well capable of defending herself.
If someone broke into your house the first thing you would think is can't damage the furniture wrestling with a burglar. come on.

Hondasam, you seem to be implying that, because she was trained in the use of guns, then she souldn't have been afraid when faced with two men with unknown but malign motivations bettering their way into her house. Indeed, you seem to be saying that knowing how to use a gun negates the fact that she was, indeed, a teenager, and a mother. Seems an odd stance to take if you don't mind me saying so.

I'm 29. I'm a big guy and know how to handle myself. However, if I were home alone and two men were attempting to break into my house, I'd be shitting myself (hopefully not literally!). If I had a gun, I'd be more confident of defending myself, but I'd be no less afraid. Yet people here seem to think that the girl sat, like some cold blooded assassin, without fear or anxiety, and calmly took her shot. AFAIK, owning a gun does not in itself, negate one's humanity.

Biggins

This discussion of a shooting of the warning shoot also...

Additionally to the already mentioned other aspects, have any of ye actually LOOKED at the home she lived in, in the videos available?
Its not exactly in good condition to start off with - and folk here want her to start putting potshots into the walls or ceilings!
Madness.

Einhard

hondasam wrote: »

I'm not condemning her but not one hundred percent with her either tbh.
I think she could have fired a warning shot. How long after the shot did the cops arrive?
I think they could have forced their way in all the time if they wanted, there may have been a conversation between her and the dead guy.
I would say the other lad was not involved at all, he just waited for him.

Well I'm just going on the basis of the known facts- that she didn't know the guys etc. If she knew who they were or had an ulterior motive in shooting one, then perhaps I'd change my mind on it. But to make those assumptions now would be forming a judgement on hypotheticals.

Einhard

opinion guy wrote: »

So it turns out the baby's name is......wait for it..........Justin!!!

The guy was Justin too....Justin the house before she shot him!

Ba-boom tish...




















Sorry for lowering the tone.

hondasam

Einhard wrote: »

Hondasam, you seem to be implying that, because she was trained in the use of guns, then she souldn't have been afraid when faced with two men with unknown but malign motivations bettering their way into her house. Indeed, you seem to be saying that knowing how to use a gun negates the fact that she was, indeed, a teenager, and a mother. Seems an odd stance to take if you don't mind me saying so.

I'm 29. I'm a big guy and know how to handle myself. However, if I were home alone and two men were attempting to break into my house, I'd be shitting myself (hopefully not literally!). If I had a gun, I'd be more confident of defending myself, but I'd be no less afraid. Yet people here seem to think that the girl sat, like some cold blooded assassin, without fear or anxiety, and calmly took her shot. AFAIK, owning a gun does not in itself, negate one's humanity.

She was very calm, most people would panic in this situation. If you have a gun and know how to use it then you have the advantage.

I don't think her age matters or that she had a baby, she would have done the same thing regardless.
I think teenage widowed mom brings more sympathy tbh.

Jimoslimos

hondasam wrote: »

I'm not condemning her but not one hundred percent with her either tbh.
I think she could have fired a warning shot. How long after the shot did the cops arrive?
I think they could have forced their way in all the time if they wanted, there may have been a conversation between her and the dead guy.

I don't agree with her actions but I think Biggins is correct re the warning shots.

The 2nd point is interesting, the supposed time they were "attempting" to break-in did strike me as peculiar. What sort of incompetent fool spends over 20 mins whilst knocking, trying to break-in? Either do it quietly or just ram the door in.

weeder

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

hondasam

Einhard wrote: »

Well I'm just going on the basis of the known facts- that she didn't know the guys etc. If she knew who they were or had an ulterior motive in shooting one, then perhaps I'd change my mind on it. But to make those assumptions now would be forming a judgement on hypotheticals.

She did know him, met him two yrs ago at the rodeo, met him at the local shops, he called to here house when her husband died.
Her baby even has the same name as him.

Biggins

hondasam wrote: »

...I think teenage widowed mom brings more sympathy tbh.

It probably does in total honesty.
I would suggest others look at one of the videos available though.
In one alone she is clearly still very shook up about the situation she found herself in.

Einhard

hondasam wrote: »

She was very calm, most people would panic in this situation. If you have a gun and know how to use it then you have the advantage.

I don't think her age matters or that she had a baby, she would have done the same thing regardless.
I think teenage widowed mom brings more sympathy tbh.

I think home alone as two unknown men with unknown motivations attempt to batter their way into the house brings empathy enough tbh.

I wouldn't be so quick though to dismiss the mother aspect of the whole thing. It's entirely reasonable that she would act to protect her child from a potential threat. I know that I would probably react differently to a bunch of men breaking into my house had I children asleep upstairs, than I would were I by my lonesome. That protective instinct is entirely natural and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand as some media construction, designed to garner sympathy.

hondasam

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?

opinion guy

More info:

http://newsok.com/alleged-accomplice-in-blanchard-home-invasion-faces-murder-charge/article/3637495#ixzz1iYvY2f3c

Alleged accomplice in Blanchard home invasion faces murder charge

An Oklahoma man accused of being involved in a home invasion that ended with the shooting death of one of the intruders is to be charged Wednesday with murder, a Grady County prosecutor said.


BY JULIANA KEEPING jkeeeping@opubco.com Published: January 4, 2012





BLANCHARD — The two men who invaded Sarah McKinley's Blanchard mobile home had just taken prescription painkillers and might have been after more medication, according to an affidavit filed Wednesday in Grady County.


Those and other details have come to light in the days since New Year's Eve, when McKinley, 18, shot and killed Justin Shane Martin, 24, of Blanchard, with a 12-gauge shotgun after he forced his way through her front door. McKinley's 3-month-old son, Justin, was with her in the house during the ordeal, which happened about 2 p.m. Saturday.
Martin died still clutching a knife in his gloved left hand, the affidavit states. His alleged accomplice, Dustin Louis Stewart, 29, of Blanchard, turned himself in after hearing the gunshot that killed Martin and now faces a first-degree murder charge.
Stewart was arraigned Wednesday and is being held in the Grady County jail with a bond hearing set for Thursday, Assistant District Attorney James Walters said.
The 911 call
“I've got two guns in my hand. Is it OK to shoot him if he comes in this door?” McKinley asked Grady County dispatcher Diane Graham shortly before she fired one of the guns.
“Well you have to do whatever you can do to protect yourself,” Graham is heard answering on the 911 tape released Wednesday. “I can't tell you that you can do that, but you have to do what you have to do to protect your baby.”
McKinley had barricaded the door with a couch. Martin had been aggressively knocking and managed to force the door open with his shoulder.
Graham said during a Wednesday interview that McKinley spoke in a whisper during the call, which she answered near the end of an otherwise quiet shift.
The shot rang loud and clear over the dispatcher's telephone. Law officers found Martin's body slumped over the couch.
The ordeal lasted 21 minutes, McKinley said. Graham said she dispatched a sheriff's deputy to the rural location, then notified the Blanchard Police Department because she thought a police officer might get there more quickly.
Grady County Sheriff Art Kell said a first-degree murder charge is appropriate for the intruder's alleged accomplice. Prosecutors said it was a clear-cut case of self-defense, and McKinley will not be charged.
“Our initial review of the case doesn't indicate she violated the law in any way,” Walters said.
“He should have thought about it before he went into someone's home,” Kell said. “I hope the best for his family.”
McKinley has stayed at her mobile home on the outskirts of Blanchard since the shooting. She said Wednesday she suspected she was being watched for weeks before the incident.
Trees that snapped and twisted during the May 24 tornado line the county road that dead-ends at the property where McKinley raises German shepherd puppies. She answered the door Wednesday with a shotgun in her hand. It's been a devastating few weeks for the young mother and widow.
McKinley said her four female German shepherds turned up dead within the last month.
She thinks they were poisoned. She keeps a male dog in the house with her.
She found the first dog's body three days after her husband, Kenneth McKinley, 58, entered the hospital with complications from lung cancer on Dec. 5. He died on Christmas Day.
Stewart told investigators Martin was addicted to prescription medication and had plans to burglarize the residence.
Martin knew Kenneth McKinley had recently died of cancer and suspected there were narcotics in the house, Stewart said.
Sarah McKinley said Martin knocked on her front door Dec. 29, the day she buried her husband. She said he acted strangely and left after seeing she had company. She said she did not know him.
Sarah McKinley told the dispatcher on Saturday: “This guy is up to no good. My husband just passed away. I'm here by myself with my infant baby. Can I please get an inspector out here immediately?”
A high school dropout who learned to ride and break horses at age 8, she started living with Kenneth McKinley about three years ago, she said.
The relationship turned romantic; a marriage license was issued in November.
Asked about the 40-year age difference, McKinley said: “I'm not ashamed I married him. I still love him with everything I am.”
The relationship created friction between her and her mother, Debbie Murray. When Justin was born that all changed, Murray said Wednesday.
McKinley told her mother she suspected someone was getting into the home, moving things around, in recent weeks. They aren't in the habit of locking doors in Blanchard, Murray said.
McKinley felt watched. She would call her mother, terrified, in the middle of the night.
Murray thought her daughter was imagining things because of the stress of Kenneth McKinley's illness. Neither of them called police.
Murray said she is haunted by the thought of how long it took law officers to get to the house, and she has been spending more time with her daughter since the shooting.
The Blanchard Police Department has set up an account with Chickasha Bank and Trust to try and help the family.
Sarah McKinley sold her husband's guns and other possessions to help pay for his funeral. She kept a 12-gauge shotgun for her son and also had a pistol. Her late husband taught her to shoot, she said. McKinley said she doesn't feel good that Martin is dead. But she would do it again if she had to, to protect her son.

Biggins

hondasam wrote: »

She did know him, met him two yrs ago at the rodeo, met him at the local shops, he called to here house when her husband died.
Her baby even has the same name as him.

I think you might have got mixed up.

Though McKinley (The Daughter) didn't piece things together until after the shooting, she'd had several strange run-ins with 24-year-old Justin Shane Martin. According to CBS News, her mother says that about two years ago, she noticed Martin following McKinley around at a rodeo.

http://jezebel.com/sarah-mckinley/

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 (The MAN and the MOTHER) have since bumped into each other at a nearby convenience store.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082210/Sarah-McKinley-Teen-mom-shoots-dead-intruder-week-babys-father-died-cancer.html#ixzz1iafLzckC

Could a 16 year old also having a baby at that time, also been a Justin Timberlake fan and call the child after him?

hondasam

Biggins wrote: »

I think you might have got mixed up.

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