3 teens killed in home invasion

[sassenach]

Gun safes are pretty sophisticated now. A biometric safe bolted to one's bedside can hold a loaded gun without risking the kids.

[JoJosMom]

It goes without saying that you're more than welcome to bring Killer along for play dates with Tigger and Fred. :)

 

How RUDE, Catwoman!  Asking a guest to bring snacks. 

[Word Nerd]

This is what confuses me about gun owners.

 

Sometimes it's "every responsible gun owner keeps ammo separate"

Sometimes it's "only a moron would keep ammo separate"

 

Sometimes it's "all responsible gun owners take care to learn about their weapon and train to use it properly"

Sometimes it's "who cares if this guy didn't know how many shots or who he shot, doesn't matter a bit, totally normal"

 

I think they just circle the wagons and the details don't matter.

You mean details like whether an AR-15 is automatic?

[Catwoman]

How RUDE, Catwoman! Asking a guest to bring snacks.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[maize]

Honestly I don't know much about guns . I live in a low gun ownership state -- and by no coincidence, a state with very little gun violence.

 

I have never touched a gun. I'm not morally opposed to it, just--- where would i? My parents didn't have them, my husband's parents didn't have them. I think my granddad had a hunting rifle?

 

I don't know where I would even learn about firearms. I guess if I wanted to buy one, I would seek out a course? Guns are so politicized, it's bizarre. It should be like driving or swimming or any other fun-but-potentially-dangerous recreational activity. But it's not. I am not sure if the congressional ban on the CDC doing anything with guns is current or not, but, my awareness of guns is based on "be skeptical of anything you read from either side because there's no clean data collection".

 

So. I reacted to a guy having a huge loaded rifle by his bed with a "what the heck?" If you live in a world where everyone has a huge loaded rifle by his bed, I guess my reaction was weird. But I honest to goodness do not think my reaction was so out there and bizarre.

 

I do have friend in other parts of the country who own handguns. So, I guess I thought handguns were standard self home defense. AR-14 is a new one for me, as something you keep by your bed.

 

I'm glad this kid is OK. I understand his not knowing that he'd killed 3 people was probably shock.

 

There really isn't an argument to be had here. Just explaining a bit where I came from,, because you asked.

A hand gun is certainly much easier to maneuver and kill people with in close quarters. Rifles are really designed for longer range shooting and are unwieldy indoors.

[poppy]

You mean details like whether an AR-15 is automatic?

 

You have mistaken me for someone else. If I remember right, was one person , who wasn't me, who got stomped on by like 9 different responses, then edited her post and I think even apologized......so, I guess you can stop beating that drum at some point.

[frogger]

Poppy, I appreciate and respect that you are willing to learn and though you may have continued the conversation while the others posted more emotional and provocative stuff and left.

 

Yes, it is politicized which can make things confusing. People do get tired of trying to explain basic facts over and over when it seems the other side gets all their info from Hollywood movies. I think the unknown is scarier. When you train for things and think rationally (not during an emergency, that's where habit kicks in) you realize the laws of physics have to apply to guns too. I have found journalists who didn't know that. It is hard to know with no experience when you are being duped. One of the reasons I pretty much never sign a petition at a doorway. There has been one petition I sought out but that's it. Most regulations are complicated, often help specific groups and often at the expense of others. I'm thinking of fishing regulations where I live, pollution, and city ordinances off the top of my head. But I have two choices. Really study both sides or stay out of it. I don't have time to study both sides of everything so I often stay out of things. I pick the things that are most important to me and ignore the rest.

 

It may have seemed like a pile up when people corrected a poster who stated something completely untrue but it is so frustrating that completely wrong info sticks. It just does. It reminds me of the vaccine debate honestly. Whether you are an anti or pro vaccine you probably care about the next generation but some of the info out there stays out there even if it is completely wrong and it won't go away and it is frustrating.

 

I'm sorry if I got snarky with you. My bad. I sometimes get frustrated.

[eternalsummer]

I think maybe Deb was pointing out that that particular exclamation is especially offensive to some of us, although I'm positive you didn't mean to offend anyone! I do have a visceral reaction to it that I wouldn't to any other word.

 

Ah, I see.  I had considered it one of my more mild expressions.

[eternalsummer]

poppy, I got you confused with the mistaken notion that it was an automatic weapon as well, I think because you said it seemed like an absurd weapon for self defense (with a photo), indicating that you didn't really understand the nature of the gun and its uses.  I find this to be a hugely popular misconception among pro-gun control advocates - even my mother thought that an AR-15 was both an automatic weapon and a fundamentally different gun from my dad's wood-barrelled .22.

[Katy]

I don't see how anyone can argue the homeowner didn't let these people retreat.  He didn't get arrested, which means instead of turning and running away when they saw the homeowner, or when they saw the homeowner with the GUN POINTED AT THEM, they didn't turn and run.  Which means they were not retreating.

 

I get that in some places it's statistically safer to never defend yourself, to rely on police to do it for you, or to just risk getting murdered like that elderly man in the same town who got beaten to death by intruders in his home last year.  But to act like there's some moral superiority in letting evil persist, in not defending yourself or your children?  This is like arguing it would have been morally superior to roll over for the Germans during WWII.  Utterly ridiculous.

[Ravin]

The murder charges are so over the top. Those charges do not fit her crime.

Felony murder is pretty standard. If someone is killed in the course of a felony you commit, you are held responsible for the death.

[Ravin]

Is there any concept of 'reasonable force' in Oklahoma law, or is being threatened in your house enough to allow you to shoot the intruders?

Castle doctrine holds. There is no duty to retreat and lethal force is reasonable in defense of property, not just life.

[Ravin]

That's not a discussion. It's gibberish. That law is practically useless as presented in that link. Our law seems clearer than that.

Our laws were crafted by the gun lobby.

[heartlikealion]

I'm not sure I will let myself read the full article and I haven't read many replies, but I do want to say that I've done a lot of reading on burglars recently and yes, daytime is the prime time for most break ins. People figure the homeowners are at work or school.

 

Also, I know two people that were murdered in their home about a year ago. We never figured out the motive but one possibility was the man was looking for drugs (they worked in the medical field). I don't assume that the average burglar is intending to harm or wanting to stick around long enough to get caught (figuring they just want loot to sell or use) but I do keep in mind that anything is possible.

[Carrie12345]

I'm not sure I will let myself read the full article and I haven't read many replies, but I do want to say that I've done a lot of reading on burglars recently and yes, daytime is the prime time for most break ins. People figure the homeowners are at work or school.

 

Also, I know two people that were murdered in their home about a year ago. We never figured out the motive but one possibility was the man was looking for drugs (they worked in the medical field). I don't assume that the average burglar is intending to harm or wanting to stick around long enough to get caught (figuring they just want loot to sell or use) but I do keep in mind that anything is possible.

 

The bolded, exactly.  Once you've entered uninvited, you're telling me all bets are off.

 

Our cars, along with several neighbors', were burglarized a long time ago, at night.  I had woken up and noticed the light on in my van.  I still can't believe my dogs never made a sound, but they got real excited when I sent them out to investigate!  I suppose I might have been in trouble if they'd found someone and torn them up outside of the house (I've never actually checked!) but someone had clearly been on my property, and I wasn't about to assume my kids and I were safe!

(Daytime may make logical sense, but addicts aren't known for being logical.)

 

I miss having 100lb dogs.

[mom2scouts]

It's interesting that so many property crimes happen during the day. Among my seven closest neighbors, three of the families have someone who works at home at least part of the time and homeschooling/online schooling is becoming more popular. Criminals might need to consider that people may be home during the day again.

[poppy]

I don't see how anyone can argue the homeowner didn't let these people retreat.  He didn't get arrested, which means instead of turning and running away when they saw the homeowner, or when they saw the homeowner with the GUN POINTED AT THEM, they didn't turn and run.  Which means they were not retreating.

 

I get that in some places it's statistically safer to never defend yourself, to rely on police to do it for you, or to just risk getting murdered like that elderly man in the same town who got beaten to death by intruders in his home last year.  But to act like there's some moral superiority in letting evil persist, in not defending yourself or your children?  This is like arguing it would have been morally superior to roll over for the Germans during WWII.  Utterly ridiculous.

 

You think they saw the gun and kept approaching with their knives and brass knuckles??

 

I don't see any scenario where the homeowner gets arrested, whether he just shot them all fast, or if they froze and said "please don't shoot!" (but he kept shooting from adrenaline) or if the were retreating (but he kept shooting from adrenaline). He was not at risk of being arrested.

[brehon]

You think they saw the gun and kept approaching with their knives and brass knuckles??

 

I don't see any scenario where the homeowner gets arrested, whether he just shot them all fast, or if they froze and said "please don't shoot!" (but he kept shooting from adrenaline) or if the were retreating (but he kept shooting from adrenaline). He was not at risk of being arrested.

It's not unheard of. Stupid, yes, but not unheard of. I was once medically in charge of the scene of a shooting where five skinheads attacked an A-A man with bats and knives. The AA man shot all of them, though no one was killed. The poor man, who was also injured, kept repeating, "I had a gun. Why didn't they run away?"

[marbel]

You think they saw the gun and kept approaching with their knives and brass knuckles??

 

I don't see any scenario where the homeowner gets arrested, whether he just shot them all fast, or if they froze and said "please don't shoot!" (but he kept shooting from adrenaline) or if the were retreating (but he kept shooting from adrenaline). He was not at risk of being arrested.

 

Maybe they did.  Maybe they thought he wouldn't shoot.  Maybe they thought they would get to him before he could shoot.  Maybe they thought he was bluffing and that the gun was unloaded.  Maybe they were pumped on adrenaline, or drugs, and didn't properly assess their risk.

 

I don't know.  You don't know.

 

I wish no one ever woke up to see armed intruders in their house.  But they do, and I think we ought to give the law-abiding citizens the benefit of the doubt in these cases.    Breaking and entering shouldn't be a capital offense, but the intruders gave up control of the situation when they entered that home.  

[poppy]

Maybe they did. Maybe they thought he wouldn't shoot. Maybe they thought they would get to him before he could shoot. Maybe they thought he was bluffing and that the gun was unloaded. Maybe they were pumped on adrenaline, or drugs, and didn't properly assess their risk.

 

I don't know. You don't know.

 

I wish no one ever woke up to see armed intruders in their house. But they do, and I think we ought to give the law-abiding citizens the benefit of the doubt in these cases. Breaking and entering shouldn't be a capital offense, but the intruders gave up control of the situation when they entered that home.

I agree . I was one of the first posters in this thread saying Oklahoma is a pretty boneheaded place to assume homeowners are unarmed! My only point is that the fact he wasn't arrested doesn't mean they didn't attempt to retreat. We don't know. The shooter here was not at risk of getting arrested for shooting armed intruders .

[gardenmom5]

The bolded, exactly.  Once you've entered uninvited, you're telling me all bets are off.

 

Our cars, along with several neighbors', were burglarized a long time ago, at night.  I had woken up and noticed the light on in my van.  I still can't believe my dogs never made a sound, but they got real excited when I sent them out to investigate!  I suppose I might have been in trouble if they'd found someone and torn them up outside of the house (I've never actually checked!) but someone had clearly been on my property, and I wasn't about to assume my kids and I were safe!

(Daytime may make logical sense, but addicts aren't known for being logical.)

 

I miss having 100lb dogs.

 

after we had a second break-in in the evening (known drug-gang who were eventually busted with lots of unfenced items.  they were going down the street.  there was a police car in our neighbors driveway while they were in our house.  they escaped out the back while we  came in the front.) dh finally consented to allow a dog.  a fabulous gsd.  she was a great dog.  gentle (but intimidating), and very intelligent. miss her.

 

the first break-in was at dinner time, I was home - and I was assaulted.   my mil (she was living with us that year.) came home about the time the police arrived.   I assume the punk came back the next month - in the evening - because  I heard someone outside very carefully approaching.  when I raised my head to look out the window  - I clearly heard someone running away.

[poppy]

The thing is...."gun owners" is plural.  There are lots of different people who own guns and they all have different opinions.

 

"Sometimes its 'every responsible gun owner keeps ammo separate'" because some gun owners believe that. 

"Sometimes its 'only a mornon would keep ammo separate'" because some gun owners believe that. 

 

"Sometimes it's 'all responsible gun owners take care to learn about their weapon and train to use it properly'" because some gun owners believe that

"Sometimes it's 'who cares if this guy didn't know how many shots or who he shot, doesn't matter a bit, totally normal'" because some gun owners believe that.

 

In other words, gun owners are all individuals and have differing opinions.  They don't all share the same mind. 

 

Yeah , and this is why a lot of people react with skepticism when told legal gun owners should just be trusted to always act responsibly. 

[Katy]

You think they saw the gun and kept approaching with their knives and brass knuckles??

 

I don't see any scenario where the homeowner gets arrested, whether he just shot them all fast, or if they froze and said "please don't shoot!" (but he kept shooting from adrenaline) or if the were retreating (but he kept shooting from adrenaline). He was not at risk of being arrested.

 

Yes, of course they did.  Because if they had turned their backs and ran, the homeowner would not have had reasonable suspicion that his life was in danger, and he would have been arrested for murder.  And I know the Tulsa police do this, because I lived not far outside Tulsa a year ago and there were at least 2 cases on the local news of exactly that scenario in the last 5 years.

 

It is a mistake to assume that a bunch of drugged-up idiots who are breaking into a home in an area with gun laws like this are acting in any sort of reasonable way.  They were not.  They were a danger to society, and I'd give it 10-to-1 odds that the police are going to tie the same criminals to the murder of an elderly man who was beaten to death by a group of intruders less than a year ago in the same town.  I bet that woman that's being charged with felony murder will be charged with that murder as well.

 

 

ETA:  This is not to say the homeowners in such cases were convicted in the murders, just that charges were filed.

 

ETA2: Criminals often DO continue to approach someone who has a gun aimed at them.  Most people instinctively will not kill people, and cannot pull a trigger when aiming at a person.  This is where the statistic that guns are dangerous because you are more likely to have your own gun used against you when you are defending yourself comes from.  This is also the reason the military expanded basic training: to condition soldiers to be able to kill other humans.  Prior to expanded training, a LARGE percentage of the military could not fire at another human.  For more information, read On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society by Dave Grossman.   This is who the military uses to teach special forces on this topic.

 

Similarly, this is where our insistence that if you have a gun, you must consistently train yourself with it comes from.  If you are untrained, it truly is extremely dangerous to own a gun.

Edited April 2, 2017 by Katy

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It's interesting that so many property crimes happen during the day. Among my seven closest neighbors, three of the families have someone who works at home at least part of the time and homeschooling/online schooling is becoming more popular. Criminals might need to consider that people may be home during the day again.

 

Most burglars scope out a home/neighborhood before breaking in, often over a period of days.  Generally addicts and teens are the ones who tend to break in without thinking about someone being home.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Maybe they did.  Maybe they thought he wouldn't shoot.  Maybe they thought they would get to him before he could shoot.  Maybe they thought he was bluffing and that the gun was unloaded.  Maybe they were pumped on adrenaline, or drugs, and didn't properly assess their risk.

 

I don't know.  You don't know.

 

I wish no one ever woke up to see armed intruders in their house.  But they do, and I think we ought to give the law-abiding citizens the benefit of the doubt in these cases.    Breaking and entering shouldn't be a capital offense, but the intruders gave up control of the situation when they entered that home.  

 

The bolded is exactly the thinking behind the Castle Doctrine and to a lesser extent the stand your ground laws.

 

[poppy]

I am not quite sure what you mean. I have never met a legal gun owner that doesn't believe there idiots who legally own guns.

 

I mean whenever discussions come up here about whether guns should be regulated for safety the way pools and vehicles are, there are protests about how we should trust legal gun owners to be responsible. Is where my mind was. 

 

[SKL]

You think they saw the gun and kept approaching with their knives and brass knuckles??

 

I don't see any scenario where the homeowner gets arrested, whether he just shot them all fast, or if they froze and said "please don't shoot!" (but he kept shooting from adrenaline) or if the were retreating (but he kept shooting from adrenaline). He was not at risk of being arrested.

 

I disagree.  If it turned out he shot them in the back, he was at risk of being arrested.

 

Keep in mind there were 3 guys here in close quarters.  The chances of at least one of them getting his gun and using it on him were significant if he gave them half a chance.  Seeing a gun, they should have turned and run; and if they didn't, I think he's justified in putting his life before theirs.

 

If he shot them in the back, I think it is appropriate for him to face charges.  Possibly he could convince a jury he really thought he was still threatened, but possibly not.

[TravelingChris]

There are also idiots who have cars or trucks that hurt people- look at the Texas young man who killed 13 this week with his truck.  There are also idiots who have access to poisons, the ingredients to make a bomb, knives, etc.  We don't make laws based on idiots.  Idiots can't do their taxes either,  and probably don't comply with lots of laws.  What gun control measure would you want that would prevent idiots from owning guns or using guns moronically such as the guy in my area who shot a gun on New Years Eve and killed a five year old.  Turns out that he was an illegal alien and not allowed to have a gun anyway nor even to be in this country.  So I don't see laws as magic ways to prevent idiocy.  I also don't think we should aim for the dumbest part of our society when we write laws.  For one thing, even if you made a law stating you have to pass gun proficiency test or something like that, such laws always grandfather those who already guns.  So it really doesn't help the problem but accidental shootings of children have actually been decreasing without any change of laws.  Just changes of attitudes.

[marbel]

I disagree.  If it turned out he shot them in the back, he was at risk of being arrested.

 

Keep in mind there were 3 guys here in close quarters.  The chances of at least one of them getting his gun and using it on him were significant if he gave them half a chance.  Seeing a gun, they should have turned and run; and if they didn't, I think he's justified in putting his life before theirs.

 

If he shot them in the back, I think it is appropriate for him to face charges.  Possibly he could convince a jury he really thought he was still threatened, but possibly not.

 

I am wondering about this.  

 

You know how sometimes you start to take some action, say move your hand to reach for something, realize that you don't need to take that action, but it's too late to stop the movement?  I'm trying to think of an example.  Well, say a glass starts to tip and spill, and 3 people that are near it move to stop it, and even though I may see that a person closer to the glass can get it, it's too late to stop my hand so I grab at the glass anyway?  Does that make sense?

 

So anyway, I'm wondering... if I am confronted by 3 thugs in my home, and have a gun, and am ready to shoot them but suddenly they see the gun and turn around, but I've already started the movements required to shoot...  do you see where I am going?  Is it possible that it could be too late for the shooter to stop the action to shoot?   Keeping in mind that this is a more emotion and adrenaline-charged situation than a glass spilling... it seems like even if the intruders turned, it could be a fraction of a second too late for the shooter to stop the action to shoot?  

 

Maybe that's part of shooting training?   I am asking these questions because I don't know and this conversation is making me wonder.

[Guest]

I just asked my husband who is more versed on the state laws than me - he indicated that while no state has a law protecting a shooter who is shooting a retreating criminal or invader, some states with castle doctrines will not prosecute someone whose intent was not to shoot someone retreating - like if it is dark and you see movement in the house but cannot tell what specific direction the perpetrator is facing. In some states they will be protected from prosecution because the intent was not to shoot someone retreating but the shot wasn't clear enough to determine.

 

In most cases though, if you shoot someone in the back you're getting prosecuted for unlawful discharge of a firearm at the very least.

[poppy]

There are also idiots who have cars or trucks that hurt people- look at the Texas young man who killed 13 this week with his truck.  There are also idiots who have access to poisons, the ingredients to make a bomb, knives, etc.  We don't make laws based on idiots.  Idiots can't do their taxes either,  and probably don't comply with lots of laws.  What gun control measure would you want that would prevent idiots from owning guns or using guns moronically such as the guy in my area who shot a gun on New Years Eve and killed a five year old.  Turns out that he was an illegal alien and not allowed to have a gun anyway nor even to be in this country.  So I don't see laws as magic ways to prevent idiocy.  I also don't think we should aim for the dumbest part of our society when we write laws.  For one thing, even if you made a law stating you have to pass gun proficiency test or something like that, such laws always grandfather those who already guns.  So it really doesn't help the problem but accidental shootings of children have actually been decreasing without any change of laws.  Just changes of attitudes.

 

 Since you asked.... I wholeheartedly disagree that  laws "to prevent idiocy" never matter. I have to have a pool fence. I have to put my child in a car seat.  I will be arrested if I try to drive my car while I"m falling down drunk.   Should these things be common sense? Maybe , but , the laws are there and save lives.  But I guess the one think I would do "to prevent idiots from owning guns or using guns moronically" would be the use of smart guns for safety. It wouldn't prevent every tragedy but it would ,without question, save lives. Particularly some of  the 100+ kids who die every year from accidental shootings.

 

This thread has been interesting, thank you everyone.

[TravelingChris]

The first problem with smart guns is that there are so many non smart guns already out there.  Secondly, I would never buy a smart gun because my dh and I buy guns that we both use and should be able to use.  Not only do we use them but our children can use them for target practice if they come with us to a range.  (My children are all adults).  If there was a smart gun where we could put fingerprints of let's say ten people on it, I would find that a good thing.  But all I have heard of is smart guns that only work for one person and that is a dumb idea unless a person is single and expects to stay that way,

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The first problem with smart guns is that there are so many non smart guns already out there.  Secondly, I would never buy a smart gun because my dh and I buy guns that we both use and should be able to use.  Not only do we use them but our children can use them for target practice if they come with us to a range.  (My children are all adults).  If there was a smart gun where we could put fingerprints of let's say ten people on it, I would find that a good thing.  But all I have heard of is smart guns that only work for one person and that is a dumb idea unless a person is single and expects to stay that way,

 

There are a variety of possibilities with smart guns, including those that allow for multiple authorized users.

[Slartibartfast]

Honestly I don't know much about guns . I live in a low gun ownership state -- and by no coincidence, a state with very little gun violence.

 

I have never touched a gun. I'm not morally opposed to it, just--- where would i?  My parents didn't have them, my husband's parents didn't have them.  I think my granddad had a hunting rifle? 

 

I don't know where I would even learn about firearms.  I guess if I wanted to buy one, I would seek out a course? Guns are so politicized, it's bizarre. It should be like driving or swimming or any other fun-but-potentially-dangerous recreational activity.  But it's not. I am not sure if the congressional ban on the CDC doing anything with guns is current or not, but, my awareness of guns is based on "be skeptical of anything you read from either side because there's no clean data collection".

 

So. I reacted to a guy having a huge loaded rifle by his bed with a "what the heck?"  If you live in a world where everyone has a huge loaded rifle by his bed, I guess my reaction was weird.  But I honest to goodness do not think my reaction was so out there and bizarre.

 

I do have friend in other parts of the country who own handguns.   So, I guess I thought handguns were standard self home defense.  AR-14 is a new one for me, as something you keep by your bed.  

 

I'm glad this kid is OK. I understand his not knowing that he'd killed 3 people was probably shock.  

 

There really isn't an argument to be had here.  Just explaining a bit where I came from,, because you asked.

There are gun ranges where one can go and shoot guns.

 

I am in SC and so there is a gun range next to the library :lol:

[Slartibartfast]

I agree . I was one of the first posters in this thread saying Oklahoma is a pretty boneheaded place to assume homeowners are unarmed! My only point is that the fact he wasn't arrested doesn't mean they didn't attempt to retreat. We don't know. The shooter here was not at risk of getting arrested for shooting armed intruders .

I am from Oklahoma, even the Democrats have guns.

 

I have guns.

 

They can tell whether or not someone was shot in the back and that would be known.

 

There was a case in Kansas where someone was shot in the back who was fleeing after robbing a convenience store. The person who shot them was charged.

[Guest]

I am from Oklahoma, even the Democrats have guns.

 

I have guns.

 

They can tell whether or not someone was shot in the back and that would be known.

 

There was a case in Kansas where someone was shot in the back who was fleeing after robbing a convenience store. The person who shot them was charged.

Yup. You really aren't permitted to shoot someone in the back under any circumstance with one exception - if they are charging toward another person who is unarmed with intent to do them harm. I could shoot a man in the back if he was running to attack my kids, for example. This is generally a terrible idea though, since you're discharging a firearm in an unsafe direction (toward other people who you are not intending to shoot but could accidentally hit anyway).

[Slartibartfast]

Is there any concept of 'reasonable force' in Oklahoma law, or is being threatened in your house enough to allow you to shoot the intruders?

There is no duty to retreat in Oklahoma in their Castle doctrine.

 

If someone breaks into your house that is threatening enough.

[Slartibartfast]

Yup. You really aren't permitted to shoot someone in the back under any circumstance with one exception - if they are charging toward another person who is unarmed with intent to do them harm. I could shoot a man in the back if he was running to attack my kids, for example. This is generally a terrible idea though, since you're discharging a firearm in an unsafe direction (toward other people who you are not intending to shoot but could accidentally hit anyway).

Yes, that is correct.

 

One can shoot someone to defend someone else. If you see your neighbor is being robbed and you grab your gun and go into the residence the Castle doctrine still applies without duty to retreat.

[Slartibartfast]

Yikes, I clearly started something. I get that the law is written such that the charges fall within the law. No debate there.

 

I hadn't read anything about her driving off or being the one who planned it. The charges make much more sense with that info.

 

As a blanket policy, I still disagree with someone getting charged with murder without being the person who commited the murder. Driving a getaway car is not equal to commiting murder. And we'll all have to agree to disagree on that!

Driving the get away car is the same as committing murder.

 

She could have talked them out of it. She could refuse to participate, she could have done any number of things to stop it from happening, she could have reported it to the police. She chose to allow it to happen and to participate, it is *her* fault that the victim shot someone.

 

She was responsible for those deaths and state law is very clear about that. She won't be the first person who faced murder charges under those circumstances.

Edited April 3, 2017 by Slartibartfast

[Miss Peregrine]

DH and I have had a discussion about this...he thinks if someone breaks into the house (and he's not around I guess) I should warn them before shooting. "What if it's some drunk teenager who has the wrong house?" "You need to give them a chance to run away before shooting." Right...sorry, but I'm not a big person and I have 5 little kids, and if someone breaks into my house, or is trying to break into my house, I don't care what the reason is or whether I see a weapon, I'd consider myself entirely justified in shooting them without saying one word, or shooting through the door if someone was actively trying to break in. You better believe I'd be in fear of my life at that point! People don't break into other people's homes with good intentions. DH's 6', almost 300 lbs, drill sergeant demeanor *might* be enough to scare somebody off without force, but I don't have those attributes to rely on and I don't care to give anyone extra time to decide to attack me, grab a kid as hostage, or whatever while I'm "warning" them off.

If you have a shotgun, racking it is warning enough.

[Slartibartfast]

If you have a shotgun, racking it is warning enough.

If they have a gun then one is giving them time to present their own weapon.

 

Also, people have a fight or flight response and racking a shotgun could set that off. If they run away great but what if their response is fight?

[Miss Peregrine]

If they have a gun then one is giving them time to present their own weapon.

 

Also, people have a fight or flight response and racking a shotgun could set that off. If they run away great but what if their response is fight?

I meant racking it to chamber the bullet, then shoot. I was responding to PP who said her DH said intruders should be warned first. Edited April 3, 2017 by Miss Peregrine

[Miss Peregrine]

Gun safes are pretty sophisticated now. A biometric safe bolted to one's bedside can hold a loaded gun without risking the kids.

Yes, we have a wall mounted safe. 3 digits and it pops open. Gun is already loaded. Other guns are stored unloaded.

[gardenmom5]

I am from Oklahoma, even the Democrats have guns.

 

I have guns.

 

They can tell whether or not someone was shot in the back and that would be known.

 

There was a case in Kansas where someone was shot in the back who was fleeing after robbing a convenience store. The person who shot them was charged.

 

I'm from western washington.  we had a whackadoodle liberal democrat neighbor (I promise, other democrats would consider her a whackadoodle) who had guns.  and she came here from the bay area.

 

forensics are generally pretty clear as to the type of bullet - and physics is generally pretty clear for entry and exit wounds.  entry wounds are generally neat and tidy - exist wounds tend to be more explosive with an outward motion of the flesh.

 

and . . when the heart stops beating - the blood stops pumping.

 

Driving the get away car is the same as committing murder.

 

She could have talked them out of it. She could refuse to participate, she could have done any number of things to stop it from happening, she could have reported it to the police. She chose to allow it to happen and to participate, it is *her* fault that the victim shot someone.

 

She was responsible for those deaths and state law is very clear about that. She won't be the first person who faced murder charges under those circumstances.

 

worse - she was the mastermind.  there will be no out for this chickie.  she won't be the first person convicted of murder under these circumstances.

 

we have a current case making news about a homeowner who went into the house, found the guy in the shower with the water running and wearing no clothes - so he really was taking a shower.  he yelled at him.  went to his house next door (he owns both houses) - came back and shot him.  he has been charged with murder.   he could easily have just called 911 - he didn't.

[vonfirmath]

The first problem with smart guns is that there are so many non smart guns already out there.  Secondly, I would never buy a smart gun because my dh and I buy guns that we both use and should be able to use.  Not only do we use them but our children can use them for target practice if they come with us to a range.  (My children are all adults).  If there was a smart gun where we could put fingerprints of let's say ten people on it, I would find that a good thing.  But all I have heard of is smart guns that only work for one person and that is a dumb idea unless a person is single and expects to stay that way,

 

Not to mention a smart gun I presume works on fingerprints? Some of us effectively don't have fingerprints (at least that can be read by the common level of sensor). They have a fingerprint sensor to pick my kids up from daycare. My husband can use the fingerprint, but they have several times over the last 5 years tried to capture my fingerprint and cannot do so such that they can identify it later on. So I have to use the bypass key (When activated) and use a number code. Or sign out on paper (when they bypass key is not activated) or get the extended care director to sign me out on his computer (when there is no paper out). I'm not the only parents to have this problem. 

 

It did not totally surprise me to have this problem because my mother had a similar problem when she went to get fingerprinted for a concealed carry gun license. They couldn't do it at the first location but had to send her to a different location with a specially trained person to get her fingerprints.  We guess it has to do with how much paper we have handled over in administrative roles.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Not to mention a smart gun I presume works on fingerprints? Some of us effectively don't have fingerprints (at least that can be read by the common level of sensor). They have a fingerprint sensor to pick my kids up from daycare. My husband can use the fingerprint, but they have several times over the last 5 years tried to capture my fingerprint and cannot do so such that they can identify it later on. So I have to use the bypass key (When activated) and use a number code. Or sign out on paper (when they bypass key is not activated) or get the extended care director to sign me out on his computer (when there is no paper out). I'm not the only parents to have this problem.

 

It did not totally surprise me to have this problem because my mother had a similar problem when she went to get fingerprinted for a concealed carry gun license. They couldn't do it at the first location but had to send her to a different location with a specially trained person to get her fingerprints. We guess it has to do with how much paper we have handled over in administrative roles.

No, not all smart gun technology is dependent upon fingerprints.

[Slartibartfast]

I meant racking it to chamber the bullet, then shoot. I was responding to PP who said her DH said intruders should be warned first.

I see, I agree then.

[Saddlemomma]

You think they saw the gun and kept approaching with their knives and brass knuckles??

 

 

 

 

 

Where I live, it would take the police a minimum of 20 minutes to get to my house if I called 911.  I don't think any burglar or person intending to do me or my family harm is going to sit around and wait for the police to arrive.  We are armed.  We train.  I hope to high heaven I never have to pull a weapon on someone; it would devastate me.  However, I'm prepared to do so if I or a member of my family cannot escape without notice and it's absolutely necessary.

Edited April 3, 2017 by Saddlemomma2

[Slartibartfast]

I'm from western washington.  we had a whackadoodle liberal democrat neighbor (I promise, other democrats would consider her a whackadoodle) who had guns.  and she came here from the bay area.

 

forensics are generally pretty clear as to the type of bullet - and physics is generally pretty clear for entry and exit wounds.  entry wounds are generally neat and tidy - exist wounds tend to be more explosive with an outward motion of the flesh.

 

and . . when the heart stops beating - the blood stops pumping.

 

 

worse - she was the mastermind.  there will be no out for this chickie.  she won't be the first person convicted of murder under these circumstances.

 

we have a current case making news about a homeowner who went into the house, found the guy in the shower with the water running and wearing no clothes - so he really was taking a shower.  he yelled at him.  went to his house next door (he owns both houses) - came back and shot him.  he has been charged with murder.   he could easily have just called 911 - he didn't.

They broke into someone's house and started showering???

[TravelingChris]

I live in a city.  Even in my city, it could take five to ten minutes for police to arrive.  Specifically, if I am sleeping in my bedroom, and my dog sleeps in the same bedroom, I can't retreat.  It is a dangerous jump for me out of my window.  I have a gun to protect me.  Before we moved here, we had tornados come through and power was out for ten days.  There were criminal problems in different parts of the city then.  I never know when something like that happens or someone decides to take their thefts up a notch to home invasions.  In my case right now, my son is borrowing my car so there is no car in the driveway, just his truck that he bought but hasn't yet learned to drive stick well enough on the street.  Someone may think no one is home but I am.  That type of thing does worry me.