Woman Kills Intruder Breaking Into Her Home

[Jazzybell]

People in many places here tend to way, way overestimate crime rates, danger, etc. A couple places in this thread people talked about how you see so many murders on the news - in another thread people talked about how children are so often kidnapped and murdered by strangers, etc. Places that are quite safe - and in the country in general, violent crime rates are very low and have been falling for decades - people still don't think they're safe.

But in this case, the lady WASN'T safe... the intruders were armed with a 12 inch hunting knife. According to the account I read here http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman...perators-shoot/story?id=15285605#.TwXbH9SvKSo , the 24 year old went after her with that knife. What else was she supposed to do? As others have mentioned, running out the back door with a baby and cell phone in hand probably wasn't her best choice.

 

[The_Alice]

Sorry but comparing this to some media whipped up frenzy or where she was out looking for trouble by owning a gun is completely different to what actually happened. She was in her rural home far away from the inner city (and before this she probably did feel safe there), two people were trying to break in, she defended herself and her infant. If you ever found yourself in a similar situation with no way out I am sure you will wish you had something to defend yourself as well.

 

[sbell111]

... DS also has a .22 rifle in his closet for the same reason. His room is on the opposite side of the house so he can defend himself if need be. ...

I recommend against this weapon for home protection for two reasons. First, a .22 doesn't have much stopping power. If you are forced to shoot someone, you want that person to go down, not stay on his feet and bring his weapon to bear. Second, I'm not a fan of long barrelled weapons being used for protection in an enclosed space because they are more difficult to quickly maneuver. I handgun is much quicker to bring to the ready.

I've just always worried about having a loaded gun in the house with a young child. ... by the time I unlocked the gun and then unlocked where the bullets were it would be too late?

The best solution is to keep the gun loaded and secured. My personal preference is a pistol safe (with a 'no-eyes' keypad and biometric scanner) secured in the drawer of my night stand.

... she was lucky, but you're more likely to lose your weapon and end up shot with it than to shoot an intruder in that type of situation.

This is simply untrue. It is an urban myth that simply is not true.

I can't really make a judgement on using a gun. I will however say that my first reaction in this case would have been to grab the gun and run. Not saying it would have been categorically right. That is just what I would have done.

'Grab the gun and run' would not have worked in this scenario. There is simply no way that she could run away with the baby AND use the weapon to defend herself.

Thank goodness she doesn't live in Massachusetts!

This guy who punched a robber is facing 5 years....

There is a big difference in being arrested and being convicted (and sentenced).

 

[sbell111]

I am a little amused that the co-conspirator was arrested for murder. Gotta love the felony murder law.

 

[cornflake]

But in this case, the lady WASN'T safe... the intruders were armed with a 12 inch hunting knife. According to the account I read here http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman...perators-shoot/story?id=15285605#.TwXbH9SvKSo , the 24 year old went after her with that knife. What else was she supposed to do? As others have mentioned, running out the back door with a baby and cell phone in hand probably wasn't her best choice.

Yes, in this case, she wasn't safe - I was speaking in general.

As for the running, I think, depending on the area, it was probably a much better bet, in general.

 

[brerrabbit]

Thank goodness I don't live in a state that adheres to "Castle Doctrine". That idea is just plain ridiculous at times. Lets say she runs out the back door with her child and her gun. Bad guy chases and is about to catch her. Does that mean since she is not in her "Castle" she cannot use said gun to defend herself. Even if said bad guy is coming at her with a knife? Are we beginning to see the idocy of Castle Doctrine?

In Texas the law is very simple, if you are confronted with imminent danger that will result in physical harm, injuries, or possible death for yourself or another person then you have the right per the law to use deadly force to protect yourself or another. In the house, out of the house, on the street, where ever you may be. Now given that if you take a concealed handgun class as I am required to do every four years in order to maintain my permit you will learn that even given that law if you shoot someone, it will be subject to review by the DA and possibly a Grand Jury, who will then decide whether or not to take you to trial. So given that scrutiny it only makes sense that you fully evaluate your situation before you shoot someone. I have found from a personal robbery situation that most of the time you do not need to shoot. If you put you red dot laser sight on the chest of said intruder they tend to either 1) run like hell, or 2) throw their hands in the air and scream "please don't shoot".

In the situation this woman faced I cannot imagine a DA or Grand Jury wanting to take the case any further and they will probably just rule it was a justified situation.

 

[Uncle Remus]

Thank goodness I don't live in a state that adheres to "Castle Doctrine". That idea is just plain ridiculous at times. Lets say she runs out the back door with her child and her gun. Bad guy chases and is about to catch her. Does that mean since she is not in her "Castle" she cannot use said gun to defend herself. Even if said bad guy is coming at her with a knife? Are we beginning to see the idocy of Castle Doctrine?

In Texas the law is very simple, if you are confronted with imminent danger that will result in physical harm, injuries, or possible death for yourself or another person then you have the right per the law to use deadly force to protect yourself or another. In the house, out of the house, on the street, where ever you may be. Now given that if you take a concealed handgun class as I am required to do every four years in order to maintain my permit you will learn that even given that law if you shoot someone, it will be subject to review by the DA and possibly a Grand Jury, who will then decide whether or not to take you to trial. So given that scrutiny it only makes sense that you fully evaluate your situation before you shoot someone. I have found from a personal robbery situation that most of the time you do not need to shoot. If you put you red dot laser sight on the chest of said intruder they tend to either 1) run like hell, or 2) throw their hands in the air and scream "please don't shoot".

In the situation this woman faced I cannot imagine a DA or Grand Jury wanting to take the case any further and they will probably just rule it was a justified situation.

True dat!!

 

[curious3069]

Obviously this issue is a contentious one.

I agree in principle with using force to defend ones home, however in practice the degree to which this is necessary is a much blurrier line.

I consider myself lucky to live in a country with relatively strict gun laws and initiatives to get rid of guns (knives are another matter.) These types of cases do make one consider relaxing gun laws (or supporting those in place in this case.)

I can't really make a judgement on using a gun. I will however say that my first reaction in this case would have been to grab the gun and run. Not saying it would have been categorically right. That is just what I would have done.

Both sides have points. There are cases and evidence to support either side, that is what makes it so difficult to decide upon.

Unfortunately in a rural area, running might not do you a bit of good. People who truely are isolated aren't going to have neighbors to run to. She could live in the middle of fields where she would literally have no place to hide.

 

[curious3069]

I grew up not an hour from where she lives & I know the area fairly well. There's a lot of room between houses & no guarantee (especially during the holidays) that someone will be home.
AFA the 20 minutes it took the cops, saying Blanchard is outside Oklahoma City is a bit misleading. Yes, it's outside OKC but it is by no means a suburb of OKC. It is it's own town. Also, if she's living outside of Blanchard & not in the city limits her call may have been routed to the county sheriffs dispatch. Finally, there are small pockets of the US that still do not have a physical address. If her place falls under this catagory it might have taken the police a bit longer to find her house.
Plus, as I said I grew up not far from Blanchard. I also grew up in a rural area. If someone had been breaking into my parents house from the front my options would have been:
-neighbor on one side: Would have meant crossing a not small section of open space (all homes were on an acre of land)
-Cow pasture: I would have had to scale a barb wire fence & walk probably close to a mile to get to any houses (besides the next door neighbor)
-Horse pasture: I would have had to run across an open field to a highway & cross it to get to a trailer park where hopefully someone was home.

I know it's hard to imagine if you've only lived in cities but there are parts of the US with a whole lot of nothing between neighbors.

I don't think people really understand how isolated rural can be...

 

[yoopermom]

I live in a rural, poor area of the country and feel that one of the reasons it is *safe* is because the vast majority of homeowners here have grown up with guns, own guns, know how to use them properly AND (most importantly) know that most everyone else in the area is the same.

No grieving widow should have to worry about who is "casing" her and her home after the funeral. She stayed calm, and did what was required to protect herself, her child, and her home. Let that be a lesson for future potential criminals...

Terri

 

[The_Alice]

Yes, in this case, she wasn't safe - I was speaking in general.

As for the running, I think, depending on the area, it was probably a much better bet, in general.

Yes, b/c it's so hard to catch up to a woman running with an infant in her arms and a cell phone.

 

[Hercules10]

My only criticism of her was that she didn't plug the other SOB.

 

[Geoff_M]

I live in a rural, poor area of the country and feel that one of the reasons it is *safe* is because the vast majority of homeowners here have grown up with guns, own guns, know how to use them properly AND (most importantly) know that most everyone else in the area is the same.

It's often said "An armed society is a polite society."

 

[jen0610]

My door is locked anytime I'm in the house. I have guns and I'm not afraid to use them. We live in a state where the intruder has to be IN your home. Luckily, my house is also situated that I could easily pick off an intruder from many safe vantage points once they've entered the house.

I also have a large, menacing dog.

Good for this woman. She's a hero.

Jennasis, your rual. Remind us how close the nearest neighbor is and how long it would take for you to run to their house for assistance.

No, trailer doesn't always mean close together. I had a friend growing up who lived in a trailer/mobile home & when we were there together we were a ways from anyone.
Yes there are trailer parks but you can buy a mobile home & put it wherever you want. I know people who bought a cheap mobile home to live in while they built a house on a large area of property.

We know a married couple that knew they wanted to live out in the country. They got married young, but both had been saving money for years. They had enough money to buy the land they wanted and take out a small loan, but not build the house they wanted. Instead of waiting until they had the money to buy and build, they bought the land, put a cheap moble home on the property and saved for several years until they had the money to build what they wanted.

By the time they had the money to do the acutal building, the price of the land had increased by almost 200% - they actually looked to buy an additional 15 acres at the same time. They never could have afforded to buy the land they wanted, if they had waited to do it all at once.

And when they first moved out there, their nearest neighbor was a 10 minute drive.

 

[Keli]

All I can say is given the same set of circumstances I would have made the same choices as this woman. But it would take me a long time to get over it as I am sure it will this young woman as well. My heart goes out to her.

 

[cornflake]

Yes, b/c it's so hard to catch up to a woman running with an infant in her arms and a cell phone.

First, I said depends. If it's a very rural area with nothing and no one, then maybe not. However, your sentence above presumes a ton -

- that they'd immediately know she'd left the domicile. If she could have moved out an entryway or window without them knowing, she has a head start.

- that they'd want to catch her. Yes, they apparently were specifically targetting her, though I don't know why, it could be that they thought there was a specific reason to rob her. There's trouble people are willing to engage in for their goals and then there's trouble they're not. Dunno what or where their line was here.

- that there was noplace close to go and no one close to hear her. If either of those things is in play, makes both running more likely to have an immediately good outcome and the perpetrators less likely to chase or attempt to engage her once they know she's moving.

- that she doesn't know the area better than they do. Most people know their home area well. If she's in the dark and knows where she's going and what's out there, she has an advantage over people who do not.

- she had nothing but a cell and the baby at hand. She had the gun, could have taken it and not the cell, depending on if there are neighbours about, in case.

 

[Jennasis]

Terrible thing to happen to a family. A lot of people say...good for her, and things like that. While yes it is good she came out of it uninjured. I wonder did she really need to kill this person? Does this mean that people who commit break and enter residential crimes should receive capital punishment?
This poor woman is now; for the rest of her life going to have to deal with killing someone. To a normal person this has got to be extremely difficult. Everywhere she goes now people will look at her,talk about her. I do not envy her.

I am Canadian, and believe regular people do not need guns. If you feel you need one for protection, IMO you should move somewhere you feel safe. I can't imagine living in fear like that. I believe that the vast majority of people are good and will do me no harm.
In any city there will be a certain amount of crime. Arming the general population just adds more to this problem.

This wasn't a B&E! What do you think the intentions of the men breaking in were?? To bake her a pie?? Or just steal her tv? He has been stalking her and was armed. He was looking for violence and found it. She wasn't dishing out capital punishment...she was DEFENDING HER LIFE.

Yes, in this case, she wasn't safe - I was speaking in general.

As for the running, I think, depending on the area, it was probably a much better bet, in general.

Read below my next comment...

Jennasis, your rual. Remind us how close the nearest neighbor is and how long it would take for you to run to their house for assistance.

[/COLOR]

I live on a farm. My nearest neighbor is 1/4 mile away. To get there means running across an open field (about 50 acres). The neighbors in the other direction are home-bound 80 year olds confined to a jazzy. Also reachable across an open field.

Directly adjazcent to me...800 acres of open fields.

Across the street? 200 acres of...wait for...OPEN FIELDS.

My home is perfect for defending from zombies during the zombie apocalypse, but would be like slitting my own throat if I made a run for it. There is NOWHERE TO RUN and NOBODY TO RUN TO. My road wasn't even paved until 6 years ago.

An intruder in my home isn't getting out alive.

 

[Wadecool]

In her case - I dunno, I still go with in the time it took to do all that she did, seems like a much better idea to shove the couch in front of the door and scoot than wait it out and get engaged in an armed confrontation with, as many point out, two people. That's an scenario she was unlikely to prevail in, for a lot of reasons. She may have been unlikely to prevail if she ran too, but outside in her own neighbourhood - and as I didn't see it, yes, there's a difference between there are houses, trees, culverts and she lived in a 1,000-acre open field, but it looked like she lived in a trailer, from the couch curb shot and aren't those usually together? - and if she had a gun in her hand in case someone catches up... I say it seems a better idea.

If you saw the trailer she lives in and have ever been in one, you'd know that it is quite small. She knew that 2 men were outside taking turns trying each of her doors (of which there are only 2) so her chances of getting out one of those doors was slim without being caught because: 1) the chances of one of the men standing right there was pretty good, and 2) if one of the men weren't standing there, it would take them all of 3 seconds to run around the trailer to where she was.

Outside in the yard, with a baby in one hand and a shotgun in the other, the men could easily surround her and her chances would be nil. From a tactical standpoint, she had a much better chance of protecting herself with her shotgun from inside the home because of the limited points of entry for the intruders. Also from a tactical standpoint, she had a double barreled shotgun (2 shots) so she could have easily handled the second intruder if he had chosen to follow his buddy inside.

In rural areas, it is very common for people to put a trailer on a piece of property that is not near any neighbors.

 

[nathalee81]

Terrible thing to happen to a family. A lot of people say...good for her, and things like that. While yes it is good she came out of it uninjured. I wonder did she really need to kill this person? Does this mean that people who commit break and enter residential crimes should receive capital punishment?
This poor woman is now; for the rest of her life going to have to deal with killing someone. To a normal person this has got to be extremely difficult. Everywhere she goes now people will look at her,talk about her. I do not envy her.

I am Canadian, and believe regular people do not need guns. If you feel you need one for protection, IMO you should move somewhere you feel safe. I can't imagine living in fear like that. I believe that the vast majority of people are good and will do me no harm.
In any city there will be a certain amount of crime. Arming the general population just adds more to this problem.

I don't know if this mom aimed to kill, I assume she probably wasn't thinking too much about it. I can't say that I blame her for what she did-she protected herself and her child.

I do not believe that people who break and enter should receive capital punishment, but I do believe if you are breaking into someone's home you should be prepared for the consequences. We live where guns are legal, and you never know which household has a gun. A homeowner/resident doesn't know why you are breaking into their home-they certainly aren't going to wait around and see if you are there to steal their DVD player or rape and murder you. I won't fault anyone for trying to protect themselves or their family.

I was very anti-gun until I met my husband. He was raised with guns (his family were all hunters). They were all taught to shoot at a very early age, and taught that guns weren't "toys". They had a healthy respect for firearms. You can have firearms and be responsible about it. I don't have a problem with gun ownership-as long as you are responsible about it (keep guns in a safe place, learn how to shoot it, etc.).

As for moving somewhere it is safe-I wish everyone had that opportunity. Sometimes, unfortunately, that just isn't an option for everyone. Poverty makes it difficult for people just to move when they want to move...

 

[Jennasis]

If you saw the trailer she lives in and have ever been in one, you'd know that it is quite small. She knew that 2 men were outside taking turns trying each of her doors (of which there are only 2) so her chances of getting out one of those doors was slim without being caught because: 1) the chances of one of the men standing right there was pretty good, and 2) if one of the men weren't standing there, it would take them all of 3 seconds to run around the trailer to where she was.

Outside in the yard, with a baby in one hand and a shotgun in the other, the men could easily surround her and her chances would be nil. From a tactical standpoint, she had a much better chance of protecting herself with her shotgun from inside the home because of the limited points of entry for the intruders. Also from a tactical standpoint, she had a double barreled shotgun (2 shots) so she could have easily handled the second intruder if he had chosen to follow his buddy inside.

In rural areas, it is very common for people to put a trailer on a piece of property that is not near any neighbors.

Yup yup!

She had little chance of success if she ran. Period.