Support NeoGAF

[Hero]

But you can legally acquire a gun here.

Statistically speaking, you're more likely to be injured/killed by your own gun or shot by a friend/relative using your own gun, than you are to be injured/killed by a violent intruder breaking into your home.


LOL! Yeah, cos that makes all the difference. I have fired a shotgun, so presumably that would count as a "real gun".

Firing guns in a video game doesn't count.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

You do know that you can get a gun here right? I could be "popping caps in asses" just like you guys if I applied for a license.

We did ban some types of guns after the Dunblane school shooting in 1996. There hasn't been another one since, so maybe it worked.

only criminals use that type of language, a responsible gun owner wouldn't treat it as a toy.

She had plenty of time to issue a warning in this case. She heard them trying to get in, so she barricaded the front door. She then went and put a bottle in her baby's mouth, grabbed a shotgun and handgun and called the police. She was on the phone to the police for 21 minutes. When the first guy eventually broke the door down and got in, she shot him with the shotgun and killed him and the other guy ran away.

she lives in rural Oklahoma and the police would take way too long to get there. in 21 minutes, trying to issue a warning to two drugged out criminals would get her killed. what if she issues a warning and they don't believe her and come charging in? what if they were high on PCP or Angel dust? one shot might not take them down and they could still have killed her!

But you can legally acquire a gun here.

that's good. I myself live in the US and wouldn't buy one but I would never discount the posibbility of one day maybe.

Statistically speaking, you're more likely to be injured/killed by your own gun or shot by a friend/relative using your own gun, than you are to be injured/killed by a violent intruder breaking into your home.

show me multiple studies that state this.

LOL! Yeah, cos that makes all the difference. I have fired a shotgun, so presumably that would count as a "real gun".

 

[Goreomedy]

So, the guy that survived the break in is now out on $50,000 bail. And he has been charged with the murder of his friend, based on:

Oklahoma's felony murder law permits prosecutors to seek a murder conviction if an accomplice dies during the commission of another felony crime.

Source: http://newsok.com/bond-set-for-oklahoma-man-charged-in-home-invasion/article/3637786#ixzz1ieLSwAlK

So, yeah, the mother is understandably upset this guy is back home.

 

[Javaman]

So, what I get from OWV's update is that they knew the guy died of cancer and thought there might still be some of his painkillers (dont some cancer patients get morphine pills or such? I'm not sure) or other meds might still be there to steal. Then they got high off painkillers and tried to rob the place.

Yea, still no sympathy, since he tried to force his way into the barricaded bedroom and charge her with a knife.

also, ITT, surly trolls GAF

Keep in mind too that is just the excuse the survivor used. It could be true, but it could also be true that they were planning to rape her or worse. He has no reason to tell the cops what his real plans might have been.

Statistically speaking, you're more likely to be injured/killed by your own gun or shot by a friend/relative using your own gun, than you are to be injured/killed by a violent intruder breaking into your home.

What you can't see is the deterrent effect it has on criminals. In states that have castle defense doctrine, potential robbers know they might die if they break into a house, reducing the number that would even try. It's not quantifiable though.

What I don't get is why they kept at it for 21+ minutes. That's a long time not knowing when the cops will show up. Either they didn't know she was home at all, or they cut the phone line not knowing that she had a cell phone, or they just didn't give a shit about the consequences.

 

[Zucchi]

So, gun talk aside, did anyone else notice from the articles that the mother is 18 and her late husband was 58?

Something funky going on..

 

[Dreams-Visions]

So, gun talk aside, did anyone else notice from the articles that the mother is 18 and her late husband was 58?

Something funky going on..

wuuuuuuuuuuuuuut

 

[Jim E. Rossler]

did anyone else notice from the articles that the mother is 18 and her late husband was 58?

Something funky going on..

 

[Satyamdas]

So, gun talk aside, did anyone else notice from the articles that the mother is 18 and her late husband was 58?

Something funky going on..

 

[Cotton McKnight]

I am not surprised that there are people going against human nature and saying that she should have not killed him. To those people, I hope you never have an intruder in your home. You might injure them and then lose your home and your future wages to the law breaker while you defended yourself thanks to a civil suit of some sort. I have had more than one officer (2, one in AZ and one in CA) tell me, if you are going to shoot them in your home, you will be better off if they die immediately. Why might you ask, there is only one side to the story and if it is your home then you are defending yourself. The wife and I had an attempted break in (she was home alone), and we did not have a gun yet. Notice I said yet, she got very luck that as a 5'4" women was able to scare off a man that was in the process of trying to break in a window in our back yard (fenced in back yard) just by yelling at him. Yes anti-gun-GAF we went straight out after that and installed an alarm and purchased a 12 gauge auto shot gun. Any future person stupid enough to still break in our home while we are here will leave dead. Plain and simple, I am allowed to defend my home, whine all you want about it, I hope I never have to do it. What truly sucks is that a failed intruder took away my feeling of complete safety in my home, enough so for me to install a contingency plan to kill any future intruders (highly doubtful that will happen, but you never know).

 

[Panipal2009]

You do know that you can get a gun here right? I could be "popping caps in asses" just like you guys if I applied for a license.

Nice dodge but (A) the only kind of gun you could get are shotguns, which are really only suited to home defence, and (B) why haven't you commented on the fact that it's FEAR that drives anti-gun feeling?

 

[Sobriquet]

So, gun talk aside, did anyone else notice from the articles that the mother is 18 and her late husband was 58?

Something funky going on..

I noticed that his picture appeared to be taken in the 70s or early 80s.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

yea, sounds like he was living the dream of a lot of old farts.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I am not surprised that there are people going against human nature and saying that she should have not killed him. To those people, I hope you never have an intruder in your home. You might injure them and then lose your home and your future wages to the law breaker while you defended yourself thanks to a civil suit of some sort. I have had more than one officer (2, one in AZ and one in CA) tell me, if you are going to shoot them in your home, you will be better off if they die immediately. Why might you ask, there is only one side to the story and if it is your home then you are defending yourself. The wife and I had an attempted break in (she was home alone), and we did not have a gun yet. Notice I said yet, she got very luck that as a 5'4" women was able to scare off a man that was in the process of trying to break in a window in our back yard (fenced in back yard) just by yelling at him. Yes anti-gun-GAF we went straight out after that and installed an alarm and purchased a 12 gauge auto shot gun. Any future person stupid enough to still break in our home while we are here will leave dead. Plain and simple, I am allowed to defend my home, whine all you want about it, I hope I never have to do it. What truly sucks is that a failed intruder took away my feeling of complete safety in my home, enough so for me to install a contingency plan to kill any future intruders (highly doubtful that will happen, but you never know).

You're not alone. A lot of people live in a fairy tale bubble of security until it's popped by reality. I'm glad the two of you purchased a gun for protection. Your personal safety is YOUR responsibility, not the cops.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

You're not alone. A lot of people live in a fairy tale bubble of security until it's popped by reality. I'm glad the two of you purchased a gun for protection. Your personal safety is YOUR responsibility, not the cops.

That's the truth. One thing I've noticed recently is that lot of lawyers, all types not just criminal law, own guns. Hell I have an informal shooting and ammo buy group which by random chance is just lawyers.

 

[andycapps]

I am not surprised that there are people going against human nature and saying that she should have not killed him. To those people, I hope you never have an intruder in your home. You might injure them and then lose your home and your future wages to the law breaker while you defended yourself thanks to a civil suit of some sort. I have had more than one officer (2, one in AZ and one in CA) tell me, if you are going to shoot them in your home, you will be better off if they die immediately. Why might you ask, there is only one side to the story and if it is your home then you are defending yourself. The wife and I had an attempted break in (she was home alone), and we did not have a gun yet. Notice I said yet, she got very luck that as a 5'4" women was able to scare off a man that was in the process of trying to break in a window in our back yard (fenced in back yard) just by yelling at him. Yes anti-gun-GAF we went straight out after that and installed an alarm and purchased a 12 gauge auto shot gun. Any future person stupid enough to still break in our home while we are here will leave dead. Plain and simple, I am allowed to defend my home, whine all you want about it, I hope I never have to do it. What truly sucks is that a failed intruder took away my feeling of complete safety in my home, enough so for me to install a contingency plan to kill any future intruders (highly doubtful that will happen, but you never know).

Understandable that you'd go get a gun after that happened. Just make sure you research whether there is Castle Doctrine in your state and what the laws are regarding that type of thing. Assuming you haven't already done that.

 

[SonnyBoy]

- The intruder got everything he deserved.
- This forum is flooded with children who can't cross the street without permission but know what they'd do in situations such as this. LOL

 

[SmokyDave]

16 year olds don't really 'get' how to do a sultry pout, do they?

Good on the filthy old goat though.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Understandable that you'd go get a gun after that happened. Just make sure you research whether there is Castle Doctrine in your state and what the laws are regarding that type of thing. Assuming you haven't already done that.

Agreed. That's the thing I hate about NY. No castle doctrine.

 

[andycapps]

Agreed. That's the thing I hate about NY. No castle doctrine.

Well, regardless of Castle Doctrine or not, if the situation ever came to it, I'm sure you'd do whatever it took to protect your family.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Well, regardless of Castle Doctrine or not, if the situation ever came to it, I'm sure you'd do whatever it took to protect your family.

Wouldn't hesitate for a second.

 

[SonnyBoy]

Thankfully in Maryland, if you defend yourself from an attacker they cannot sue you.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Thankfully in Maryland, if you defend yourself from an attacker they cannot sue you.

Same with PA, plus we also have Mobile Castle Doctrine!

 

[bengraven]

I noticed that his picture appeared to be taken in the 70s or early 80s.

Yeah, I noticed that too. It looks like senior high pics my dad has.

Either that or he's an uber uber hipster who over saturates his pictures.

 

[WorriedCitizen]

I don't say that often but i wish we had a law like this in Europe. Here if i would only do as much as hurt an intruder i would probably go to prison and have to pay the fuck damages for pain and suffering.

 

[mbmonk]

You're not alone. A lot of people live in a fairy tale bubble of security until it's popped by reality. I'm glad the two of you purchased a gun for protection. Your personal safety is YOUR responsibility, not the cops.

My wife was anti-gun in the house until a couple of teenagers door bell ditched ( aka ding dong dash ) us around 2AM during a weeknight. It freaked her out. She felt threatened because she didn't know what was going on, and that shook her.

Luckily for me, I was a similar PITA when I was younger and I did the same act to others so I knew exactly what was going on.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Yeah, I noticed that too. It looks like senior high pics my dad has.

Either that or he's an uber uber hipster who over saturates his pictures.

Something about the picture also says Bigfoot documentary to me for some reason. lol

I don't say that often but i wish we had a law like this in Europe. Here if i would only do as much as hurt an intruder i would probably go to prison and have to pay the fuck damages for pain and suffering.

Yeah, European laws (especially the UK's) are pretty awful in regards to self-defense and being able to protect oneself.

 

[shuri]

I must admit I laughed when I saw the picture of the dude. I assumed he was a super hipster because there was no way someone would take a pic like that in 2011, unless they were trying to parody a certain style. Even the expression on his face is hilarious.

And I dont mean to disrepect him; he was probably a really good guy. But damn at that picture.

 

[DeathIsTheEnd]

Yeah, European laws (especially the UK's) are pretty awful in regards to self-defense and being able to protect oneself.

This is the Crown Prosecution Service's guidelines on Self-Defence. If you have the time would you mind saying what you find so awful about these in regards to the US's and also other European countries?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

This is the Crown Prosecution Service's guidelines on Self-Defence. If you have the time would you mind saying what you find so awful about these in regards to the US's and also other European countries?

Quick question, why did the Crown Prosecution Service feel that their was a need to publish this?

Retreating
Failure to retreat when attacked and when it is possible and safe to do so, is not conclusive evidence that a person was not acting in self defence. It is simply a factor to be taken into account. It is not necessary that the defendant demonstrates by walking away that he does not want to engage in physical violence: (R v Bird 81 Cr App R 110).

Still allows for a failure to retreat to be considered factor in determining prosecution.

The basic principles of self-defence are set out in (Palmer v R, [1971] AC 814); approved in R v McInnes, 55 Cr App R 551:

"It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but only do, what is reasonably necessary."

Lots of wiggle room for Crown Prosecutors.

Use of Force against Those Committing Crime
The public interest factors set out in the earlier section will be especially relevant where, as a matter of undisputed fact, the victim was at the material time, involved in the commission of a separate offence.

Common examples are burglary or theft from motor vehicles. In such cases, prosecutors should ensure that all the surrounding circumstances are taken into consideration in determining whether a prosecution is in the public interest.

Prosecutors should have particular regard to:nature of the offence being committed by the victim;
degree of excessiveness of the force used by the accused;
extent of the injuries, and the loss or damage, sustained by either or both parties to the incident;
whether the accused was making an honest albeit over zealous attempt to uphold the law rather than taking the law into his/her own hands for the purposes of revenge or retribution.

If you where being carjacked in PA you could use deadly force, in England, maybe, but it looks like the victim would have to endure a trial to determine that.

 

[bengraven]

Something about the picture also says Bigfoot documentary to me for some reason. lol

I lolled.

Legend of Boggy Creek.

 

[andycapps]

If you where being carjacked in PA you could use deadly force, in England, maybe, but it looks like the victim would have to endure a trial to determine that.

What I get out of that is that you have to use a proportionate response to the level of threat that you sense (and that the prosecutors would later evaluate from the comfort of their chair). Using deadly force when someone is only attempting to rob you could make you seem "over zealous" in their eyes. Scary. So if you came upon someone robbing your house, you should wait and see what kind of threat they pose to you, call the cops, and wait and see what happens. Or something like that.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

What I get out of that is that you have to use a proportionate response to the level of threat that you sense (and that the prosecutors would later evaluate from the comfort of their chair). Using deadly force when someone is only attempting to rob you could make you seem "over zealous" in their eyes. Scary. So if you came upon someone robbing your house, you should wait and see what kind of threat they pose to you, call the cops, and wait and see what happens. Or something like that.

That's my problem with it, it is too vague. Makes you wonder why the CPS had to publish the pamphlet in the first place.

I lolled.

Legend of Boggy Creek.

I have a Widescreen copy sourced from some dudes private print. It's a pretty good movie by Charles B. Pierce (Boggy Creek 2 is not). Actually his The Town that Dreaded Sundown is great too.

 

[DeathIsTheEnd]

Quick question, why did the Crown Prosecution Service feel that their was a need to publish this?

I don't know the actual reason, though I would imagine it's so people can simply see what is legal. They have a rather a lot of information on their site ranging from Drinking Banning Orders to the Handcuffing of Defendants, Obscene publications and Homicide.

Thanks for your points. They are all things I agree are issues, but it's nice to get another perspective.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I don't know the actual reason, though I would imagine it's so people can simply see what is legal. They have a rather a lot of information on their site ranging from Drinking Banning Orders to the Handcuffing of Defendants, Obscene publications and Homicide.

True, but I recall the Tories having reform of self defense rules being a part of their campaign platform and it was one that I recall having public support, so I thought it might have been an attempt to say, no it's fine. I agree your reason is most likely. I have to look at the Obscene publications ones, I recall reading how a print of Lucio Fulci's New York Ripper after being rejected by the BBFC was escorted out of the country by police. lol Ah Video Nasties!

Thanks for your points. They are all things I agree are issues, but it's nice to get another perspective.

Sure thing, and I appreciate you providing the text (I think I may have seen it before, but the content wasn't easily recalled). It is good to be able to see another perspective, and also actual law/government opinion. I agree blanket statements with facts are pretty worthless. Like I said, I think the problem is that he has too much vagueness, even for a trained barrister or solicitor to interpret, let alone the common citizen.

 

[Cat Party]

Bit more info from the affidavit as told by the guy she didn't have a chance to shoot:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.newsok.com/documents/j5dlsaffidavit.pdf

So I was partially right. They weren't breaking in to attack this girl, they wanted drugs they thought were in the house. She was justified in blasting the guy either way, there's no doubt about that. Where my hunch was wrong is that I assumed the drugs were there for illicit reasons, but it sounds like they were legit (if there even were drugs in the house).

 

[scar tissue]

She probably should've shouted "I've got a gun" before firing or maybe fired at the door when they were trying to break in, but really, she was well within her right to kill the guy.
Charging his accomplice with murder is ridiculous tho. It's not like he forced the deceased guy into committing the robbery.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

So I was partially right. They weren't breaking in to attack this girl, they wanted drugs they thought were in the house. She was justified in blasting the guy either way, there's no doubt about that. Where my hunch was wrong is that I assumed the drugs were there for illicit reasons, but it sounds like they were legit (if there even were drugs in the house).

Plus that they where high at the time too, which I had no idea, but figured if they where taking 21 minutes to do so, they seemed pretty crazy.

It's not like he forced the deceased guy into committing the robbery.

It's not like he was forced to go.

 

[Satyamdas]

16 year olds don't really 'get' how to do a sultry pout, do they?

Good on the filthy old goat though.

No, in general they can't pull off the sultry look very well. But in this case it's obvious she is rolling her ass off (feeling the effects of some good ecstasy).

 

[Javaman]

So I was partially right. They weren't breaking in to attack this girl, they wanted drugs they thought were in the house. She was justified in blasting the guy either way, there's no doubt about that. Where my hunch was wrong is that I assumed the drugs were there for illicit reasons, but it sounds like they were legit (if there even were drugs in the house).

Why would he tell the cops that they were planning on raping and killing her and the kid? The guy is going to tell them the least incriminating thing, whether it's the truth or not. There's no way to know their intentions.

 

[Count Dookkake]

She probably should've shouted "I've got a gun" before firing or maybe fired at the door when they were trying to break in, but really, she was well within her right to kill the guy.
Charging his accomplice with murder is ridiculous tho. It's not like he forced the deceased guy into committing the robbery.

In some jurisdictions, if someone is killed during the commission of a crime (even if one of the criminals is killed by a victim), the charge can be shared among the criminals. It's pretty clever actually. Quite useful.

So I was partially right. They weren't breaking in to attack this girl, they wanted drugs they thought were in the house. She was justified in blasting the guy either way, there's no doubt about that. Where my hunch was wrong is that I assumed the drugs were there for illicit reasons, but it sounds like they were legit (if there even were drugs in the house).

We don't know that the robbery would not have turned into an 'attack.' It's not like criminals are required to pick only one crime at a time.