Oklahoma woman asks 911 operator for permission to shoot intruder

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

  • 7

    Suzu1

    This is a brave young woman who kept calm and saved two lives - hers and her baby's. Thank God she had a shotgun and knew how to use it. When seconds counted, the police were minutes away.

  • 0

    Dennis Bauer

    well she asked for permission now,didn't shee\

  • 11

    YuriOtani

    Without the shotgun, the story would of been about a young mother and child found dead. She did not wish to kill him but had no choice.

  • -8

    Virtuoso

    This whole story is just a little bit too pat. The dead man was described in reports as a stalker, but it's not the nature of stalkers to come calling accompanied by friends. Why didn't the second man just run off when he heard the gunshot? I suppose there will be more coming out about this story at some point. The way it reads now, it could have been issued by the NRA's PR office.

  • 1

    HonestDictator

    Virtuoso the 2nd perp turned himself in since the police were en route after the first intruder was blown away. 1 learned a permanent lesson, and hopefully the other will keep that experience in mind to not break into another persons home. Pretty much Martin forfieted his life as soon as he got into her house. Tag that with the mother protecting her child instincts, he was really really really asking for it.

  • -4

    cleo

    Why didn't the second man just run off when he heard the gunshot?

    Apparently he did, and then gave himself up later.

    Other reports also state that the 911 call went on for 21 minutes. If the girl had got the immediate help she requested in the first place, there would have been no need for any shooting. Before you praise the gun laws, try sprucing up the police response times.

  • 2

    Nicky Washida

    He was already in her trailer with a knife??! My God. This wasnt a guy popping round for a cup of sugar. I admire her level-headedness in even making the call before shooting him. And hitting him to. If it was me I would probably have screamed, freaked out and shot the curtains.

    Well, you break in, you get what you deserve. In America anyway. In the UK this woman would be in custody, her child with social services, and the dead intruders family would be receiving state-paid counselling and legal aid.

  • 2

    MaboDofuIsSpicy

    And they are not pressing charges according to the most recent news release..

  • 7

    YuriOtani

    cleo, Oklahoma ia a BIG place and she must of been out in the country. So it takes some time for the police to get out there. Look at the news in Japan, another stabbing, two more students found dead. A firearm is just a tool, nothing more and nothing less.

  • 2

    Patrick Hattman

    Sarah McKinley, 18, shot and killed Justin Martin, 24, with a 12-gauge shotgun after calling police and asking in a near-whisper: “I’ve got two guns in my hand. Is it OK to shoot him if he comes through the door?”

    I heard the 9/11 recording tonight and didn't recall her voice being a "near-whisper." She sounded calm and collected and ready to defend herself.

  • 6

    Alphaape

    Other reports also state that the 911 call went on for 21 minutes. If the girl had got the immediate help she requested in the first place, there would have been no need for any shooting. Before you praise the gun laws, try sprucing up the police response times.

    @cleo: Police can't be in all places at one time. No sure which part of OK this lady was in, but if she were out in the countryside, no matter how many police you have, there still will be a time/distance problem for them to get there. Thankfully, she had a gun, and had the authorities on the phone to help keep her calm. I feel no sympathy for the guy who got killed, he got what he deserved.

  • -27

    Elbuda Mexicano

    Why is she living ALONE in the middle of no where Oklahoma?? I know her husband just died of cancer but why does she not move back with her parents?? Assuming she has parents?? This all sounds very strange and she got lucky this time but you can only get lucky so often and pull a Dirty Harry style incident like this. Time for to move in with some relatives me thinks and avoid these dangers. Shot gun to the rescue?? Maybe they will make a movie??

  • -3

    unreconstructed

    2011 was a record year for gun sales in the US. Women are buying in record numbers. The economic devastation the Obama regime has intentionally inflicted upon the country and the uncertainty it causes is the largest reason but inadequate police response is another.

  • -13

    cleo

    He was already in her trailer with a knife??! My God.

    No, they were outside trying to get in, and she spent 21 minutes on the phone.

    When seconds counted....

    Lots of seconds in 21 minutes.

  • 3

    ReformedBasher

    Mum and Kid 1 - Thugs 0

    She should get an award or something.

    @Nicky

    In the UK this woman would be in custody, her child with social services, and the dead intruders family would be receiving state-paid counselling and legal aid.

    That is crazy. Innocent people have the right to save themselves and family, friends etc. Criminals, especially armed ones have no rights. Real simple isn't it?

    “Well, you have to do whatever you can do to protect yourself,” Grady County sheriff’s dispatcher Diane Graham replied. “I can’t tell you that you can do that, but you have to do what you have to do to protect your baby.”

    She deserves an award too.

  • -2

    Virtuoso

    The economic devastation the Obama regime has intentionally inflicted upon the country and the uncertainty it causes is the largest reason

    I'd say the hysterical propaganda streamed 24/7 by FOX News and right-wing radio commentators also deserves at least some credit. Gullible rednecks are fully convinced the administration is out to confiscate their guns, and the knee-jerk reaction, rather than investigating the truth, is to run down to the nearest gun shop and squander their paychecks on firearms and ammunition.

  • 1

    unreconstructed

    Gullible rednecks are fully convinced the administration is out to confiscate their guns, a

    Right. It's da Faux News! Has to be.

    Except that gun sales were highest in urban areas - where all a duh rednecks is a-livin, yeah?

    "Investigating the truth? "

    Maybe you should look into Fast and Furious or Operation Gunwalker.

  • 16

    unreconstructed

    Why is she living ALONE in the middle of no where Oklahoma??

    Why CAN'T she live alone in rural Oklahoma?

  • 5

    CrazyJoe

    She's a very brave young woman. I would probably do the same if I was in her position. The shooting is justified.

  • 3

    655321

    All the ppl giving a thumbs down to comments that support the woman shooting the intruder would have ended up in the news as another murder and/or rape statistic.

    Guaranteed, anyone in that situation, especially with baby in hand would do the same thing as this woman.

  • 1

    japan_cynic

    In the UK this woman would be in custody, her child with social services, and the dead intruders family would be receiving state-paid counselling and legal aid.

    No, from the facts as reported I'm confident this would be considered self-defence in the UK. Here is a recent case:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-15211250

    However, in contrast to the USA, shooting someone who merely knocks on your door (while they are still outside) is not considered reasonable.

  • 8

    Pump24

    To fill in some blanks here, it was added in US papers that the husband (who was 58) died of lung cancer and the assailants were most likely trying to get his stash of prescription pain meds. The wife (age 18...yup, 18) did the right thing by calling 911 and defending herself and child. People have the legal recourse to protect themselves...no matter where they live. Well done, young lady!

  • 5

    Fadamor

    This woman did NOT become a murder statistic, she protected herself and her child by exercising her right granted in the second amendment to The Constitution, contained in The Bill of Rights, that gives its citizenry the right to bear arms.

    Wrong. All the second amendment states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." So the second amendment deals with preventing the government from restricting civilians' ownership of guns. The reasoning was the civilians would need those guns in case the local branch of the State Militia was called up. (The government can't keep a State's militia from forming) This was a direct response to the situation prior to independence. The government (Britain) had outlawed the "states" (the 13 colonies) from forming militias by prohibiting the ownership of guns. The need for this amendment was eliminated once the states started supplying their own weapons to their "militias" (now called the "National Guard")

    This woman exercising her right to SELF-DEFENSE has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. She could have used ANY weapon in the act of exercising her right to defend herself - knife, bow, baseball bat, etc. Self defense does not require a firearm.

  • 0

    Donald Taylor

    Yea! In the US anyone who comes into your house without an invitation is considered an intruder and can be shot on sight. She saved the police a lot of work investigating her murder, not to mention she saved her own life as well. In the US the message is: break into someones home at the risk of your life. The efficacy of this is reflected in the city of Kennesaw, GA which experienced a decline in crime when they passed a law that required all home owners within city limits to own guns.

  • 1

    Draconalis

    This story made my day... that's fantastic.

  • 6

    Suzu1

    Lots of seconds in 21 minutes.

    Cleo - That is a typical, snarky sentiment voiced by those who do not comprehend the distances in rural counties of the U.S. There are simply a handful of officers to cover thousands of square miles.

    The accompolice has now been charged with murder. Oklahoma's felony murder law permits prosecutors to seek a murder conviction if an accomplice dies during the commission of another felony crime.

  • 0

    SuperLib

    in 2009 in the United States, where every year guns figure in around 30,000 deaths ranging from murder to suicide and accidents.

    pamelot: I don't see the correlation to this story, in this sum-up statement...

    It's used for perspective. They probably don't want people to read one story and think that everyone is defending themselves with guns when in fact the opposite is true.

  • 0

    noriyosan73

    Would this have been possible in Japan or would the woman and child have been killed by two worthless human beings? Thank you Founding Fathers for the Second Amendment. Also, don't forget the gun laws and the right to kill an intruder are different in every state in the USA. States' Rights is always the issue.

  • -2

    Wolfpack

    So there are two armed men breaking in to a woman's home and she felt that she had to call someone to ask permission to defend herself. Wow! If only the men had broken in, raped and killed her; a lot of anti-gun people would be much happier about this incident.

  • 4

    Thunderbird

    I am very happy to be raising a family in a society where guns and drugs (of almost any kind) are strictly controlled!!!

  • 2

    globalwatcher

    Good job!

    This is known as a "Make My Day" law recognizing that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.. Many states are following this doctrine.

  • 0

    Charles M Burns

    God bless her. She didn't have to ask, she has the right. In Colorado it is called the "Make my day" law. If you are threatened on your own property, you have the right to defend yourself with the appropriate amount of force. I'd say her's was appropriate.

  • -17

    cleo

    Why CAN'T she live alone in rural Oklahoma?

    Because it's a godforsaken place populated with murderous young men, unsafe for ordinary law-abiding folk and essentially outside the reach of the law? (or so the pro-gun folk would have us believe...heck, they would have us believe the whole of the country is like that).

    a typical, snarky sentiment voiced by those who do not comprehend the distances in rural counties of the U.S.

    Presumably the lady in question does comprehend the distances - yet still choose to live in the back of beyond.

    There are simply a handful of officers to cover thousands of square miles.

    America thinks it can police the world, yet can't police it's own inaka? Maybe there's a need for fewer soldiers overseas and more police at home.

  • 2

    Weasel

    It would have been nice to be able to read the entire story - not the abbreviated version, which sensationalizes a viewpoint.

  • 4

    Andrew Matthews

    The relevant state law is know as the Castle Law (also known as the Castle Doctrine). I believe Colorado is the only state with a law nick-named the "Make My Day Law" - but it is essentially the same. You have a right to safety in your own house (some states state residence, and some include automobile and place of work). Also, each state have different rules regarding non-lethal resistance you can make before resorting to lethal. And some states require you to use any available exit first.

    It comes from the English common law (i.e. don't try to use it in a court of law) that every man's home is his castle. Personally, having lived in the US and the UK, I prefer the US approach. Having had a friend almost have to put their dog down, because he attacked a burglar (it was a terrier for deity's sake, and it tripped the burglar up!) and had two guys attempt to crowbar my window open while I am in the house in London, in the full knowledge it is illegal to have a handgun in the house in the UK.

    Guns can be a great equalizer (no pun intended) and women who carry one or have one in their home are less likely to be a victim.

  • 0

    WilliB

    Amazing control to both hold a gun and call the police while alone and under attack... I´d like to meet that woman.

  • 1

    Lieberman2012

    "Police found Martin’s body, knife in hand, slumped over McKinley’s sofa, and determined the mother of a three-month-old baby—whose cancer-stricken husband died on Christmas Day—had acted in self-defense."

    Looks like the anti-gun/hate America crowd stopped reading before they got to that info. It amazes me how blind Anti Americanism can make some people so dense.

  • 0

    Tatanka

    A "Bada Bing" moment in Oklahoma...

  • 0

    Nicky Washida

    That is crazy. Innocent people have the right to save themselves and family, friends etc. Criminals, especially armed ones have no rights. Real simple isn't it?

    You would think, wouldnt you? Where the law is not clear in the UK is the use of "reasonable force".

    @Japan-cynic: Remember Tony Martin? He was convicted of murder for shooting a burglar in his house in the dark. That link you provided showed that the guy used "reasonable force" - he stabbed to disable but did not kill the defender. This woman shot the intruder dead. In the UK, legally at least, that would be considered excessive force. Although she may well get off on a sympathy vote given her circumstances, but she shouldnt have to "get off" at all - you invade someones house, you face the consequences. As reformed-basher stated above, it should be simple. But it isnt. And the law even allowing reasonable force only came in in 2008. It is still unclear and still being debated what "reasonable force" actually means.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13957587

  • 1

    HonestDictator

    As Fadamor stated the home owner does not even need a gun to dispatch an intruder inside their home. Castle/makeMyDay law clearly says the owner is allowed to use DEADLY FORCE. If she wanted to jab him with a pitchfork or a nail studded bat until he was incapacitated she could have once he BROKE INSIDE her home. The man was blatantly obvious that he intended for quite a while to cause harm to her no matter what means it took.

    @Cleo, when someone is comfortable living in a certain town or area and they don't want to move then they have that RIGHT to do so. This woman was quite prepared for the situation she was in and it doesn't seem like she's intending to move any time soon. We don't know how long she's lived there but she can choose to move when she feels like it. Can't make a salt water fish like fresh water if they don't feel like they can survive outside the habitat they're used to.

  • 2

    Nessie

    I'm anti-gun, and home use is the only situation where I support gun ownership.

    Or course, the owners forget that they're more likely to use the gun for suicide, domestic violence or accidental misfire than for defense, but as long as they keep it off the street, I believe people have the right to be as dumb as they want.

  • -2

    HonestDictator

    What about hunters and ranchers?

  • -6

    smithinjapan

    Nicky: "He was already in the trailer??"

    It says clearly that she asked the police, "...if he comes through the door", which means either he was NOT in the trailer yet, or she was hiding in the little toilet or some bedroom with a door. Sounds to me like she knew he (they) were going to enter, but had not yet done so.

    I have to agree with cleo that if the call was so long (21 minutes) why didn't the police dispatch people ASAP? And if they did, I agree with her that they need to VASTLY improve their response time.

    What's more, for those who actually praise this woman's actions, I have one question: it's reported that after she asked permission to shoot the would-be intruder (he had not entered at the time yet, it seems) and the dispatcher replied, that the dispatcher heard the shots thereafter. Did the dispatcher hear the woman yell, "I have guns! If you come in I'll shoot!" or any other such threats that might have deterred them without the need to kill them?

    Now, if she did try to stop them with such threats and they STILL tried to enter, I'd say she's justified. If not, it's not so clear cut, in my humble opinion. I realize she was probably terrified, but if brave enough to dial up the police and ask for permission to shoot, I wonder if she couldn't have tried to warn them first. I'm not saying what she did was necessarily wrong, just that all the praise and fan-fare might be a little much.

  • -7

    Virtuoso

    Americans love to entertain what Eric Larson described as "homicidal fantasies," such as described in Dirty Harry and the Charles Bronson films, where all the world's problems can be easily solved by peering down the gunsights and blasting away. In real life it doesn't happen that way. I think James Ellroy's novel "The Black Dahlia" touched on this point very effectively. The taking of a human life doesn't end with the flat line on a cardiograph, but takes on an evil karma that pollutes the lives of all the people who come into contact with it -- the rescue workers, the cops, the attorneys who inevitably become involved, the judges, and even the spouses and children of all the aforementioned --- and not just the person who pulls the trigger. I happen to know someone who had the misfortune of killing someone and even though he was not held legally liable he confided to me that the repercussions of taking someone's life just do not ever end.

  • 2

    Bebert61

    In the US anyone who comes into your house without an invitation is considered an intruder and can be shot on sight.

    Not always true. It depends on the state and city one lives in and their gun and self-defense laws. Some states have "castle" laws (a man's home is his castle) where you can shoot a home intruder with impunity. In more liberal cities or states, she'd be arrested for the murder and/or gun law violation. It would be up to the district attorney whether to prosecute and the jury whether to convict.

  • 0

    HonestDictator

    C'mon, you bleeding hearts are so over you heads in twisted justification logic you don't seem to understand Justin Martin did not CARE that she had a gun aimed at him once he broke in. He STILL tried to attack her. He had been PLANNING it for quite a while and had INTENTto do so from BEGINNING TO END (he even talked an aquaintance into helping him for crying out loud). Second it still depends on how far the nearest officer can be. State/county budgets are BUDGETS for a reason, they can only allocate as much as the citizens are willing to give to certain city and state services and they try to use it to cover as much an efficient area as they can. Until we get a world with flying anti gravity cars and non malfunctioning ED-209s and Robocops that can be manufactured and ran cheaply this is what we have to deal with. Reality will always trump ideology until it can actually become a reality.

  • -1

    HonestDictator

    This man was evil and I guess I'll stress that he was hell bent on commiting a crime against this woman. With the kind of thinking you guys are using we'd have nothing but situations like the Petit families home invasion happening all over all the time.

  • 0

    HonestDictator

    @Virtuoso There will be reprecussions whichever way it turns out always until one simple thing starts happening. The person/persons trying to initiate a criminal act don't do the criminal act. Simple right? There won't be victims if someone doesn't intentionally try to harm them right? There won't be criminals if they don't get some whacked idea in their head to do something illegal right? So the choices and outcomes of these situations can all easily be avoided if the initiator wises up and decides not to initiate a problem.

  • -1

    Disillusioned

    pamelot - exercising her right granted in the second amendment to The Constitution, contained in The Bill of Rights, that gives its citizenry the right to bear arms.

    And, in the fine print it reads: You also have the right to blow the head off an intruder.

  • 0

    unreconstructed

    Americans love to entertain what Eric Larson described as "homicidal fantasies," such as described in Dirty Harry and the Charles Bronson films, where all the world's problems can be easily solved by peering down the gunsights and blasting away.

    Hilarious attempt at 'psycho-analysing' all 305 million of us there, virtuoso. I like how you have to go all the way back to a couple of white males featured in what most of us would regard as semi-comedic movies - from 70s no less, well before the woman in this story was born - to help you, as self-appointed doctor of post-modernist therapeutics, get to the 'root' cause. Hey - any condemnation of the ultra-violent, misogynist rap or rap-influenced music and music vids the would-be rapists and killers quite likely listened to or were undoubtedly exposed to? Naaaaaaah. That just wouldn't be PC, would it...

  • 1

    japan_cynic

    Nicky, yes I remember the Tony Martin case well, I was in the UK at the time, and a 5 year prison sentence does not seem unreasonable to me for shooting someone in the back (killing them) as they were trying to run away. The UK law may be a little vague but it seems pretty reasonable overall - I am grateful that vigilantes are generally discouraged from taking the law into their own hands - self defence is one thing, but killing someone because they have committed a crime is another entirely. I certainly shed no tears for the would-be burglar in this case, and don't think the woman did anything wrong at all.

  • -1

    smithinjapan

    HonestDictator: "C'mon, you bleeding hearts are so over you heads in twisted justification logic"

    What bleeding hearts? I'd say at least 90% of the comments on this thread are trying to justify what this woman did as absolutely necessary and not at all wrong. There are but two or three posts which suggest she MIGHT have been able to do more.

    "...you don't seem to understand Justin Martin did not CARE that she had a gun aimed at him once he broke in. He STILL tried to attack her. "

    How do you know this? Maybe she just plugged him the minute he walked in, WITHOUT threatening him first, it seems, and he stumbled over to the couch before falling down in it, dead. Oh wait, did SHE say that's what happened? Ask the dead men his side. Maybe it did happen that way, I have no idea. The point is, neither do you. Maybe he saw the guns and was going to step back out the door but she had already made her decision (again, without trying to warn him first). Just throwing that out there for you to chew on, but I doubt you will before you spit it out.

  • 5

    zichi

    I watched her on TV and would support her with her choice, she didn't have another one.

  • -6

    cleo

    Justin Martin did not CARE that she had a gun aimed at him once he broke in. He STILL tried to attack her. He had been PLANNING it for quite a while and had INTENTto do so from BEGINNING TO END

    All the reports say he wanted the drugs. I agree with smitty - it isn't clear that he knew she was armed, that she warned him, or even if she was whispering on the phone, that he even knew she was in there. Simply, all we have is the word of a lady who is now posing for the cameras with firearm in hand and what looks like a bit of a smirk on her face. I hope that's just the camera angle.

  • -1

    Nessie

    What about hunters and ranchers?

    Ranchers, okay if they really need to be armed for their professional duties.

    Hunters, I suppose. People don't need to hunt, just like they don't need to fish. The difference is, no-one blows their brains out with carbon monofilament.

  • 4

    zichi

    They must have known if they break into a house they had a good chance of getting shot?

  • 2

    RomeoR

    The laws in Oklahoma are on the side of its citizens. Great to hear about a teen mom protecting herself and her baby from scum of the Earth.

    RR

  • 1

    erikaj

    A firearm is just a tool, nothing more and nothing less.

    YuriOtani: No, a screwdriver is a tool. Even a stupid person is what is known as a "tool". On the other hand, a firearm is a "weapon". Thus it requires a lot more care and responsibility when handling one. This woman made the news because unlike most people, she took the proper procedures in handling and using her weapon in the right way and making sure she did (although it would've been better to shout that she had a gun and will shoot, before shooting, as police do). She didn't end up shooting herself, her baby, or innocent bystanders as has happened in stories I've heard. She also probably had her gun locked up properly so that others wouldn't get at her gun and use it improperly, like so many self-inflicted injuries and deaths by guns. Yet, it doesn't justify people carrying guns on the street, or going out of their way to own semi-automatics.

  • -2

    unreconstructed

    All the reports say he wanted the drugs.

    And what - this somehow makes the young thug's act of breaking and entering and brandishing a knife less heinous?

    My message to smith and cleo and whatever bleeding hearts come along - if you are troubled by what you read stay away from Oklahoma. Simple as that. When those ridiculous online virtual US prez elections come along vote hopey and changey and a massive federal government trying to cull the tens of millions of guns in the hands of private citizens - if you think it will actually make a diff. It won't...

  • -2

    cleo

    this somehow makes the young thug's act of breaking and entering and brandishing a knife less heinous?

    No, it simply puts a question mark on Dictator's capitalised assertions.

    No one is claiming they were not doing wrong in breaking in. Of course they were doing wrong, though pathetic is probably a more accurate description than evil for low-lifers after prescription drugs. That doesn't necessarily mean she should be taken at her word, or feted like a hero.

    If guns are as effective at deterring crime as the gun crowd claims, surely simply shouting 'I have a gun!' through the door or out of a window - or firing a shot out of the window to show she wasn't bluffing - would have been enough to deter them. If they still came on after that, then fair enough.

  • 0

    unreconstructed

    If guns are as effective at deterring crime as the gun crowd claims, surely simply shouting 'I have a gun!' through the door or out of a window - or firing a shot out of the window to show she wasn't bluffing - would have been enough to deter them.

    Don't own a gun myself and am no expert on em but a 12 gauge shotgun fired in the way you suggest (through a window) could still result in an awful lot of blood and pain and even death. They ain't exactly designed to minimize the field of impact.

  • -2

    Himajin

    Sarah McKinley, 18, reportedly was home alone with her infant son just a week after her husband died of lung cancer, when two men tried to break into her house.

    McKinley managed to push the couch to the front door to create a barricade, but that didn't stop the intruders.

    "He was from door to door trying to bust in," McKinley told CBS affiliate KWTV. "I don't know what he had in his hand besides the knife. I believe he actually had a hammer in his hand at some point because he was hitting that back door with it."

    McKinley called 911 and was on the phone with the operator during the entire 21 minute ordeal. She even asked the operator if she could shoot the intruder.

    "They said I couldn't shoot him until he was inside the house," McKinley said. "So I waited until he got in the door and then I shot him."

    Police said that Justin Shane Martin, 24, died at the scene and his alleged accomplice, 29-year-old Dustin Louis Stewart, ran away, but was later brought to police by his parents. He is currently in jail.

    McKinley's mother told KWTV that Martin had followed her daughter around at a rodeo about two years ago.

    She also said McKinley recently bumped into Martin at a convenience store, and that on Thursday night he showed up at her door, introducing himself as a neighbor. McKinley told her mother she did not know who he was until she pieced it all together after the shooting."

    I always wonder, though, if people can't shoot to wound, and not kill...

  • 1

    Virtuoso

    I always wonder, though, if people can't shoot to wound, and not kill...

    No, that's strictly Roy Rogers stuff. If you're shooting at a human target you go by the book, which says aim for "center mass." Even a gunshot wound to an extremity can be fatal if it hits a major artery or if the person hit goes into shock.

  • 1

    Jannetto

    One problem with these "castle" laws is that some people shoot first and ask questions later.

  • 1

    zichi

    The violent threat by two men against a very young mother and her very good baby was very serious and very real even if they had not been armed themselves.

    Had the mother not been armed we could be reading a very different story. I can only have feelings for this young mother and none for the thugs who intended to invade her space and probably harm her too.

  • 1

    sailwind

    Thank goodness she had a shotgun in the house and knew how to use it.

  • -3

    smithinjapan

    Himajin: "They said I couldn't shoot him until he was inside the house," McKinley said. "So I waited until he got in the door and then I shot him."

    Thanks for putting this in there. It sure doesn't sound like Heda's description of her pointing the gun at the man who kept coming, then only using the gun as a last resort. She was WAITING for him to enter with the intention of shooting him. No warning.

    zichi: "Had the mother not been armed we could be reading a very different story."

    I'm quite sure we would be. But the fact remains, even armed she could have given warning. As it is she seems like she made the decision to shoot before they had come in (in fact, only waited until they came in because she was told she must for it to be self-defense). Perhaps if she had not shot we could also be reading a different story; not necessarily the 'woman and child dead' some people suggest would have been inevitable if she didn't so what she did, but perhaps, "teen-mom scares off two would-be robbers with her guns". Wouldn't be quite as sensational, and she wouldn't be quite as famous, but there you go.

  • 2

    zichi

    smithinjapan,

    the mother is not required to give a warning. I don't understand why you can't see that it was the male thugs who were in the wrong and not the mother.

  • 0

    Fadamor

    Most places require that, in the case of deadly force, you have to show that you felt you or your family's life was in danger. Some stranger in your house walking towards your front door with your widescreen TV in his arms is normally not grounds for deadly force. A stranger in your house and walking towards you is a much easier situation to defend the use of deadly force - even if his hands were empty.

  • 1

    okimike67

    And perhaps this will make the next derilicts think twice before breaking into a house. Three cheers for her with the wits to maintain control and protect her castle.

    Its just too bad that several of you uber libs seem to think she was wrong. It sfolks like you that are the root of the problem, affording more rights adn protections to criminals than to LAW ABIDING citizens. Bottomline, EVERYONE should have the right to defend their home and/or family, regardless of what it takes to do so. And giving a warning is the same as painting a target on your back.

    Shoot First and ask questions later!!!

  • 1

    Serrano

    smith: she could have given warning"

    Yeah, and Martin could have not come into her home uninvited with a knife in his hand.

  • 1

    erikaj

    It's just too bad that there aren't enough responsible gun owners like Ms. McKinley who use their weapons properly. Too many times have there been where people have inflicted injuries by guns on either themselves or innocent bystanders. Good on this woman for handling a gun in the right way. This is why this made the news. I'm sure she is also the type who stores her guns properly, and not like so many others who allow kids who find their parents' guns and kill themselves or their siblings accidentally.

  • 2

    zichi

    The only criminals were the violent thugs and not the young teen mother who was mourning the death of her husband.

  • 1

    WilliB

    smithjapan:

    " Thanks for putting this in there. It sure doesn't sound like Heda's description of her pointing the gun at the man who kept coming, then only using the gun as a last resort. She was WAITING for him to enter with the intention of shooting him. No warning. "

    Good grief, you make it sound almost criminal to be in her own house. She was in her house, alone, and the 2 unwanted "visitors" decided to forcibly enter her house.

    I wonder if you could be so smug about the situation if two armed thugs forced their way into your home.

  • 1

    TinMadDog

    I don't understand why you can't see that it was the male thugs who were in the wrong and not the mother.

    You are smarter than that zichi. SmithinJapan is not saying that the mother is in the wrong. He is saying that the response of mother is passable but could have been better. The response of the dispatcher was not passable though if the dispatcher did not tell the mother to warn the intruders that she had a gun. Why? Not only to save the lives of the intruders, but to save the life of the mother herself. Just because she got the jump on one and just because he only had a knife does not mean that will work in every situation. If they all had guns a shoot out could have ensued that might have been avoided with a warning. And if the other man had a rifle and plenty of bullets and decided to just shoot randomly into the trailer, the mother, with only a shotgun, would have been a sitting duck.

    I support the mother and the fact that she is not being charged. This idiot could have easily saved himself by not breaking and entering with a knife in his hand. But it is still worth saying that the response could have been better still. People thinking the response was perfect are either not thinking ahead, favor on the spot executions, or both. Again, I say her response was passable, but only just. The dispatcher may need some retraining.

  • -3

    TinMadDog

    A broken clock is right twice a day. Pro-gun people will hold this up as a shining example of the benefit of guns and completely forget that far more people were murdered in cold blood with a gun, or raped and robbed at gun point than dangerous intruders were blown away. But hey, that is intelligence of your average pro-gun advocate for you.

    Unless this woman is some saint or Sarah Connor on whom the future of the world depends, I don't think she is worth even two of the people who died in her place. (If she would have died without the gun, which is a question pro-gun people somehow imagine they can answer, as if they read minds of both the dead and living and can also predict the future!)

    I am so glad she and her baby are okay, but all the other dead people is not worth having guns all over America.

  • -2

    TinMadDog

    Her husband just died on Christmas Day and that left her alone apparently in the middle of nowhere. This is one of the few situations where I support someone's right to have a shotgun (and nothing more ranged or powerful) in the house.

    But, anyone in such a situation should ALSO be required to own at least one guard and beef up the locks and bar the windows and have all that done in a reasonable amount of time in addition to having the shotgun (time I admit she did not have).

    However you feel about the killing, you have to admit that it would have been a whole lot better if the intruder had never even made it into the house at all. It still could have ended very badly for the mother and baby even with the shotgun, and somewhere else in America, I assure you it did.

    I assume he used the knife to cut and pry his way in. Whether he intended to use it as a weapon is mere guesswork unless his accomplice can confirm there was an actual plan to do so. Regardless, he never should have been able to get in in 21 minutes or slightly more and that is what is most wrong of all in this situation.

  • -6

    cleo

    One problem with these "castle" laws is that some people shoot first and ask questions later.

    Well, she did ask first. She asked if she could get away with it.

  • 1

    cleo

    anyone in such a situation should ALSO be required to own at least one guard and beef up the locks and bar the windows and have all that done in a reasonable amount of time in addition to having the shotgun (time I admit she did not have).

    At 18 I doubt she would have the financial wherewithal to hire a guard (she apparently had to sell most of her guns to pay for the funeral), but in addition to the picture of her posing with the gun there is a picture of her posing with the baby and a huge German Shepherd. I wonder what the dog was doing during the drama.

    The 911 dispatcher confirmed that all the doors were locked, so she did have time to do that even though 'it is not customary to lock one’s doors in the rural community of Blanchard, Oklahoma.'

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082716/Sarah-McKinley-Teen-mom-shoots-dead-intruder-Justin-Shane-Martin-looking-prescription-drugs.html

    a 12 gauge shotgun fired in the way you suggest (through a window) could still result in an awful lot of blood and pain and even death.

    Does shooting out of the window necessarily mean shooting at people? or even in their direction?

  • -1

    smithinjapan

    zichi: "the mother is not required to give a warning."

    True, but it sure, along with the phone call, sounds like that is what she intended to do before the fact. And don't pull this "if you question her it means you think the men were not in the wrong" crap. I ABSOLUTELY know the men to be in the wrong; I'm simply saying all the praise this woman is getting for killing a person when it MIGHT have gone otherwise if she DID try warning them is not really all that great a thing. Like cleo, myself, and one or two others have said, (despite her not HAVING to do it) why could she not have tried? If they continued to press on after that, then I would be there with you guys saying how brave she is and what not.

    WilliB: "Good grief, you make it sound almost criminal to be in her own house."

    Actually, I don't. That just seems to be the way a lot of people are misinterpreting the simple fact that some people wonder if she could have done more, first. It's not a black and white issue here (ie. as with zichi, you think if you question it you are making her the criminal). I in NO WAY defend what the two thugs were doing.

    "She was in her house, alone, and the 2 unwanted "visitors" decided to forcibly enter her house."

    Well aware of the news, thank you.

    "I wonder if you could be so smug about the situation if two armed thugs forced their way into your home."

    You mean if I were at home, along, as a woman with my young child, in a trailer in the boonies... hard to say what I'd do, because I could never be in that situation. If I imagine someone trying to break into my place as is, I think I would surely try to warn them before pulling the trigger (or perhaps even fire a shot out a window -- away from them -- to let them know I mean business). But again, it's hypothetical, so who knows.

    But again, I do not think the woman is or was criminal in her actions, so stop interpreting it that way.

    cleo: "Well, she did ask first. She asked if she could get away with it."

    Indeed. One has to wonder what the outcome would have been if the police had not said, "You have to wait until he's in the house" and said something like, "Try warning them first, and if they keep coming do what you have to do". And like we've said, if they kept coming after that, then... well.. fire away. It's amazing how if you question a single element of what the woman did people seem to think you're condemning her and praising the bad guys.

  • 2

    The Truth Matters

    All I can say is that the right people survived this and 21 minutes is a long time, even in a rural setting for the cops to take to get there. They are saying that the nearest cop, county deputy, state trooper was 25 miles away. I guess it could be possible, but not where I'm from and I'm from a very rural area myself.

  • 0

    Utrack

    I read about this incident on another news thread and this young oman did the right thing. She was on the phone with the police and even put a sofa at the door so the door would not just bust open when the assailants came through.

  • 1

    TigermothII

    For cleo and smith, and any of the rest who seems to think that she should have tried warning them off first by shouting 'I have a gun' - I'd like to see you in the same situation. Actually you would most likely have been killed. But there are far too many 'ifs' for your suppositions that she could/should have done more before firing the fatal shot. And too many things of which you/we don't know. Perhaps you have some sort of stereotypical notion of a mobile home as being single entry so she could have warned them off then sat guarding the front door. Actually most mobile homes have a front and rear door, as well as numerous windows. I don't have or live in one, and am no construction expert, but my bet is that forced entry if it was the obvious intent would not have been difficult. So you warn them you are armed. The average person breaking into a home to possible steal prescription drugs is not exactly a rational thinker. One goes around to the back door, or through a back bedroom window. Now because of your warning they know where you are and that you are intently focused on the front door. So one goes in the back door, the other kicks in the front door and immediately hits the turf. She shoots the shotgun and unless it's an automatic and she's Annie Oakley can't get off a second shot. Her and baby are dead. Probable? Maybe not, but maybe. When your terrified in the dark with a baby to worry about, probably announcing your presence is not the thought you would have.

    I'm unclear of why so many - and particularly of the liberal bent - have this mentality that criminals have all sorts of rights. If you choose to break the law, you give up a large portion of those rights. If you decide to break into someone's house in the middle of the night, you have to know things might go horrible wrong. Normal people don't do these types of things, so treating the situation as if they would adhere to normal common sense is, frankly, stupid.

    And Cleo your gripe about the Police response time? First you obviously have no clue how big the US is. Secondly, if you haven't hear the news recently, the economy is bad, and police forces can no longer afford to have the number of officers required to properly patrol every area. Why did she live so far out? Maybe she liked it (her right) or maybe she lived that far out because judging by the fact that she lived in a mobile home - and given the fact that she just lost her husband to cancer, she's likely struggling quite a bit financially. The further out you live, the cheaper it tends to be.

    There might be more to this story, who knows? But from what we know now, she did what she had to and was damned lucky to get out of it with her life, and that of her baby. The idiot that bought it brought it upon himself as he chose the risks of that situation.

  • -1

    cleo

    While Google raises more questions, it also answers some of the ifs.

    most mobile homes have a front and rear door

    The daily mail reports that she shut herself in the bedroom - only one door to worry about.

    When your terrified in the dark...

    Terrified, I'll give you (though she sounds remarkably calm on the 911 recording). But dark? at 2pm?

    my bet is that forced entry if it was the obvious intent would not have been difficult

    It took longer than 21 minutes. Doesn't seems to have been that easy.

    I'm unclear of why so many - and particularly of the liberal bent - have this mentality that criminals have all sorts of rights.

    I'm unclear why so many - I'm not concerned what bent you are - have this mentality that asking questions and wanting to know the whole story somehow means you're, as smitty puts it, 'condemning her and praising the bad guys.'

    police forces can no longer afford to have the number of officers required to properly patrol every area

    With all these evil crazy drug addicts apparently on the loose, you'd think they couldn't afford not to have the required number of officers.

  • 3

    Triumvere

    Cleo & Smith,

    With all due respect, I don't think you fully understand what you are asking this young woman to do. You are asking her to put herself and her child at risk for the sake of the intruder. Calling out a threat or firing a warning shot is a calculated risk: it could scare the attackers away, avoiding any bloodshed. But if it didn't she would have just increased her own risk of injury or death. It's a calculation that only she could have made. You have no right to ask here to take that risk on her own behalf, let alone that of her infant.

    All the other issues are irrelevant. She cannot have known the intent of the attackers, but she is justified in assuming the worst. They were clearly trying to break in, and when the one intruder came in through the door, he had a knife in his hand. She claims that she saw "something shiny" and assumed it was a gun before firing. Now, this may not be true - she may have just shot the instant he came in the door, but once again, that is her right. You may have done differently, but you do not have the right to ask her to take that sort of risk.

    As to her location... for goodness sake, her husband just died and this is her home. Rural Oklahoma is not some hell on earth filled with gun-toting savages, and even if it was it would still be her right to live there, unmolested, in her own house. In any case, the fact that people in rural Oklahoma usually leave their doors unlocked should tell you something about the crime level.

    I don't own a gun, but I support the right to bear arms and to defend oneself. I am very leery of "proportional force" doctrines which ask people to risk their own life to the benefit of an unlawful attacker. Obviously, there are lines, but proportional force advocates tend to draw them much to close for my comfort.

    Every state should have a "castle law."

  • -6

    Triumvere

    Cleo does deserve points for harping on the response time. It may be that the slow response time was completely unavoidable, but we should ALWAYS ask the question in cases like these.

    Of course, this is the essence of the right to bear arms. By owning your own firearm, you take responsibility for your own defense into your own hands. By not doing so, you leave that responsibility to law enforcement.Gun advocates need to realize that more guns means more guns in the hands of criminals, and more accidents, suicides by gun, and more irresponsible use. Gun opponents need to understand that the state cannot always be everywhere to protect you. It is a trade-off.

  • 1

    TigermothII

    Sorry Cleo I must admit that I posted only by reading the JT article which was devoid of facts such as time of day (just said New Year's Eve) and I apparently wrongly assumed that someone would not try forced entry into a home in broad daylight. Should have read more first. But regardless of where she was and time of day I still stand by my position. Warning shots and 'stop or I'll shoot' are great in theory and in Hollywood films. But when faced with an armed intruder and law enforcement and indeterminate distance/time away it's easier to arm-chair quarterback after the fact. I would have blown the dirt-ball away, and I'm hardly the trigger happy gun nut.

    I'm not saying you are 'condemning her and praising the bad guys' but rather you are putting unreasonable expectations on an 18 year old woman worried about the safely of herself and her child. Yes, she was calm enough to call and ask whether she should/could shoot in self-defense. But she's 18 - I didn't exactly read that the 911 dispatcher instructed her to give a verbal warning, or blast a 'warning shot' (which would be far more dangerous I should add, and likely stupid). It's cool to ask questions, but just seems odd that your first would be to immediately question whether she needed to shoot rather than why some a-hole was breaking in to begin with.

    With all these evil crazy drug addicts apparently on the loose, you'd think they couldn't afford not to have the required number of officers

    I read that as sarcasm, but it's an unfortunate truth in the US and actually a lot of other countries as well. The fiscal crisis means we can afford fewer law enforcement officers, but the number of lunatics with criminal intents is ever present.

  • -1

    YuriOtani

    Think she did well for herself and her baby. An intruder had just broken down her door and was charging with a knife. Warning shots and wounding shots are against defense protocol. Using a deadly weapon means shooting to kill. He broke into her home, he had a weapon. A more clear case of self defense can not be made. In Japan we would be reading about a young mother and baby being stabbed to death.

  • 4

    The Truth Matters

    Tigermoth,

    Actually, mobile homes are INCREDIBLY hard to break into. They are made of aluminum. The door jam will just bend and bend and not give. My dad was a cop and he said he hated going to mobile homes because he could never kick the door in, if the situation called for it. That left him and his partner very vulnerable whereas a wooden door they could kick in with one boot and use the element of surprise.

    I'm not saying that should change how the woman acted. I think she acted in self defense and in the same situation, I don't know that I wouldn't have done the same. Just wanted you to have the facts on the mobile homes.

  • -2

    HonestDictator

    The man was not I repeat not trying to get into her house for prescription drugs. The first time he attempted to get in on the day of her husbands funeral stating his condolences for her loss. She refused to open the door and let him in. The 2nd time he came prepared to break in. He wanted to harm her plain and simple and planned accordingly.

    Warning shots are a joke, and blowing out a window? That just takes the breaking part out of the criminals intent to make an opening to get inside. Read up on the Castle law/make my day laws. Its got nothing to do with the right to bear arms, it has to do with the right to use deadly force on an intruder on your property. As for calling out, "I have a gun!" thats like warning the criminal, "Make sure you have a better weapon than the owner does!" because obviously if they're not scared off, they'll just come back better prepared.

    Last year in my city a foolish teen lost his life because he was found crawling into the window (after he had broken it) of a local mans home. The man shot the teen and did not face any charges in doing so. The teens parents were of course mourning and crying about how the boy shouldn't have been shot but completely would not notice that the boy shouldn't have been doing the crime in the first place.

    @The Truth Matters, ask a police officer if a criminal wants to break into a house/car/mobile home NOTHING will stop them. Many burglars come prepared to get into whatever they're trying to do.

  • 1

    zichi

    This young teen mother didn't do anything wrong and many points right-she protected herself and her baby.

  • -2

    NetNinja

    i absolutely love this story. That's the beauty of the right to bear arms. "Get off my land"

  • 1

    Newsman

    Reminds me of JFK's response to Bertrand Russell's criticism of his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis: "I think your attention might well be directed to the burglars rather than to those who caught the burglars."

    The only person I might be inclined to criticize in this instance -- apart from the two intruders -- is the person in charge of training the 911 dispatcher. There should be instruction covering every situation, and apparently the dispatcher did not have a list of do's and don'ts handy with which to guide Ms. McKinley. For everyone else -- and that includes the 911 dispatcher herself, the late-arriving police, and above all Ms. McKinley -- I think they did The Best They Could Under the Circumstances. Had Mr. Martin not decided to plan to break into the home of a recently widowed mother with an infant child (going so far as to take the time to recruit an accomplice and choosing to bring along a weapon), none of this would have happened. The loss of life is regrettable, but the fault lies with Mr. Martin, in my opinion.

    Two more comments: 1) For the people who have suggested to she should have shot to injure, not kill: Do you even know what a shotgun is? The reason that it is the weapon of choice for many is that you just have to aim it in the general direction and it will be extremely effective. (That is also why it is a terrible offensive weapon; over distance its effectiveness diminishes very quickly.) 2) Yes, police response times can be unavoidably long in the sticks. Do you remember Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, which detailed the pitiful number of Oregon State Troopers available statewide at any given time? If someone lives in a city or township, there will be officers available within that jurisdiction, but if someone lives in an unincorporated area it falls to either the county or state to respond. Counties may have just one dispatch point, and the state may not even have a dispatch point in every county. And many counties take much more than 25 minutes to drive across. If you think the time was too long, what would you say is an acceptable wait time? One minute? Should police boxes be built within one minute of every residence?

  • 1

    Nicky Washida

    So easy isnt it? To sit here behind our computers all cosy and warm and say "She should have done X, she should have done Y". She was only 18. She had just lost her husband. She had a 3 month old baby (anyone who has ever been a Mother will know how addled your brain is after 3 months of waking up 10 times a night) and she was in a trailer in the countryside at night alone, with two thugs armed with God knows what trying to break in. Im amazed she even had the presence of mind to call 911 when she had a gun to hand. And asking or expecting someone in that situation to not shoot to kill - come on!!!

    The thugs broke in. They got what they deserved. Yes, she could have warned them. They would have gone away, got their own guns, come back and shot her and the baby and then taken the drugs. This is not vigilante justice. She didnt go after them. They came after HER. They crossed HER threshold. She defended herself and her baby. And bloody good for her, I say. Im sick and tired of reading about these people - "I want I take". And then people trying to defend their homes, shops and families are the ones who end up in court.

  • 2

    cleo

    Nicky is right; it is easy 'To sit here behind our computers all cosy and warm and say "She should have done X, she should have done Y".' What bothers me is how common is the knee-jerk 'yee-haw' reaction of the gun crowd sitting behind their computers and supporting the lethal use of arms without even bothering to check the facts, and even creating stories whereby a pathetic loser after prescription drugs becomes an evil monster whose sole intent 'obviously' is to kill the young mother and her baby. No one is saying that the young thug didn't deserve what he got. But to crow about a death - any death - is surely wrong. It's not a triumph for the gun laws that she shot him/saved herself and her baby; it's an indictment of the protection services that she was put in this situation in the first place (she had complained before about painkilling drugs going missing from her home, so the police knew she was vulnerable) and a huge blot on American society that this kind of crime is common enough to make people feel they need to protect themselves with deadly force. This is not a good news story. It's an embarrassment.

    (The woman herself doesn't make things any better by posing for pictures with a gun, and popping off one-liners like, ‘There’s nothing more dangerous than a woman with a child.’)

  • 1

    Newsman

    Cleo, when I was 18 I had all the confidence in the world in my judgment, but looking back now there are many things I said and did I wish I could take back. My feeling is, let's cut the young mother some slack here. Obviously, she has been praised by millions of people who have never met and will never meet her, and one would have to be a robot not to let some of that go to one's head. If she has let loose with a few regrettable words, let it pass -- she didn't start this whole affair. Whatever ill-chosen words she has uttered, her actions are unimpeachable, I believe.

  • 2

    cleo

    Newsman, I knew everything too when I was 18 :-)

    It's the uncalled-for, over-the-top praise that bothers me. So many people so ready to hoot'n'holler 'cause she used her gawd-given right to own a gun. As for whether her actions are unimpeachable - as in unquestionable? No. Nothing is ever unquestionable. Ask questions, find out what really happened, then decide. Never be afraid to ask questions.

  • 2

    Jerome_from_Utah

    Popular sign here in the States: Caption says "Never Mind the Dog" The picture is the front end of a revolver. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams had their differences, but they agreed about the Second Amendment as a personal right. The lady did what she had to do and she actually used restraint. Good for her.

  • -4

    unreconstructed

    Just wanted you to have the facts on the mobile homes.

    truthreallymatters is your go-to guy on mobile homes and trailer parks.

  • 4

    TinMadDog

    They would have gone away, got their own guns, come back and shot her and the baby and then taken the drugs.

    And this:

    He wanted to harm her plain and simple and planned accordingly.

    Do you guys really think you can predict the future and read people's minds?

    There is a whole sea of possibilities. But all in all, I would rather live in a world where people announce their presence and the fact that they are armed and ready to kill than hunker in a corner and wait for the door to open and then blow people away. It might not have made one bit of difference in this case. But think of all the others where people go to the wrong house and such, such as that Yoshihiro Hattori in 92. Then you got practical jokers (your own friends) and your own family trying to set up surprise parties, etc. People cannot divine the intentions of others. There is no magic. Therefore, we issue warnings to help find what is what.

    There is nothing wrong with people suggesting that warnings are basically a good thing. No one said they were perfect or fool proof, but in general, its a good option, and I would easily bet that in this case issuing a warning would have resulted in anything from no net effect to a better result. To suggest otherwise is ignorant, stupid, just plain bloodthirsty or the mark of someone who just wants to be an argumentative pain-in-the-neck contrarian. Or it could be the mark of someone crazy enough to actually think they can read minds or predict the future through the medium of a newspaper article.

  • -1

    TinMadDog

    Calling out a threat or firing a warning shot is a calculated risk: it could scare the attackers away, avoiding any bloodshed. But if it didn't she would have just increased her own risk of injury or death.

    Triumvere, nteresting how you fail to explain how issuing a warning that got ignored increases her risk of injury or death and that there can be no other option.

    Have you stopped to consider that if she had missed or only slightly wounded the intruder that that would have increased her risk of injury or death??

    And to be clear, I do not give her demerits in this case for failing to do so. I give the dispatcher demerits for (apparently) failing to have the woman do so. That said, most people using a gun to protect their homes should issue warnings if they can do so before anyone has actually gotten through the door. All gun owners should be trained to do this.

    But the gung-ho yee haw attitude to this situation that cleo describes is another reason why America has such a high crime related body count. Until Americans start thinking like intelligent people and stop thinking like red-necked hillbillies its not going to change.

  • -3

    YuriOtani

    TinMadDog, it is against the rules of engagement to shout a "warning". The man broke down her door and had a knife in his hand. Shouting a warning would give him the chance to reach and disarm her. I Japan the perverts just enter the house and kill, while the neighbors do nothing. Knife, gun or club it does not matter. This is about violence and not the means to which it is done.

  • 2

    cleo

    The man broke down her door and had a knife in his hand. Shouting a warning would give him the chance to reach and disarm her.

    She had over 21 minutes before he opened the door to shout out a warning. Maybe that would have spurred him to go off and steal himself a gun from somewhere. It would also have given the law more time to get to the scene, talk to her, ensure her safety and then go after the thugs - she knew who they were.

  • 0

    zichi

    So these violent thugs knew this young teen mother, knew she had a young baby, knew her husband had just died, and turned up at her home armed with a hammer and a knife, at least, and were not looking for drugs. What did they intend to do? Rape her, murder her and the baby? Should they have shouted a warning to the mother they were going to rape and kill her?

  • 0

    unreconstructed

    What bothers me is how common is the knee-jerk 'yee-haw' reaction of the gun crowd sitting behind their computers and supporting the lethal use of arms

    Can't speak for the people in your imagination , but I myself don't support the lethal use of firearms so much as I support the sovereign individual's right to resort to the use of a gun to defend themselves and their loved ones and I recognize, as any sane individual does, that the consequences can indeed be lethal.

  • -1

    Triumvere

    Triumvere, nteresting how you fail to explain how issuing a warning that got ignored increases her risk of injury or death and that there can be no other option.

    Should be rather obvious. If I know you have a gun and I still decide to attack you anyway, I'm going to try to make sure I get you before you get me. Hard to do with a knife, but she didn't know he had just a knife, did she? He could have had his own shotgun.

    The ultimate point is this: the calculation was hers to make. She decided what she felt the risk was, weighed the consequences, and then chose a course of action. (Quite methodically, to, if her tone on the 911 call is of any indication.) You have no place criticizing her for it.

  • -1

    Triumvere

    She had over 21 minutes before he opened the door to shout out a warning. Maybe that would have spurred him to go off and steal himself a gun from somewhere. It would also have given the law more time to get to the scene, talk to her, ensure her safety and then go after the thugs - she knew who they were.

    How was she to know he didn't have a gun? She specifically stated that she thought he did, for whatever that is worth.

  • 0

    Triumvere

    Oh, and TinMadDog, please note that I am not saying that it would have been more dangerous in total for her to have called out a warning. Generally speaking, it is entirely possible that the "safety value" of potentially scaring away an intruder exceeds the risk of giving up the element of surprise. But, there is simply no way to measure this. In this particular case, seeing as the intruder was armed only with a knife, it seems likely that it would have scared him away - but we have no way of telling, and more importantly, she had no access to that information. All she knew was that 2 very determined assailants were bent on home invasion. It was perfectly reasonable for her to assume they were armed with guns.

  • 2

    sailwind

    About the question whether she should have warned the intruder before firing..........her own exact words on that.

    Bear in mind, she’s 18 years old, her husband died of cancer just one week earlier, and she had not one but two lunatics attempting to break down her door and do who knows what. And yet: “I knew if I screamed I would give my position away in the house. And I wanted to see him first.”

    This is one hell of a brave young woman.

  • 1

    The Truth Matters

    truthreallymatters is your go-to guy on mobile homes and trailer parks.

    Yep. I own 2 of them that I rent out people. I make a pretty penny in rent. Used the GI Bill to buy them. Boy that must chap your ass.

  • 2

    The Truth Matters

    I have to agree with the a lot of posters here. If a guy, the kind of guy who would stalk people, you know that kind of loser, is coming to your home, you should have to right to put them down before they have any influence on your children.

  • 1

    James Tanaka

    AND PEOPLE SAY there are no need for guns... If you live in America.. YOU BETTER have a gun just like this woman!

  • 0

    It"S ME

    Not going to say pro- or con- here.

    But I am always amazed how many people think taking a life is just the pulling of a trigger. You are taking a life and that person has a family (Father/Mother/Sister/Brother/ etc) and you are advocating depriving them of their loved ones. So they might not be the best person but they still love and are loved.

    This type of thinking when you reduce a life to the worth of a bullet is what causes wars/hate/etc when you demonise the other party and put them lower than yourself, IMHO.

    She did well and did what she had to do or thought was right, but she ain't a hero nor someone to look-up to by a long shot.

  • -9

    Elbuda Mexicano

    I don't like violence but I wish we had more common sense in California because she would be arrested for murder in California we are no Oklahoma. But why would a teenager marry some man that could have been her grand pappy?? Is this some Oklahoma thing?? All of this is just way to weird for me and you couldn't pay to even visit a godforsaken middle of nowhere flat dry state like Oklahoma! I guess this is why they are called fly over states??

  • 2

    It"S ME

    I don't like violence

    How do you reconcile that with you recommending the death penalty, hatred, etc in most of your posts. Nam-myoho-renge-kyo

  • 0

    Triumvere

    She did well and did what she had to do or thought was right, but she ain't a hero nor someone to look-up to by a long shot.

    I won't argue with your over-all point; she's going to have to deal with being responsible for the death of another human being her entire life.

    But, as for that last line, I'm not so sure. She had the courage to defend herself and her child, and to make a very difficult choice under extreme pressure. There is, I would say, something admirable in that. Many here who talk tough probably could not do the same. Recognizing that is not necessarily the same thing as celebrating violence.

  • 0

    Wolfpack

    But I am always amazed how many people think taking a life is just the pulling of a trigger. You are taking a life and that person has a family (Father/Mother/Sister/Brother/ etc) and you are advocating depriving them of their loved ones. So they might not be the best person but they still love and are loved.

    I think you are simplifying the issue. People who own guns for self defense understand very well the seriousness of having to pull a trigger to defend their life, their family, and their homes. You must have a Hollywood movie or some gang story in mind. In the case of this woman, lawfully owning a gun made it possible for her to defend herself and her child against two men. Gun violence is terrible in the US, but the alternative is an intrusive police state to go after after everyone's gun. Besides, the right to bear arms is in the Constitution (yes. I know that this doesn't stop the Left from attempting to legislate away the second amendment).

  • -2

    YuriOtani

    Not sure why so many people are worried about the perp. He made a decision to break down her door with a hammer. Then rushed into the home with a knife in his hand. This is about violence and not "gun" violence. This violence happens all over the world and no laws are going to prevent it. You can eliminate guns and knifes and it will not change a thing. Baseball bats are weapons too or how about golf clubs? The problem is society which shows the brutal murder of people but the sight of a naked breast is "offensive".

  • 1

    Christina O'Neill

    Whatever you need to do in order to protect your children from harm, you need to do.

  • -6

    dolphingirl

    You are smarter than that zichi. SmithinJapan is not saying that the mother is in the wrong. He is saying that the response of mother is passable but could have been better. The response of the dispatcher was not passable though if the dispatcher did not tell the mother to warn the intruders that she had a gun. Why? Not only to save the lives of the intruders, but to save the life of the mother herself. Just because she got the jump on one and just because he only had a knife does not mean that will work in every situation. If they all had guns a shoot out could have ensued that might have been avoided with a warning. And if the other man had a rifle and plenty of bullets and decided to just shoot randomly into the trailer, the mother, with only a shotgun, would have been a sitting duck.

    I support the mother and the fact that she is not being charged. This idiot could have easily saved himself by not breaking and entering with a knife in his hand. But it is still worth saying that the response could have been better still. People thinking the response was perfect are either not thinking ahead, favor on the spot executions, or both. Again, I say her response was passable, but only just. The dispatcher may need some retraining.

    Agreed. The mother was not in the wrong but she does not deserve applause either. Shooting an intruder should be the LAST resort not the first response. So many things could have been done better: better locks on the doors/windows, better advice from 911 dispatch, faster response by police, a verbal warning, a warning shot.

  • -4

    dolphingirl

    Some good advice:

    Audri: Welcome, Chris! I really appreciate your taking the time to talk with me and help our ScamBusters subscribers.

    Let me begin by asking: what is the best thing you can do to avoid the break-in turning into a tragedy?

    Chris: The best thing you can do is to make a plan -- before it ever happens. It's very important to think about this now -- when you are calm and there is no danger.

    That's why it's so useful to alert your subscribers ahead of time with interviews like this -- so they can have a plan they hopefully will never need.

    There is no single best strategy for dealing with this situation.

    Audri: What is the first thing you should do in this situation?

    Chris: Be very quiet so you can listen. Try to figure out how many intruders there are. Are they coming toward you? Are they ransacking your house?

    If you can, stay in the room you're in and lock and barricade the door. Immediately call the police to get help on the way. Shout to the intruder that the police have been called and are en route.

    Audri: What's best: should you stay in the house, confront the intruder, or leave?

    Chris: Stay in your home unless the intruder tries to get into your room. Never confront the intruder unless in self-defense.

    Another option is that if you can safely escape, do it. For example, if you can safely climb out a window and get help, that's great. However, if you sleep upstairs and can't leave easily, then you'll need to take a different approach.

    Audri: Can you share some tips regarding what to do?

    Chris: First, be prepared. Second, don't argue with your spouse about what to do -- this just alerts the intruders about where you are before you've taken any action. That's another reason to plan ahead.

    Third, it's not a good idea to leave your bedroom carrying a weapon like a baseball bat or a flashlight. If you surprise the intruder, they are more likely to act violently.

    Fourth, it's always good to have a safe room. It can be an interior closet with a sturdy door and a deadbolt lock on the inside. Call the police. Make sure you have a cell phone accessible from your safe room -- and make sure it's charged. You should be safe until the police arrive.

    Audri: Any advice for calling the police?

    Chris: Yes, call the police ASAP. You may have to use a cell phone if the intruders have disabled the phone or have taken the telephone extension off the hook.

    Another tip is to be very concise and specific with the police dispatcher.

    Say that someone has broken into your home, and that you don't know whether or not they have a weapon. Give your address and any instructions to get there if necessary.

    Tell the dispatcher where you are (for example, upstairs in the west bedroom), and where the intruder is (downstairs in the living room).

    Audri: What happens if you encounter the intruder?

    Chris: Don't stay there or fight or argue... run away or barricade yourself in a room and call 911.

    If that doesn't work, try to remain calm and speak in a normal voice.

    Tip: Avoid direct eye contact if possible. This can be interpreted as aggressive behavior.

    Audri: Should you try to protect yourself with a gun or a knife?

    Chris: No. Only confront the intruder with a weapon as a last resort to save your life or a family member. Your property is not worth risking your life.

    Carrying a weapon of any kind increases the chances that you or your family members will be hurt.

    Audri: Is there anything you can do now to protect yourself if this situation does occur that would be helpful?

    Chris: Most burglars will run away if they have wakened you -- unless they have been surprised or confronted.

    Audri: What is the single most important advice you can give our subscribers?

    Chris: Have a family planning meeting to decide what everyone will do during an emergency or violent intrusion. Someone should always try to escape and get help.

    Also, if you have a burglar alarm system, hit the 'panic' button. Learn what to do NOW -- that's much safer than when you're truly panicked.

  • 6

    erikaj

    Baseball bats are weapons too or how about golf clubs?

    YuriOtani: You make no sense whatsoever. First, you downplay guns in a previous post by writing that "a firearm is simply a tool". Then you say that "baseball bats" are "weapons"? Give me a break. A bat, or golf club are sports equipment. They were made to play sports with. A gun was made to hurt people (or animals) with. Yes, a bat could be used to hurt people too but that's not what it was made for. If we went down that slippery slope of yours, then you could say just about any object in the world could be used to hurt people with, if someone had the intent to do so. You could hurt someone with a paper clip, a razor, a ballpoint pen, a trophy, rat poison, a CD, etc. if you really wanted to. Yet, why do you think more people try to kill themselves using a gun, rather than a baseball bat?

  • -5

    Foxie

    As a woman, I would never put myself in such a dangerous situation in the first place. I know that some places in America are more dangerous than others, so why live there? The 911 guy could have told her to shoot him in the leg or something but to kill him was a bit too much.

  • -4

    Elbuda Mexicano

    Oklahoma, well ni pa cagar, kind of like I would not even want my poor dog to suffer out there, let alone humans, so I do hope this young mother has enough brains to get out while she still can.

  • -3

    Elbuda Mexicano

    It me?? Because I do not like violence, keeping VIOLENT monsters off of our streets, this is why I love the DEATH PENALTY, and in this case, the young lady had to do what she had to do, but I think it's time for her to move away from there, I would not want my sisters or any relatives living in those god forsaken lonely crappy parts of the USA. So NMRK??

  • 2

    LosAngelino

    @Foxie. Our traditions in the US embrace self-defense even to the point taking another's life, so it might make sense to a European mindset. But if someone invades your home, the homeowner has the right to defend himself first and ask questions later.

  • 1

    Elbuda Mexicano

    *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.

    Read more: http://newsok.com/alleged-accomplice-in-blanchard-home-invasion-faces-murder-charge/article/3637495#ixzz1iqtgCXMs* This is straight from the young widow, Sarah McKinley, her ex husband taught her how to shoot guns, so I guess this guy must be smiling from up above in heaven??

  • 0

    Triumvere

    As a woman, I would never put myself in such a dangerous situation in the first place. I know that some places in America are more dangerous than others, so why live there? The 911 guy could have told her to shoot him in the leg or something but to kill him was a bit too much.

    A) What makes you think that she lives in a particularly dangerous place? And, if she does live in a particularly dangerous place, what makes you think it would be practical for her to leave?

    B) You do not "shoot to wound", such a strategy is extremely risky.

  • 2

    arrestpaul

    dolphingirl - Shooting an intruder should be the LAST resort not the first response. So many things could have been done better: better locks on the doors/windows, better advice from 911 dispatch, faster response by police, a verbal warning, a warning shot.

    Her first response was to refuse to let this creep into her home. Who brings a 12" knife to your home? Her 2nd response was to pushed a sofa to block the door. He still continued trying to break thru a LOCKED door. She then grabbed her baby, a shotgun, and a pistol and lock herself in a bedroom and called the police (the order of event may vary).

    If the dead guy was there only to rob the home, he could have taken the TV, toaster, and anything else he could sell AND LEFT THE HOUSE after breaking thru the first door. He didn't. He began breaking thru a 2nd LOCKED door.

    When he broke open the 2nd locked door, he would have been only 6 to 10 feet away from this woman and her baby (mobile homes have small bedrooms) and still carrying a 12" knife. How long does it take you to "walk" 10 feet (3 meters)? How fast can you run that far and stab something?

    This woman is a hero because she DEFENDED her family for over 21 minutes.

    The only reason she needed to shoot this creep is because HE had broken open 2 LOCKED doors and was coming right at her with a 12" knife. If he wanted a chance - he should have gone somewhere else.

  • -6

    Mark Bradley

    Why are so many people assuming that an intruder has only one objective, to kill a stranger?

    If someone is breaking into your home it is most likely to steal something. I don't think killing a thief is justified. It is just like the scene in Kill Bill 2 where Uma Thurman goes up to the trailer door and as soon as the door opens they blow her away.

    Now imagine this scenario. Someone tricks a personal through social engineer to come to your home and fix something etc and when they open the door you shoot them... nice law. Most likely if someone sees you with a gun pointed at them will leave immediately. I doubt the person she shot even had a chance to flee.

    Messed-up world we live in.

  • -2

    Mark Bradley

    By the way my last post is based on no details from any other site. This article above has no details except for Mom shoots intruder. Nothing such as bringing a knife or bashing through locked doors etc.

  • 4

    Nicky Washida

    Someone tricks a personal through social engineer to come to your home and fix something etc and when they open the door you shoot them...

    Someone who comesto your house to fix something knocks on the door and announces who they are. They dont spend 21 minutes trying to break in to your house to fix something.

  • 5

    jonobugs

    After looking up the story on the internet (I was a bit surprised to find it was one of a few similar stories) the details seem to be as follows:

    The man who was at the door (Martin) had been known to the mom because he came to her house the night her husband died to introduce himself as a neighbour. She did not let him in that day.

    Martin convinced a friend to go with him to her place. She would not answer the door as she felt he was some kind of stalker. It's not clear if he knew she was home, but I suspect he did as the mother said she had to give her baby boy a bottle to stop him from crying.

    The men spent about 25 minutes trying to aggressively gain access to her home. In her words, she first calmed her baby, got a shotgun and a pistol then dialed 911.

    The 911 call lasted 21 minutes. The operator did not tell her outright to shoot the men, but told her that she needed to do what she had to in order to protect her child.

    At some point, the woman even moved her couch in front of the door to slow the attackers down. She then moved herself to her bedroom while talking on the phone with the 911 operator.

    According to all accounts, she shot and killed Martin the moment he came in through her front door. She noticed something shiny in his hand and thought it was a gun, but later realized it was a knife.

    The mother said that she didn't want to kill the man, but felt she had not other recourse. Escaping did not seem to be an option as she had a child and felt that she would not be able to outrun two men. Basically, she felt like she was backed into a corner and had no other option but to protect herself and her child.

    Personally, I am against people owning guns but it is cases that TURN out like this that make me hesitate. I feel that this woman had few options given to her at the time. It is ridiculous to comment about how she should have beefed up her security more or move to a more 'decent' place. That was her home and I'm sure that she is still recovering from her husband's death while taking care of her infant.

    Another option that people are talking about is how she should have given the intruders a 'fair warning'. It's interesting that the 911 operator, who is trained and whom no one in the law has criticized, did not give her any advice that suggested she do that. So, if someone who is trained did not do that, why would anyone expect an 18 year old to think of that on her own?

    Perhaps, for me, the only thing I might criticize is that she shot the intruder the moment he entered the front door (not her bedroom door as others have suggested. She shot FROM her bedroom door) however, I think that even that can be forgiven as there are just way too many things that might have gone wrong had she waited until she was crystal clear about their intentions once they were both in and charging her. I believe waiting, terrified, for 21 minutes is enough to shoot first and ask questions later.

    So, who should be at fault here? The police for taking too long to respond? Remember, she lives out in the country and this was on New Year's Eve. (during the daytime). As others have pointed out, we don't know what kind of response time could be expected in this situation. It's second guessing at best.

    In my opinion, the intruders are at fault. While death is perhaps harsh, it is something which he brought upon himself and has no one else to blame. While not every American has a gun in their home, I'm sure that there are enough. The intruder should have known it would be a possibility that she would might shoot at him.

    The only question people should be asking right now is what THEY would do if they were in the same situation.

  • -2

    It"S ME

    Not surprised.

    Most crimes are committed by people known to the victims, hence why crimes can be solved as there is a connection.

    Not saying Aye nor Nay again as the issue is more involved than reported.

    But the signs I am sure were there and thus the danger could be anticipated, still don't give you the right to take a life. This is what people mistake about self-defense and its legal definition. Don't mean you can to "Dirty harry" on anyone that enters your property(except in a few countries).

    Most good Self-defense, etc Instructors will drill you more on the laws, etc than the physical stuff(which ain't easy ask any soldier).

  • 0

    It"S ME

    Here is how I was taught self-defense by cops, military and MA.

    I give you a gun and teach you to take out a person, if is your word vs a corpses in a legal court. He can't tell his story. Bad news for you.

    If you own a weapon(ANY) NEVER-EVER draw it unless you are prepared to use it NOW(never use it to threaten someone), and if you do you need have the skill to use it for taking down an opponent and that means disabling him from doing you harm but NOT killing him. i.e. combat training, etc.

    Here is where most people go wrong, a gun or any weapon is NOT a license to take a life(unless truly needed to do so legally). Owning/Using a weapon comes with a set of rules and laws too.

    Legally I can vocally, etc threaten you and that don't give you a licence to kill me(unless if you are in immediate danger of loosing your life/bout 3 seconds). Same way if you can retread from any confrontation and don't refuse to do so you might become the aggressor. If you can retread you can end the conflict.

    Same way take a person down and than put in the boot, etc and you are the aggressor/attacker now. There is a legal escalation level to any conflict and most people that claim self-defense are in violation of that one = their claims are rejected.

    Again check your local laws as to what you can and can't do legally.

  • 3

    lostrune2

    He shouldn't had been there in the first place. He had more than 21 minutes to think about it. He paid the price for not using those 21+ long minutes wisely whether what he was doing was worth it. He could had stopped at any time. He's a capable adult; he should had known better, including the local gun laws.

  • -5

    SolarSails

    According to Jonobugs she did not answer the door, or do anything to let them know she herself was home, but apparently the baby was crying. Which possibly means that for all the men knew, the baby was in the house alone or the mother was unconscious for some reason.

    That introduces the possibility that they took 21 minutes to break in thinking they would save a baby.

    Now do you some of you see why a warning should be given?

  • 2

    Triumvere

    That introduces the possibility that they took 21 minutes to break in thinking they would save a baby.

    With a knife in his hand.

  • 2

    lostrune2

    That introduces the possibility that they took 21 minutes to break in thinking they would save a baby.

    With a knife in his hand.

    And there were 2 of them, and not one called 9-1-1 for help in all that time, so that the ambulance and firemen with the tools would come? (In that scenario, even if they had gotten inside, they would had still needed the paramedics to save an unconscious person.)

    Yeah, right.

    Besides, the other guy already surrendered to the police. So, from that investigation, this will all be sorted out sooner than later.

  • 0

    WilliB

    Solar Sails:

    " That introduces the possibility that they took 21 minutes to break in thinking they would save a baby. "

    But sure! Knife in hand, ready to "save" the baby. I am so convinced.

  • 0

    SolarSails

    @WilliB: Pop quiz! Which is the better choice of tool to use to break into a trailer? A. a twig B. your bare hands. C. a knife D. a pebble. HInt: When you don't know the answer, always choose C!

    I am not saying that saving the baby was the most likely possibility. I just said it now seems like A possibility. But that was not the main point. The main point is that you don't why people are trying to break into your house, and that is why you should shout a warning that you are armed rather than wait for the door to open and kill what might have been a good samaritan.

    @lostrune2: You might also ask why they did not break a window if they wanted to save the baby? Well, why not break a window if they wanted to steal something or kill?

    Why not call 9/11? They might not have had cell phones or they might have thought it would take too long for them to arrive.

    Truly, all I know for sure is that one of the men was an idiot and the other is a moron!

  • -5

    smithinjapan

    TigermothII: "For cleo and smith, and any of the rest who seems to think that she should have tried warning them off first by shouting 'I have a gun' - I'd like to see you in the same situation."

    You'd enjoy seeing others in the same situation? Well, enjoy or not, I would have warned the person first -- if for no other reason that I would be afraid to shoot someone (I'll admit).

    "Actually you would most likely have been killed."

    How's that? Would they have stepped into the trailer AFTER I warned them, with more force?

    You and Triumvere with your, "Warning them would have gotten you killed" logic is absolutely baffling. Please do explain how warning someone before they break in that I have a gun would get me killed.

    Sorry, but Cleo and I are bang on on this one -- celebrating a death is nothing short of criminal itself.

  • 0

    lostrune2

    Why not call 9/11? They might not have had cell phones or they might have thought it would take too long for them to arrive.

    In 21+ minutes, at any time one of 'em could've ran to a nearby establishment with a phone. And what are they gonna do once they get in and find an unconscious person? Nothing. They still gonna need to call an ambulance regardless. They can't assume there's a working phone inside the trailer; and every minute counts, and they're already 21+ minutes late (or maybe more - they wouldn't have known how long it would've taken to get thru that door - or what if they couldn't get in at all). Or ya could turn this around and ask why the guys didn't more clearly communicate (if) their intentions were friendly, so that if anybody was conscious inside the trailer would not be scared (after all, any time before ya enter someone else's home uninvited, ya still have to exercise safe practices to protect yourself). 21 minutes is a long time to think of any of these things.

    But anyways, it doesn't matter. The other guy already surrendered, and the latest news is that the police are charging him. He already told the police that he and his accomplice knew the husband died recently and that there might be prescription drugs there, and that they ingested hydrocodone (an opiate) about 30 minutes before the incident. Burglary gone bad for them.

  • 1

    Triumvere

    @WilliB: Pop quiz! Which is the better choice of tool to use to break into a trailer? A. a twig B. your bare hands. C. a knife D. a pebble. HInt: When you don't know the answer, always choose C!

    Pop Quiz! Who is stretching really hard to try and make a poorly supported point?

  • 2

    Triumvere

    You and Triumvere with your, "Warning them would have gotten you killed" logic is absolutely baffling. Please do explain how warning someone before they break in that I have a gun would get me killed.

    The element of surprise means she's guaranteed to get one solid shot off with out him knowing. This maximizes her chance to hit. This is critically important at any time, but doubly so because there are two intruders. If she misses her first shot she may not get a second one, and there is no way she can deal with both of them at the same time.

    This isn't some sort of far-fetched, fantasy situation, Smith. You are a smart man, so surely you can see this. Scaring away the intruder with a warning may indeed have been the better way to go on multiple levels, but it is a calculated risk. My overall point - that the calculation was hers and hers alone to make - stands. She did what she felt she had to do. If you were in her situation and chose differently, I would not criticize you for it. But this is a far cry from, say, shooting someone in the back as they run away with your TV.

  • 1

    Triumvere

    To rephrase, Smith, you are assuming that the warning would have scared them away. But there is a chance it wouldn't have.

  • 1

    southsakai

    We Need More Women like this in Society! It's the most wonderful news to hear she is alive and her child is safe. Every citizen should have the right to pop an intruder in their own homes. This is a no brainer!

    Well done brave young lady!

  • 1

    gyouza

    Am I reading this right? She is 18, has a 3 month old child, and husband just died of cancer?? Now she has had to endure an attack on her home?

  • 1

    ka_chan

    BTW, there is some who is charged wtih murder in this case....the accomplice because he was involved in a crime that resulted in someone's death.

  • 0

    Snuke

    To rephrase, Smith, you are assuming that the warning would have scared them away. But there is a chance it wouldn't have.

    Triumvere, yes both are possible. But issuing a warning is so obviously the better option. People who issue warnings may die. People who don't may also die. So that point is neither here nor there. The point is, if you advocate not issuing a warning without reservation, you set a standard where people will free to blast people to Kingdom Come over what might have been a simple misunderstanding that would have been cleared up by simply shouting " I have a gun and I am ready to use it!".

    And before you come back and say "But she had to judge the situation!", how could she without having some sort of dialogue with the guys outside her home? You cannot judge a situation from complete ignorance!

  • 2

    Noliving

    Triumvere, yes both are possible. But issuing a warning is so obviously the better option. People who issue warnings may die. People who don't may also die. So that point is neither here nor there. The point is, if you advocate not issuing a warning without reservation, you set a standard where people will free to blast people to Kingdom Come over what might have been a simple misunderstanding that would have been cleared up by simply shouting " I have a gun and I am ready to use it!".

    You need to educate yourself on US State laws on Self-defense more specifically its castle laws. Me personally I don't think a warning would be necessary due to fact that they knew that by physically forcing their way into a home with any-type of weapon would be met with lethal force if someone was home and capable of defending themselves. At that point it becomes more of enter at your own risk. Due to fact that it is rural Oklahoma it is considered a given that the homeowners would be armed.

  • 3

    Triumvere

    With all due respect, Snuke, these guys were aggressively trying to break into her house. I'm failing to any "misunderstanding" going on here. I'm not buying the "but they could have been there to save the baby!" crap SolarSails is peddling.

    1) It was obvious that they intended to unlawfully break into the trailer. 2) It was reasonable to assume that they were dangerous.

    Thus her action was justified.

    Note, too, that she waited until she saw the glint of the knife in his hand to fire. Not that I feels she needed to in my estimation.

  • 2

    lostrune2

    In any of these trespassing violations, some people think the onus is on the homeowner to make sure the trespasser is friendly.

    No, the onus is on the trespasser to make sure the homeowner thinks he/she is friendly.

    Whether by gun or a baseball bat to the knee or a golf club to the head, the homeowner will definitely protect him/herself and his/her property, as it is their right.

    It's up to you, if you're the trespasser, to protect yourself by making sure that they know your friendly intentions before you even enter. It's not up to them.

  • 1

    FightingViking

    @Cleo

    America thinks it can police the world, yet can't police it's own inaka? Maybe there's a need for fewer soldiers overseas and more police at home.

    For once, I have to agree with you 100% ! (However, ONLY for the above statement...)

  • 0

    Elbuda Mexicano

    Not too sure if Cleo should be happy that Jacquline ONLY once happens to agree with her?? Sometimes we agree and sometimes we all disagree, this is the nature of having opinions, please give me a million thumbs down, it will not change my opinions and I still think this very young mother should get out of that horrible trailer there in the middle of no where Oklahoma.

Login to leave a comment

OR

More in World

View all

View all