Woman Kills Intruder Breaking Into Her Home

[cornflake]

True. But best case would have been that the men didn't break into the house at all. That was their choice. IMO once you break into someone's home while they are present you give up your right to life.

We disagree. I don't think burglary should be a capital offense.

I'm not saying she was necessarily wrong. I'm saying what happened was not the best outcome and that I don't think you "give up your right to life" by committing burglary.

 

[punkin]

This is just a suggestion. One that was taught to me when I took the firearms training course, and this suggestion is sanctioned by the NRA who often teaches & counsels people who have to shoot to defend themselves, so that in court, what they did STAYS as self defense and they get off as it was a justified shooting.

Stop saying you will kill someone. language is very important. Even cops are taught to STOP someone with the most effective means necessary. That may be deadly force. But, they never say, when they shoot someone they are aiming to kill. They are STOPPING the assailant with whatever force is necessary. Listen to what they say, when you see them on the news or on TV shows, or describing in court, on the witness stand what their actions were.

They are also trained NOT to shoot arms or legs. They are always taught to shoot center mass - straight to the chest - as that is the largest target to STOP someone. Even if they miss a little, they still will have hit the target. That shot just happens to be a kill shot. BUT, if they aim for an arm or leg, they may miss, the assailant moves, and they may get killed instead.

Also, stop saying to people around you that you would kill someone entering your home. The DA brings in some neighbor who happened to hear you say you would KILL someone, instead of stopping them with whatever force necessary, the DA twists what you've said around to you being gun-happy, looking for a situation to kill somebody when it wasn't warranted, and suddenly you may be facing murder charges instead of justified self defense. Even if you ultimately get off, you don't want to unnecessarily go through that. Just watch your words.

Remember what the 911 dispatcher said, "Do what you need to do to protect yourself & your baby." She never said to shoot. She never said to kill. She told the woman to do what, in that situation felt was justified & necessary to protect herself & her baby. It just happened to be that what she did to STOP the assailant from harming her, also killed him.

Yes! Exactly. I am sure the poor girl wasn't running around trying to kill people. I am sure she would have been much happier had this animal never showed up on her doorstep. However, she did exactly the right thing to protect herself and her baby and she STOPPED the guy. The fact that he died was unfortunate (and his own fault as well as his accomplice's) but killing him was never her goal; protecting her child was!

 

[The_Alice]

We disagree. I don't think burglary should be a capital offense.

I'm not saying she was necessarily wrong. I'm saying what happened was not the best outcome and that I don't think you "give up your right to life" by committing burglary.

It's not. But, they took a gamble on her being armed and having a good aim. This was a risk that apparently they were willing to take for pain meds.

 

[Jennasis]

No one would have died.

Why is a "good" outcome one that let's a man who was going to harm this woman and her child remain alive?? The best outcome happened...she's alive...a scumbag is dead and the other incarcerated (too bad she didn't have to shoot him too).

You seem to think they were going to steal from her instead of rape or kill her. Why? They were armed and KNEW she was home. Burglars don't burgle while people are home if they can avoid it.

 

[luvmy3]

No one would have died.

I think that the best outcome would have been if those men never came armed with a knife in the first place, but since they did, then what happened was the best outcome IMO. The mom and baby are alive, the intruder isn't.

 

[mombrontrent]

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_hom_wit_fir-crime-gun-violence-homicides-firearms

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes

Sorry, but facts are facts and guns kill. Legally owned handguns can be owned by irresponsible people or fall into the wrong hands.

 

[Imzadi]

Don't know where you live cause you don't say, but since the weapon of choice in this Oklahoma fracas was a 12 gauge shotgun I would tend to think the above quote is a little off. Generally speaking even in states with the strictest regulations shotguns are not regulated to the same extent. Handguns and certain rifles yes, but since shotguns are primarily for bird hunting they are not regulated the same. Heck I even lived in Canada for a while and they let me the crazy Texan take a couple of shotguns with me.

Also a shotgun even in the worst scenario could only be described as a home defense weapon cause you sure can't hide it in a purse, or under a coat cause their usually a little to big for that.

I cannot address Castle Doctrine in your state at all because again I don't know what state your in however I do no that there are laws on the books in all 50 states concerning self defense and at the root of all this is that her actions were clearly a matter of self defense if the guy trying to break down the door was carrying a 12" hunting knife.

Cornflake lives in NYC.

We have some of the strictest gun laws in the country for the metro NYC area. NO handgun permits in homes. No concealed carry, except for law enforcement & the like.

We do not even have open pistol ranges in the city. Only registered, long barrel firearms in the shooting ranges. The nearest pistol range is in Jersey City, NJ.

I don't know what the Castle Law is, specific to the city. Not being able to own a gun makes it kind of moot. (I suppose there are certain laws about pummeling the guy to death in my own home with my aluminum bat. Probably like, how much force and pummeling was truly necessary? I know in the self defense course I use to assistant teach, legally to call the course "self defense" we had to teach only use enough force to disable the attacker. )

I was told (a long time ago, so not sure if this is accurate,) that in NY state, in general, that an assailant must enter the home before using deadly force. One cannot shoot him on the grounds or outside the door. I was also told, if I shoot an assailant coming in the door and he stumbles back and falls outside the door, it is best to drag his body inside the door, to make it clear, he had entered the home. I don't know if that is true. But, you bet your a** I will drag someone back in, than face a murder conviction.

 

[The_Alice]

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_hom_wit_fir-crime-gun-violence-homicides-firearms

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes

Sorry, but facts are facts and guns kill. Legally owned handguns can be owned by irresponsible people or fall into the wrong hands.

No, but people do. Either through defense, negligence or malice.

 

[Mrs.Malone]

We disagree. I don't think burglary should be a capital offense.

I'm not saying she was necessarily wrong. I'm saying what happened was not the best outcome and that I don't think you "give up your right to life" by committing burglary.

The problem with that is that the person in the house would have to wait and see whether the intruder intends to rape/torture/murder them or just steal some things before deciding to shoot and I don't think that's realistic.

 

[cornflake]

Why is a "good" outcome one that let's a man who was going to harm this woman and her child remain alive?? The best outcome happened...she's alive...a scumbag is dead and the other incarcerated (too bad she didn't have to shoot him too).

You seem to think they were going to steal from her instead of rape or kill her. Why? They were armed and KNEW she was home. Burglars don't burgle while people are home if they can avoid it.

Well, luckily not everyone has quite the same black-and-white bloodthirsty outlook on life as you seem to.

Yes, he was a criminal. I don't know what they were intending or would have done - and neither do you. The only thing we know is that it seems to have been drug-motivated or related.

I don't believe criminal = scumbag = best possible outcome is he's dead, yippie! He was a human being. I don't think the best outcome is someone is dead.

At the least, is the best outcome really that she ended up killing someone? Maybe some people would be happy about that, but plenty wouldn't, were it them that pulled the trigger, even if they felt they had no choice.

 

[herdtoDisney]

We disagree. I don't think burglary should be a capital offense.

I'm not saying she was necessarily wrong. I'm saying what happened was not the best outcome and that I don't think you "give up your right to life" by committing burglary.

THIS WAS AN OCCUPIED HOUSE. IF A HOUSE IS OCCUPIED, IT IS NOT JUST A BURGLARY.

You are thick! You have no idea what you are talking about! I can guarantee you, those guys-had she not defended herself and her child-would have raped her and killed her and that baby and probably set the place on fire too! They weren't just trying to pick up a tv and some jewerly!

 

[Soldier's*Sweeties]

Well, luckily not everyone has quite the same black-and-white bloodthirsty outlook on life as you seem to.

Yes, he was a criminal. I don't know what they were intending or would have done - and neither do you. The only thing we know is that it seems to have been drug-motivated or related.

I don't believe criminal = scumbag = best possible outcome is he's dead, yippie! He was a human being. I don't think the best outcome is someone is dead.

At the least, is the best outcome really that she ended up killing someone? Maybe some people would be happy about that, but plenty wouldn't, were it them that pulled the trigger, even if they felt they had no choice.

I don't think Jenesis(sp? sorry) is "blood thirsty".

IN THIS CASE...Which is what we are discussing right?... The men very likely would have hurt her. If they weren't, why did they have a knife?

 

[Plannin'Shannon]

No, but people do. Either through defense, negligence or malice.

Exactly.

 

[Imzadi]

The problem with that is that the person in the house would have to wait and see whether the intruder intends to rape/torture/murder them or just steal some things before deciding to shoot and I don't think that's realistic.

I think this is where the castle law makes the distinction, once they have entered your home, it is a judgment call. If you believe your life is in mortal imminent danger, you can shoot in self defense. Believing you are in "mortal, imminent danger" is a legal defense term. You have a right to protect your life, not wait to see if it's going to be ONLY a rape or burglarized.

 

[luvmy3]

Yes, he was a criminal. I don't know what they were intending or would have done - and neither do you. The only thing we know is that it seems to have been drug-motivated or related.

I don't believe criminal = scumbag = best possible outcome is he's dead, yippie! He was a human being. I don't think the best outcome is someone is dead.

Right, him and his friend could have just wanted to talk, maybe they were trying to sell her a new set of knives.
In this case, these men, who decided to come armed to a young woman's home knowing she was alone with her baby = scumbag = best possible outcome is that one is dead (and she and the baby are safe) and can't ever do that to anyone else. I hope the other learned his lesson, but if he didn't, maybe he'll find himself face to face with another person who won't run away and instead pull out their gun.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Why is a "good" outcome one that let's a man who was going to harm this woman and her child remain alive?? The best outcome happened...she's alive...a scumbag is dead and the other incarcerated (too bad she didn't have to shoot him too).

You seem to think they were going to steal from her instead of rape or kill her. Why? They were armed and KNEW she was home. Burglars don't burgle while people are home if they can avoid it.

Yep.

 

[cornflake]

Cornflake lives in NYC.

We have some of the strictest gun laws in the country for the metro NYC area. NO handgun permits in homes. No concealed carry, except for law enforcement & the like.

We do not even have open pistol ranges in the city. Only registered, long barrel firearms in the shooting ranges. The nearest pistol range is in Jersey City, NJ.

I don't know what the Castle Law is, specific to the city. Not being able to own a gun makes it kind of moot. (I suppose there are certain laws about pummeling the guy to death in my own home with my aluminum bat. Probably like, how much force and pummeling was truly necessary? I know in the self defense course I use to assistant teach, legally to call the course "self defense" we had to teach only use enough force to disable the attacker. )

I was told (a long time ago, so not sure if this is accurate,) that in NY state, in general, that an assailant must enter the home before using deadly force. One cannot shoot him on the grounds or outside the door. I was also told, if I shoot an assailant coming in the door and he stumbles back and falls outside the door, it is best to drag his body inside the door, to make it clear, he had entered the home. I don't know if that is true. But, you bet your a** I will drag someone back in, than face a murder conviction.

Just for the heck of it, it is technically possible to obtain a handgun permit here, either for home protection or for target shooting. The latter, obviously easier to obtain than the former.

However, in reality, unless you're (completely literally, for those not in NYC) a diamond merchant, traditionally the only ones ever granted pistol permits or ccs, it is really pretty much moot, as it's basically impossible to obtain either.

To get a target permit you need to have a prepaid membership at a range, know the weapon you want to purchase (though you cannot even touch a handgun to examine it for purchase in this city if you are not licensed, no kidding), submit to extensive background checks, have a personal interview with an NYPD officer, etc., etc., (the permit process takes a couple years and costs a couple thousand dollars) and the weapon in question is only allowed to be in a locked box with ammo in a separate locked box, transported to or from the range and locked in the home and not used for protection.

You want one for protection, it's far more onerous and you're far less likely to even think of being approved. Basically no one is save the diamond merchants.

And if you are caught with an unlicensed handgun in this city, you will go to jail for a year. No discussion, no plea bargains, no nothing, you're going to jail.

As for the ranges in Jersey - Jersey gun laws are *somewhat* less strict, but they don't do any reciprocation with NY, if you carry a NY ID, they won't let you touch a weapon in Jersey unless you're licensed. Can in Penn. though, they'll let anyone do whatever at their ranges.

In NY, you must be convinced, by reasonable person standard, that your life itself is in imminent, not even immediate, danger, to be able to clear self-defense with deadly force. It can't be that someone was just breaking in - you have to have some reason to believe they were about to kill you as opposed to steal the tv.

 

[rascalmom]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman...perators-shoot/story?id=15285605#.TwYPYtQ3Sf4



By KEVIN DOLAK and RYAN OWENS
Jan. 4, 2011
A young Oklahoma mother shot and killed an intruder to protect her 3-month-old baby on New Year's Eve, less than a week after the baby's father died of cancer.

Sarah McKinley says that a week earlier a man named Justin Martin dropped by on the day of her husband's funeral, claiming that he was a neighbor who wanted to say hello. The 18-year-old Oklahoma City area woman did not let him into her home that day.

On New Year's Eve Martin returned with another man, Dustin Stewart, and this time was armed with a 12-inch hunting knife. The two soon began trying to break into McKinley's home.

As one of the men was going from door to door outside her home trying to gain entry, McKinley called 911 and grabbed her 12-gauge shotgun.

McKinley told ABC News Oklahoma City affiliate KOCO that she quickly got her 12 gauge, went into her bedroom and got a pistol, put the bottle in the baby's mouth and called 911.


ABC
An 18-year-old Oklahoma mother shot and... View Full Size

Teen Mom Shoots, Kills Intruder Watch Video

Woman Kills Intruder Breaking Into Her Home Watch Video

Teen Mom Kills Home Intruder Watch Video

"I've got two guns in my hand -- is it okay to shoot him if he comes in this door?" the young mother asked the 911 dispatcher. "I'm here by myself with my infant baby, can I please get a dispatcher out here immediately?"

The 911 dispatcher confirmed with McKinley that the doors to her home were locked as she asked again if it was okay to shoot the intruder if he were to come through her door.

"I can't tell you that you can do that but you do what you have to do to protect your baby," the dispatcher told her. McKinley was on the phone with 911 for a total of 21 minutes.

When Martin kicked in the door and came after her with the knife, the teen mom shot and killed the 24-year-old. Police are calling the shooting justified.

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

Stewart soon turned himself in to police.

McKinley said that she was at home alone with her newborn that night because her husband just died of cancer on Christmas Day.

"I wouldn't have done it, but it was my son," McKinley told ABC News Oklahoma City affiliate KOCO. "It's not an easy decision to make, but it was either going to be him or my son. And it wasn't going to be my son. There's nothing more dangerous than a woman with a child."

The man had a 12 inch knife & was coming toward her in after breaking in the door to her home. She had an infant in her arms........was she supposed to conduct an interview to see what the guys wanted? The house was shown on the local news here last night - once the guy was in the door, he was just a few feet from where the woman was with her baby.

 

[Embel]

In NY, you must be convinced, by reasonable person standard, that your life itself is in imminent, not even immediate, danger, to be able to clear self-defense with deadly force. It can't be that someone was just breaking in - you have to have some reason to believe they were about to kill you as opposed to steal the tv.

They brought a 12 inch knife with them, and the man had it out and in his hand when he finally (after quite some time and effort) gained entrance into the occupied house in the middle of broad daylight.

That's enough reason for me.

 

[herdtoDisney]

In NY, you must be convinced, by reasonable person standard, that your life itself is in imminent, not even immediate, danger, to be able to clear self-defense with deadly force. It can't be that someone was just breaking in - you have to have some reason to believe they were about to kill you as opposed to steal the tv.

Hey, everyone reading this person's posts-go ahead and Google the NY laws and DON'T rely on this poster It's NOT what the law says in NY!

Penal Law 35:15
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless: (a) The latter's conduct was provoked by the actor with intent to cause physical injury to another person; or (b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case the use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force; or (c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law. 2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless: (a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no duty to retreat if he or she is: (i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or (ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police officer or a peace officer at the latter's direction, acting pursuant to section 35.30; or (b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal sexual act or robbery; or (c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20.

The law is clear-had this event occured in NY, the young lady would be just as much within the law as she was in OK.