Author Topic: Mom (18) shoots intruder to protect son (3mo.) (Read 2894 times)

NE Bull · « **on:** January 04, 2012, 06:29:34 PM »

http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder911-operators-shoot/story?id=15285605#.TwTl7vJAHAw

You have probably all seen this already, but worth posting, none the less. This is what parenthood and defense of family/self is about.

unfy · « **Reply #1 on:** January 04, 2012, 06:38:21 PM »

^^^^

Sorry she had to do it, but for the rest of us --- this part is a relief:

Quote from: The Article

Police are calling the shooting justified.

"You're allowed to shoot an unauthorized person that is in your home. The law provides you the remedy, and sanctions the use of deadly force," Det. Dan Huff of the Blanchard police said.

NE Bull · « **Reply #2 on:** January 04, 2012, 07:08:06 PM »

These are the instances we need to look to when discussing our Victim Protection Act. Hopefully the perps parents won't try to sue her for wrongful death. Does OK have protection against that?

OnTheFly · « **Reply #3 on:** January 04, 2012, 11:32:46 PM »

According to the ABC video, Oklahoma does have a Castle Doctrine.

Though protecting the victim from a lawsuit is only one of the possible aspects of a Castle Doctrine.

Fly

DanClrk51 · « **Reply #4 on:** January 05, 2012, 02:28:07 AM »

I think what this map is showing is the states that have the "presumption" aspect codified in law. That is the presumption that if someone unlawfully and or forcefully enters your home they are there to do you great bodily harm or kill you. So you can shoot them whether they are armed or not soon as they kick down your door or break into your window or whatever and have entered your home illegally. By default all of these states have removed the "duty to retreat" within the home.
This is the NRA Map of the Castle Doctrine states found at: http://www.nraila.org/maps/cd.jpg

However I don't know how accurate this map is because I'm pretty sure Colorado has Castle Doctrine. Isn't that the state that passed Castle Doctrine and the media flipped out and started the "make my day" slur?
Then theres other states like Nebraska where you don't have a duty to retreat from your own home but you don't have the presumption aspect either, so what that means is you can't shoot them just for breaking in, you have to basically wait for them to appear at your bedside wielding a knife/gun at you before you can shoot them.

metaldoc · « **Reply #5 on:** January 05, 2012, 07:30:52 AM »

Last night I was at a Bible study meeting when this story came up. The majority present believed Nebraska had a Castle Doctrine bill to protect victims of break-ins. They were surprised to learn Nebraska does not.

NE Bull · « **Reply #6 on:** January 05, 2012, 08:15:33 AM »

Quote from: metaldoc on January 05, 2012, 07:30:52 AM

Last night I was at a Bible study meeting when this story came up. The majority present believed Nebraska had a Castle Doctrine bill to protect victims of break-ins. They were surprised to learn Nebraska does not.

Exactly, folks just 'assume' we have protection because it would fall into Common Sense. Thank You, metaldoc, for not being idle and informing the folks. It's especially good to see such conversations of self defense can be had in an enviroment such as Bible study.
As I said, we need to utilize these unfortunate events to inform those around us, of the boundaries that current legislation places upon the Law Abiding Victim!!
I truly feel for the young lady for what she HAD TO DO! Yet am glad she did what she had to do to protect her and her baby. ...and to have the frame of mind to give her baby the bottle to quite him in all the chaos! ...and to call 911 and inform them of what was going on. This gal sure has a good head on her shoulders and obviously a good upbringing.

armed and humorous · « **Reply #7 on:** January 05, 2012, 09:49:29 AM »

Good for her, and good for the guy in Texas protecting his neighbor's home, too.

HuskerXDM · « **Reply #8 on:** January 05, 2012, 04:00:03 PM »

Unless I am mistaken, the article I read stated she was on the phone with 911 dispatcher for 21 minutes... good for her for protecting herself and her child.

armed and humorous · « **Reply #9 on:** January 05, 2012, 04:49:07 PM »

Just goes to prove cops are there to catch the law breakers, not to protect us from them. I'm not saying they wouldn't prefer it the other way, but it just doesn't work out that way. I'm never more than a few seconds from one of my guns. Can't say the same for a cop (unless I happen to exceed the speed limit).

Roper · « **Reply #10 on:** January 05, 2012, 07:06:54 PM »

The Castle Doctrine needs to be our top priority.

NE Bull · « **Reply #11 on:** January 05, 2012, 07:28:32 PM »

Just read on Massad Ayoob's blog, the local PD has set up a fund for this young mother!
http://blog.newsok.com/breakingnews/2012/01/04/fund-set-up-for-blanchard-woman-who-shot-killed-intruder/

(and a gun rights group set one up for the family of the Park Ranger's that was killed in Washington state
(MA's Blog post here: http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2012/01/05/two-as-things-should-be-responses/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MassadAyoob+%28Massad+Ayoob%29 ))

unfy · « **Reply #12 on:** January 05, 2012, 07:38:54 PM »

Update:

There are stories that have plenty of headlines that say there will be no charges pressed upon the young mom. Yay!

Other update:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/05/justice/oklahoma-intruder-shooting/?hpt=hp_t1

"Man free on bail, days after Oklahoma woman kills alleged intruder's accomplice"

.... apparently OK law allows them to charge the dead guy's accomplice with first degree murder. Kinda odd / interesting. I'm wondering what law they use for that. Seems double edged without details (if you ask me).

armed and humorous · « **Reply #13 on:** January 05, 2012, 07:46:36 PM »

I like that law. Maybe we can incorporate that into our castle doctrine (only don't allow the bail).

AAllen · « **Reply #14 on:** January 05, 2012, 08:17:07 PM »

Quote from: unfy on January 05, 2012, 07:38:54 PM

... apparently OK law allows them to charge the dead guy's accomplice with first degree murder. Kinda odd / interesting. I'm wondering what law they use for that. Seems double edged without details (if you ask me).

Nebraska Law already allows this, if you participate in a crime and anyone dies during the commission of that crime, no matter what the cause, you can and will be charged with Murder.

armed and humorous · « **Reply #15 on:** January 06, 2012, 07:15:36 AM »

Maybe. How about the guy who ran the stop sign/light at Hwy 79 and Raymond Rd (a crime) and killed two people in the process. He got placed in a diversion program (basically no penalty whatsoever) even though he had prior DUI and driving under suspension arrests/convictions.

sparky · « **Reply #16 on:** January 06, 2012, 09:03:28 AM »

Quote from: AAllen on January 05, 2012, 08:17:07 PM

Nebraska Law already allows this, if you participate in a crime and anyone dies during the commission of that crime, no matter what the cause, you can and will be charged with Murder.

Does anyone know if the Walgreens robbers were charged with murder after their accomplice was killed by that shoppper?

AAllen · « **Reply #17 on:** January 06, 2012, 09:12:25 AM »

I'm going from memory here but I believe that was one of the charges. That case did end in a plea deal so who knows what they actually are convicted of.

A&H here in Omaha we have a similar case were someone speeding ran a red light and caused a death, they got 7 days and community service. That is for the vehicular manslaughter charge, family is very upset with the judge.

armed and humorous · « **Reply #18 on:** January 06, 2012, 02:30:36 PM »

AAllen:

I would be too. In fact if one of my family members were to be killed by someone flagrantly violating the law (meaning it was either intentional or repeated), that person might not have worry about their sentence (but I might have to worry about losing my CHP). If the state isn't going to stop these people, or even punish them at all, what's the point in having any laws?

AAllen · « **Reply #19 on:** January 06, 2012, 02:47:01 PM »

A&H That's it we just need the laws that are already on the books to be enforced, and these types of a slap on the wrist is not enforcement.