Three burglars entered an Oklahoma home. The owners son opened fire with an AR-15, deputies say.

[riversedge]

These kids did wrong-very wrong. And the young women who turned herself in. 3 young lives gone and one probably facing long prison term.

Something seems out of place here. Self defense says the article. I wonder if he gave warning shots first. Just seems so horrible.




Three burglars entered an Oklahoma home. The owner’s son opened fire with an AR-15, deputies say.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/03/28/three-burglars-entered-an-oklahoma-home-the-owners-son-opened-fire-with-an-ar-15-deputies-say/?tid=pm_national_pop&utm_term=.00835d171b99



By Ben Guarino March 28 at 2:52 AM

Law enforcement officers investigate the scene of a failed robbery that led to the death of three men who broke into the house in Broken Arrow, Okla. (Ian Maule/Tulsa World via AP)

Gunfire rang out Monday afternoon in a home in Broken Arrow, an Oklahoma city 15 miles southeast of Tulsa. Three intruders were killed after the son of the homeowner fired a semiautomatic rifle in what local law enforcement officers later described as an act of self-defense, though their investigation remains open.

The intruders — a 16-year-old, a 17-year-old and a man thought to be 18 or 19 — had smashed open the back door of the house, the Wagoner County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement posted to Facebook. Their plan was burglary, authorities said.

They wore gloves, masks and all-black clothes, Wagoner County Deputy Nick Mahoney told Tulsa World. Two of the teenagers were armed, one with a knife and the other with brass knuckles.

The trio reportedly exchanged words with the 23-year-old son of the homeowner, whose name has also not been released. He fired on them with an AR-15, a popular semiautomatic rifle, officials told Fox 23....................



http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/three-dead-after-broken-arrow-area-homeowner-s-son-shoots/article_64c15c80-0019-56d6-9322-c1b93c0ff5d0.html

.......................The homeowner and the son, who reportedly did not know the intruders, went to the Wagoner County Sheriff’s Office to submit formal statements. Mahoney said the shootings appear to have been in self-defense, but he clarified that the case will remain under investigation for some time.

The fatal shootings could be viewed by prosecutors as falling under Oklahoma’s “Make My Day” law, which says a resident has the right to use deadly force if an intruder has entered or is in the process of entering the resident’s home.

[HopeAgain]

1. And we thought they were barbaric in medeivel times...

when they would only cut your hand off for theft.

Guns only beget more guns...

[cpamomfromtexas]

2. So what are people to do if someone breaks in with a knife?

[exboyfil]

7. Ditto

It is certainly not burglary if you break in armed.

The residents are completely justified in defending themselves. The "burglars" don't even have to be armed.

[lostnfound]

22. One with a knife and the other with brass knuckles

It sounds like a home invasion but without the usual guns.

I was curious whether there have been home invasions in broken arrow before. I found this old story from 2012 – – but these people would've been older by now.

http://www.newson6.com/story/16973919/five-arrested-in-broken-arrow-after-armed-home-invasion

[HAB911]

55. Back to the Future!

I hope he had a silencer to protect everyone's ears

[ileus]

210. How do you know their intent was theft?

[Metsie Casey]

218. You're right

They might have known by chance that the people there just purchased Nintendo classic. They just wanted to play some Mario brothers. The brass knuckles and knives were just jewelry. They only broke the door in because they slipped while knocking.

[Amishman]

248. Theft is the least serious possible motive

Considering they broke into the house through a back door while wearing masks and had weapons.

But yes you are right, they might have been there solely for the purpose of rape and/or murder.

[frankieallen]

235. what's your plan? hide in the closet and hope nobody finds you?

[xor]

566. If he shot them with an arrow or stabbed them with a knife

would you still have issues with this?

If someone breaks into a home with a knife, then then they forfeit all rights to not being harmed. The people who live in the house have no idea of their intentions and they should not have to wait to be attacked before defending themselves. This, of course, doesn't mean I condone those idiots who blindly shoot in the dark before identifying their 'targets'

[ExciteBike66]

3. One of the suspects was found in the driveway...

not apparent from the article if he was shot out there, or was shot inside then ran outside.

[Amishman]

73. The one outside was shot inside and flee after being shot

I would post a link but I don't want to give fox the clicks.

[ExciteBike66]

98. Gotcha, thanks for the info!

[SecularMotion]

4. These home invasion stories usually unravel

This was most likely an ongoing feud or drug robbery.

[Bengus81]

24. Yup...something sounds fishy here.....

This was in my local on-line paper here in Kansas. I've never heard of a group of burgulars like this,and then all of them dressed up in all black and dressed similar and brass knuckles to steal stuff??

Drug deal gone bad
Bad drugs sold
Someone ripped somebody off

Bet they all knew each other or some of them knew one another. Doesn't play out like a random act to me.

[Girard442]

60. Not to worry, our resident gun-rights people will inform us of any such developments.

[LisaL]

405. I can inform you that this story isn't unraveling.

[NWCorona]

25. If they came for drugs I'd think they'd be armed better.

[synergie]

258. Is there any evidence to suggest that?

I'm curious where you got such a specific alternate theory from?

[LisaL]

402. No.

Nothing seems to be unraveling here.

[bigtree]

5. I'm a fervent gun control advocate

...but I can't put myself in the place of folks facing three intruders, 2 apparently armed, and conclude that the homeowner was wrong here.

How could the residents be certain that their own lives weren't in immediate jeopardy?

[metalbot]

9. I'm not a big gun control advocate

...but something here smells. The self defense seems reasonably justified (guys in masks breaking in), but I suspect that we're going to find a connection between the intruders and the family.

[Fla Dem]

80. Why the snark? Poster was merely expressing an opinion.

Sometimes if you have nothing positive to offer........

[Yo_Mama]

255. One wonders, but apparently there had been recent burglaries in the area.

I think if these had been older, more experienced thieves they would have gotten out, but they were just too young to realize they should get out faster than they got in.

The oldest of the robbers was an adult woman who was driving, and since has turned herself in. She seems like the organizer, and since she is facing three felony murder charges, she has an incentive to talk. So I assume if this was some drug-related thing, it will come out.

Even if it is drug-related, a forcible home invasion by three masked/gloved intruders who don't turn and run when they hear something like "I have a gun" is most definitely justifiable homicide.

Horrible story, and very shocking. I found myself most shocked by the idea that the woman drove those three kids out there and told them to go in, and then fled when she heard shots. I have sometimes wondered about the justice of felony murder charges, but this case defines the reason why those charges exist. I would have no problem convicting providing the evidence holds up. A female Fagin.

[Jim Beard]

440. We had high school students robbing residences in the daytime with

adults driving them. They got away with it for a long time because the cops just checked the local school to check absences.

[aikoaiko]

376. I not sure how it matters if there was a connection.

Going on the few facts available, it appears that the three intruders broke into the house and were armed.

Knowing the intruders doesn't change the fact that a violent felony was being committed against the homeowners/occupants.

Same is true even if the occupants weren't necessarily upstanding citizens.

[Lee-Lee]

377. Reports now are the connection is that the female

was employed in some job doing deliveries and had made a delivery to that residence before and decided it was a good target.

[samnsara]

40. you and me both.. i actually sleep with a loaded glock under my bed...

..I live miles from town in the mountains and someone has to really work to get to my home so if they have broken in they have NO good intentions. And as far as the kids not armed.. remember Richard Speck only had a knife....

[HoneyBadger]

58. I have a weekend home with a 900' driveway that has been broken into

Always wondered what would have happened if I accidentally came upon the scene in progress. Police are roughly a 15-20 minute ride. I have never seen a police car in my area. Vs NYC, where there is generally always a cop at most a block away.

[Hortensis]

225. Same here, gun control and all, only it's a semi-auto shotgun.

We're also rural, hidden from neighbors, and the stairs are only one way to and from our third-floor attic bedroom.

No comments on this tragedy, not enough known.

[RKP5637]

245. I would do the same! IMO anyone breaking into a home like that is not coming for coffee. n/t

[Yo_Mama]

271. Well, if you call out you are armed and they don't turn and get out, one assumes armed and dangerous

Because let's face it, it's easier to rob a vacant house. No one rationally would take the chance.

Once they don't go, you have to assume your life is in danger.

An old couple about thirty miles from my home in Georgia had their apartment invaded. They were tied up and tortured for hours, because the burglars wanted bank accounts. They were poor and they had nothing to offer. Sometimes the goal of a home invasion is to grab the people inside. Sometimes it is very profitable.

[Bucky]

52. We don't have enough evidence to form a reliable impression, but...

If the facts are as they are presented here, the kid with the AR-15 was fully justified. I mean, yes, brass knux is a pretty weak sauce weapon of choice in today's environment, but if someone kicks in your door you have to assume the invaders are prepared and ready to use deadly violence.

That said, this is exactly the kind of story one would make up if it was a drug deal (or something equally shady) just gone bad. Wait for facts is probably the best advice in situations like this.

[Jonny Appleseed]

67. Justified; but probably a sociopath that took pleasure in his license to murder 3 people

under the umbrella of "justification". It'd be hard for me (and I would hope most people living in a civilized society) to shoot to kill anyone, including home invaders. I'd aim for the legs or fire warning shots. Maybe I'd kill one person from adrenaline but that's about it.

[Bucky]

81. Yeah, but you don't know

I'm not sure where you're forming your "probabilities" from. What in this story, outside your own predisposition to draw this conclusion, makes you think he's "probably a sociopath"? I've never been in the heat of the moment facing armed intruders. Have you? For all you know, the kid might feel like shit right now. I know I would. In general this is a good example of why people shouldn't have AR-15s lying around the house.

Aiming for the legs is great for people with experience & training in dealing with confrontations like this. Like I said elsewhere in thsi thread, the smart thing to do is wait for more facts to come in. Meaning that projecting our personal agendas (as, no doubt, my gun nut friends are about to start doing in spades) onto other peoples' tragedies is the opposite of smart.

[Jonny Appleseed]

93. Civilized people are more afraid of taking a life than their life being taken

You see it all the time. Like how in Vietnam only 3 out of 10 soldiers in a squad would actually fire their weapons. This is what makes the western world so much better, how we feel about the sacredness of life.

[Marengo]

125. Do you have children?

[Jonny Appleseed]

132. Does that matter?

I believe that I don't need to have certain primitive biological impulses that accompany rearing offspring to have an opinion on the gravity of human life.

If having children makes enables you to kill people with a guiltless conscience then we should all be sterilized.

[Marengo]

147. Can you provide a yes or no answer?

[AtheistCrusader]

151. I like how you've just assumed the victim feels guiltless.

Can I borrow your crystal ball? I want to check the lottery numbers.

[Warren DeMontague]

162. "I don't need to have certain primitive biological impulses that accompany rearing of offspring"

So short answer, no, you dont have kids.

[LexVegas]

126. "This is what makes the western world so much better"

[synergie]

261. Civilized people are usually more concerend with defending their families when people

break into their homes in the dead of night. This is nothing like Vietnam, where trained soliders were in a foreign country, NOT defending their own homes and their sleeping families.

Um, the Western world has never really been terribly concerned with the sacredness of life. History and the daily news speaks to the falsity of that statement. You do realize that the "world" wars were both 100% Western, right?

[Bucky]

374. Thank you for that link. It was a great article to read

On the history teacher and I will for sure be looking for ways to work some of this info into my classes this semester

[Straw Man]

394. Did you actually read the article you cite?

You see it all the time. Like how in Vietnam only 3 out of 10 soldiers in a squad would actually fire their weapons.

The "3 out of 10" figure comes from General Marshall's study of action in WW II. From the same article:

Some 20 years later, the validity of Marshall’s analysis was called into doubt. Respected researchers interviewed those who had accompanied him in World War II and also pored over his personal notes during the mid-1980s. Convincing evidence pointed to his having fabricated his World War II ratio-of-fire values, still so widely accepted at the time.

Data from the Vietnam War practically reverses Marshall's findings. Your article cites a study of Vietnam veterans, stating "it seems that Americans in Vietnam had little hesitation to engage their enemy. Yet the observations of these veterans prompt the question of why, on average, nearly two of every 10 men were not firing when their unit was in contact."

[NCDem777]

483. Civilized people

don't grab their weapons and break into random homes.

We need to stop excusing shit like this. The people who died deserved it. They could have not broken into somebody's home. They could have gone to see a movie, played some video games, hell stayed in their basement and smoked some weed.

They instead partook in an activity that was likely going to hurt people.

Darwinism.

[nil desperandum]

129. Warning shots and aiming for legs?

No class will train you for that.

I've unfortunately been in this situation myself, I'm hopeful I'm not a sociopath.

As an infantry soldier, I was military trained to use the firearm that I used to defend myself.

You follow your training, no one is ever trained to fire at legs...it makes no sense because if you have no idea what your opponent has for a weapon you fire at center mass the largest target possible that way if you miss vertically or horizontally there is still a good chance you will hit something on the target periphery.

You are awakened from a sound sleep, you retrieve your weapon and you announce that you are armed the attacker says he will take your weapon from you and end you and everyone in the house. It's dark and you have no idea what they have or do not have for a weapon. You fire two shots at center mass and the third at the head, then you search every inch of your home to make sure he was alone. Less than 10 seconds has passed during this encounter. Your life and someone else's has been changed forever. No one wishes for that, but it's a better outcome than you and your family being killed so someone can take your stuff and sell it for drugs or profit or whatever.

[Jonny Appleseed]

134. The military trains you to overcome empathy in the line of fire and the social conditioning

we have towards taking a life.

That's a perfectly justified response for you, but someone having the response of a soldier without the rigorous training it took to condition that response is unnatural.

[AtheistCrusader]

141. Wrong, wrong, completely and utterly wrong.

Your claims so far would put people in jeopardy of sitting in a concrete cell for 10/30 years for something that isn't their fault at all.

That's a horrible thing to do to a victim of a crime.

[jmg257]

145. Fight or flight is all about survival. Nothing unnatural about it at all.

Choosing to be a victim is unnatural.

[NCDem777]

484. It's perfectly natural

if someone intends to commit a violent act against you and reasoning won't resolve the issue, you're probably not going to just let him do it. Nor are you going to bend over backwards to try to find the least painful way to end it.

If you're an average human, your primary concern is "how do I make the violent asshole stop?"

[Binkie The Clown]

184. NEVER shoot an intruder in the legs.

They will recover and sue you and likely take away everything you own.

[Rowdyag]

378. I wasn't military trained

But I grew up around guns and was taught about them at a very young age (rural Texas)
There were rules which were carved in stone...
Guns are NOT toys
Guns are ALWAYS loaded
Never point a gun at someone just to scare them
IF you point a gun at someone your intention is for them to DIE.

I am not afraid of guns but am terrified of SOME of the people that possess them.

[nil desperandum]

383. Indeed....

I am with you, we had firearms in the house as a kid as well, but revolvers and shotguns and a few rifles.

I could shoot before I went into the military, but in the military as an infantryman carrying the M60 7.62 machine gun the 1911 was our sidearm and fired thousands of rounds through that weapon.....consequently the military brought me well beyond simple proficiency with that firearm.

[AtheistCrusader]

131. Warning shots are illegal. Shooting at the legs is employing deadly force without justification.

You hit the femoral artery, they have ~30 seconds to a minute.

And you will be found in court to have used deadly force without justification, because you tried to use 'non lethal' deadly force.



Please for fucks sake actually educate yourself on how self defense works, and how it plays out in court.

[Jonny Appleseed]

135. It doesn't matter if it's illegal. Not doing it means you WANT to kill a person.

You WANT to take a life. You WANT death for the person standing in front of you.

If that's not signs of a disturbed individual, I don't know what is.

[AtheistCrusader]

138. Ridiculous.

If someone WANTED to put someone in that position, they'd go out hunting for them.

Subject of the story was invaded in their home.

[Calculating]

216. Sometimes there are good reasons to take a life

Either to protect your own life or the lives of others.

[Yo_Mama]

265. Bullshit. You want to survive, or you want other family members to survive.

Not only are warning shots proof that you weren't sure you were in danger (if you did fire warning shots, you should never admit it), shooting at the legs is idiotic. Higher miss ratio, and if someone is armed, they are going to shoot you. When you are facing three, your options are run or shoot to kill.

Most people hope having the weapon never means they have to use it, and that is possible, but apparently these kids were too dumb to run.

[yagotme]

491. You posted this upthread:

"It'd be hard for me (and I would hope most people living in a civilized society) to shoot to kill anyone, including home invaders. I'd aim for the legs or fire warning shots."

He was stating that it is the same, shooting at the legs, as shooting at center mass, as far as the law is concerned. It is still use of a deadly weapon with intent. And yes, it does matter if it is illegal. Illegal is illegal.

[Adrahil]

185. You have no idea what you would do in that situation.

No one really does. Some people freeze up. Some people become uncontrolled and dangerous to everyone, even themselves. Some people actually have training and execute their training.

Me, personally, faced with 3 invaders? Well, like I said, ya never know, but I DID get training and I have planned what to do. I'm not super paranoid. I do no carry a gun regularly, and I do not keep loaded guns at the stand buy. I do, however have a couple guns available, with loaded magazines available (in biometrically opened safes). I hope I never have to deal with this issue, but if I do, I will my best to neutralize the threat as quickly as possible.

[Oneironaut]

212. "Aim for the legs" is a Hollywoodism

Nobody actually ever does that or advises trying. Hitting a target with a gun is actually much more difficult than Hollywood shows it. Trying to just wound someone with a gun is a great way to miss and get yourself killed.

If someone is in your house and armed, you're not going to be thinking, "I'll aim at their feet just wound them." You would want to stop the threat and stop your attacker before they kill you. If you need to kill them to do that, then that's their fault for attacking you, not yours.

[58Sunliner]

252. Have you ever been in a situation where your life was threatened?

If you have a gun and they still come towards you, you better use it or you will probably be shot with your weapon. They don't teach people to cap a knee. Because you never know your reaction time. And if you miss? Great, assailant is now taking your weapon from you. That's why you train with a center mass shot. Biggest target, easiest to hit. I'm willing to bet he did not think a lot before he shot.

[Yo_Mama]

256. If you are facing three you assume to be armed, you can't afford shooting for the legs.

If you call out a warning and they don't go, I think most people would assume they are armed - or nuts.

I don't know why you would assume this is a sociopath - I assume it was someone scared stiff. Since they were all ninja'd up he couldn't see how young they were.

[NutmegYankee]

269. Aiming for the legs can be very deadly.

A severed femoral artery kills in 5 minutes.

[ManiacJoe]

311. You should brush up on your self defense laws.

Justified; but probably a sociopath that took pleasure in his license to murder 3 people

under the umbrella of "justification". It'd be hard for me (and I would hope most people living in a civilized society) to shoot to kill anyone, including home invaders. I'd aim for the legs or fire warning shots. Maybe I'd kill one person from adrenaline but that's about it.

Shooting to wound and firing warning shots are both immoral and illegal is most (all?) jurisdictions.

[Takket]

316. "Maybe I'd kill one person from adrenaline but that's about it."

I doubt it. you would probably enjoy it.

What you said it pretty outrageous for someone who is not in the shoes of a person horrified to have their home invaded. Can you imagine if you took someone's life and came onto DU and found someone saying something like that about you? I bet you were pissed when you read the first two sentences of my post.

[Baconator]

353. This is what we call 'projection'...

Sheesh...

As for the rest of it, go nuts but I certainly wouldn't hire you as any form of security.

[TNLib]

366. I suspect drugs are involved

n/t

[HoneyBadger]

397. Cops said that they were not

[LisaL]

403. You suspect wrong.

[anneboleyn]

87. I agree with you. We had three in our area in the last year - in two of them the young woman home

alone was sexually assaulted and in the first case killed (she happened to be a young mother home with her child AND she was pregnant again -- like three or four months if I remember correctly -- her husband came home to find her murdered on the floor. The second woman was a young mother too and she had her child with her (a toddler). The men beat the hell out of her and repeatedly threatened her life and she was lucky she survived at all. The incidents were random attacks. And of course in neither case was much stolen -- mainly just petty cash (who keeps large amounts of cash around these days?), a credit card that wasn't usable, a few pieces of not-expensive jewelry, a few electronics. Yet now there is a motherless child (first case) and a woman (second case) who will likely deal with severe ptsd and brain injury for the rest of her life.

Home invasions absolutely do happen (someone was posting that they think there is always another story -- there obviously are random home invasions. They absolutely do happen, and the motivation can be as stupid as one can imagine). Look at the hideous, infamous case in Connecticut when those two monsters tortured that family for hours before burning their house to the ground. I believe in gun control but I also believe that a person has the right to own a gun, responsibly and trained appropriately of course, to protect the home.

In a case like this it seems ridiculous to me to say "oh he just had a knife" or "they weren't reeeeaaaally going to hurt anybody." Persons who break into homes when residents are home are already considered much, much more dangerous and more likely to rape and kill than thieves who deliberately wait until they KNOW the house is empty.

[kcr]

102. What is the point of living life so fearful and paranoid?

It's sad because the odds of something like that happening are so incredibly slim. You'll live your life all the way to the end when you'll finally die peacefully anyway. No intruders torturing you and your family. And the whole time that fear was pointless.

The fear is stoked by corporations who want money and get it from tv ratings and selling guns. Don't be a sucker.

[Go Vols]

174. I have a fire extinguisher in my home.

I don't live in fear of a fire, just as I don't live in fear of an intruder.But I have means to fight both in the rare event I need to.

[jmg257]

177. Living Life IS the point. Not really a downside for most people in wanting to be prepared, or

just enjoy firearms legally.

[yagotme]

493. So, the smoke detector companies, and the car companies,

are just out to make extra money from your fears of a flat tire (your spare), or a home fire? There's a slim chance I may have a home fire, but I keep my detectors up and working.

[anneboleyn]

520. I don't know what you are saying. I am well aware that the chance of something like this happening

is very slim in our neighborhood. We don't "live in fear." But I also believe that responsible people can own guns. Sorry but I do -- and yes we have endured enough in our lives to know well that we will likely die in much more mundane ways.we have also experienced violent crime in our family so we aren't totally dewy-eyed about it all either. It certainly can happen, and one being self-protective and family-protective is just smart. It doesn't mean we "live in fear." Hardly. Having a house alarm makes us feel much safer actually.

[EL34x4]

260. Heartbreaking

Yep. Here in Jacksonville, Florida we're dealing with two recent deadly home invasions which took the lives of law-abiding, upstanding members of the community. Last February a man returned home from work to find a group of teens in his garage. They shot him dead and fled. They had been responsible for a string of burglaries in the area, stealing mostly electronic devices. Between the ages of 16-18, they'll never leave prison. Just last week a 62-year old school teacher was murdered in her home. Her car was stolen and later recovered. The perp is still on the loose. Her husband came home and found her body. I'm sure when they crack this case, we'll learn nothing much of value was taken.

So, yeah, I'm a little unnerved over home invasions here lately. I used to always believe that the people whose homes were invaded were probably drug dealers but lately, not so much anymore.

[janterry]

6. If they exchanged words

I wonder why he didn't allow them to leave. Get out I have a gun seems like the obvious thing to say.........was anyone shot in the back (trying to escape)?

[Metsie Casey]

12. Exchanged words

I'm guessing that the burglars were not there for conversation. I could be wrong.

[janterry]

13. You're probably right

and it probably happened so fast. But the article did say they exchanged words, so - IDK.

[Jonny Appleseed]

68. Burglars are humans.

Humans can always converse.

[Metsie Casey]

154. Do you live in a nice area ?

If not, do you go outside often ? I ask this because I have heard people say the sort of things you posted. Those people live in rich areas or never leave the house. Out of touch with certain realities.

[AtheistCrusader]

226. Humans can converse only if both sides consent to it.

If one party is not interested in conversing, no conversation will take place.

[NCDem777]

485. If they're armed with knives

and breaking into houses, odds are they aren't there for polite conversation.

[Adrahil]

186. Well.....

If he KNEW they didn't have guns, that might seem reasonable. But what if he didn't? Is it a good idea to warn invaders that MIGHT be armed with firearms?

[janterry]

231. I have no idea

I don't know. If the home were configured in a way that he was above them - or had a somewhat safe vantage point - or was exceptionally experienced.........(he wasn't much older, himself) - maybe he could have issued a command (leave or else)?

I don't mean to second guess it, really. He did what he did to protect himself, with the weapon he had. I don't think he's at fault, the young men who broke in are at fault and he's lucky to be alive.

But I grieve for everyone (the young man will have to live with the memory of that night - forever - and the burden of killing the intruders.)

And the intruders - well, they were bad and might have gone on being bad (if they weren't stopped) - maybe even their whole lives. But I'm still sad that their lives were wasted. It's also a shame.

[Metsie Casey]

8. What should they have done ?

Offered them milk and cookies ? I don't like guns but you have a right to defend your home from criminals. The burglars would be fine if they didn't break the law and think it was ok to take things that didn't belong to them.

[superpatriotman]

16. They died doing what they loved

No criminal coddling at my house.

[Metsie Casey]

18. They rolled the dice

And lost. F em.

[Bucky]

53. ha!!

I mean, it's tragic and all... but still

[AngryAmish]

111. Just like Elvis.

[Warren DeMontague]

165. Elvis loved pooping?

[beaglelover]

176. Damn right!

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

10. THREE intruders?

Entering with a knife, brass knuckles, wearing all black and face masks?

I would have been terrified.

And I can't say I'm sorry that they are dead, since they won't be able to terrify anyone else. By the way, if these guys knew the homeowner's son, they were probably intent on doing him serious harm.

[cwydro]

21. Ditto. nt

[Yo_Mama]

257. And gloves. I would have pooped my pants. What about Ma Barker redux?

The kids were all suited up - you have to think that someone older was the mastermind. Was that adult woman in that car running a gang of thieves?

Another unpleasant thought that comes to mind is that this might have been an home invasion in which the homeowner was targeted - the object being to seize him and get the bank accounts. This happens. The picture of the house makes it look like a wealthier family. I don't understand why they wouldn't have gone out faster than they came in.

And it really worries me that on the one hand they were so professional, and on the other hand they had brass knuckles and a knife. It doesn't fit with the gloves and masks.

[Thrill]

11. Someone invaded your home. They aren't there to have coffee

Warning shots might get you killed. You have to protect yourself and your family

[Jonny Appleseed]

69. Shooting at them might get you killed too.

"That fucker killed Bob! But now he's outta ammo! Let's torture him and his family to death and burn their house to the ground!"
rather than
"Bob let's get the fuck outta here! It's not worth it, he has an assault rifle!"

Hindsight and speculation are completely arbitrary.

[ileus]

84. Thus the argument for 30 round magazines.

[Jonny Appleseed]

97. "He killed Bob AND Steve! I'm gonna kidnap him and torture him for 15 years now!"

"I loved Steve most of all! We were in Desert Storm together!"

[Adrahil]

472. So your argument is...

Don't resist, you might make them mad? Sorry... no.

[Renew Deal]

106. So could not doing so

[Jonny Appleseed]

112. Yeah there's really no correct answer besides physically removing yourself from the situation

[sarisataka]

114. The real reason to have an alarm

is it wakes you up to haul ass out your back door, or front if the criminals came in the back. People living in high rises should keep rappelling gear by the window...

[meathead]

533. Thank goodness 30 rounds magazines are standard

The perfect size for dealing with a bevy of home invaders!

[treestar]

360. Have to agree in a case like this

No real choice here

[Hoyt]

14. Callous gunners will say you don't fire warning shots. I don't know. I can't see that the

home owner's son did anything legally wrong. When people enter your house, I think the home owner has to have the benefit of any doubt. But, too many people shoot in these cases when it could be handled differently. Then again, I wasn't there. Daddy probably trained his kid to open fire, that guns are necessary to become a man or some such BS, and that George Zimmerman is a role model.

Note -- If they find out he shot one in the back fleeing, that's another story. The real tragedy is that these kids broke into the house in the first place. They probably knew there were guns there.

[Kentonio]

29. I'm no fan of gun ownership, but I think we need to be careful with 'shot in the back' conclusions

If he opened fire with a rapid fire weapon in an enclosed space, then he could very well have shot someone in the back AND been legitimately defending himself. If two run towards him and one runs away in a hallway, there's no saying who will end up with a bullet.

This might actually be one of those rare times when a gun being present allowed someone to defend their home. I think it's important to remember though that for every one of these, there's many more where its a family member getting shot by accident, or a preventable suicide.

[Hoyt]

34. If he's out in the front yard face down, homeowner probably shot him running. That's wrong.

But, good point on the gun in a house more likely to end up a tragedy among the family.

"shoot in the back" comes from discussions right here on DU where a number of gunners claimed if someone steals there "stuff," they have every right to shoot them fleeing.

[Kentonio]

50. Ah yeah, totally with you on the fleeing stuff being horrible.

[AtheistCrusader]

288. He's not being honest about that.

And he will not be able to provide links of non-PPR'd DU members insisting they can shoot people in the back for property crimes.

[Jim Beard]

446. There is a difference in running to escape and running to take cover....

and return fire. If they were 100 yards away, they were trying to flee the scene.

[Marengo]

63. Could you link one of those discussions where DU members advocating the shooting of fleeing...

Persons?

[Hoyt]

275. Go to the Gungeon, there were plenty of them back when I was allowed to post there.

[Marengo]

282. I didn't find any with an admittedly quick search. Do you recall the user names of DU members...

Advocating the shooting of fleeing persons in the back?

[friendly_iconoclast]

301. They will not 'recall' any user names- it's just a Trump-like slur against their opponents

[friendly_iconoclast]

312. Without evidence, your claim is bullshit- and it's not our job to dig it up for you

[Hoyt]

313. Yeah, NRA and others pushing guns everywhere have proven to be such honorable souls.

[friendly_iconoclast]

318. Still no evidence? Like I said- it's bullshit

[Marengo]

347. Can you give us names of DU members doing this?

[Hoyt]

352. You'd have to check out the Gungeon, especially those who have been booted from DU over

the years who entered DU through the gun group. That's a substantial number.

[Marengo]

358. If you wish to be regarded with credibility, I would suggest you add proof to the posts in which...

You make these claims.

[Marengo]

65. Warning shots are NOT recommended by legal and self-defense experts, and are prosecutable...

In many jurisdictions.

[Hoyt]

127. And "self-defense experts" are in the business of teaching people how to kill, not

really handle situations without shooting. The "students" don't want to hear anything other than "shoot em center mass."

My guess is, some kind of warning (not necessary a "shot&quot like yelling something like, "I've got a rifle, here's what is sounds like when I ram ammo into the receiver, and I'm gonna shoot your ass unless you get out right now," probably would have caused our underarmed burglars to run to the hills. If not, you just shoot em when they come through the bedroom door. Let em steal the TV and stuff, that can be replaced.

I think that would have worked better. But, again I was not there. The son was and had to handle things as best he could. I can't fault him from what we know now.

[Marengo]

143. Can you provide cites by legal experts and/or law enforcement which recommend and advocate...

The use of warning shots? The bulk of info I find on the subject suggests this is a extremely bad idea, but perhaps you have something which indicates otherwise.

[sarisataka]

152. Clearly you have never taken

a class on armed self defense. If you had you would know time spent on teaching shooting skills is not even a plurality of the course. Awareness, avoidance, de-escalation and legal ramifications of shooting each take up more time than teaching shooting

[Hoyt]

272. Bull, rest of course teaching how to get away murder and intimidation and what to say to police

when gunners shoot and unarmed kid. George Zimmerman is a graduate of one of those courses. Those that attend aren't interested in anything other than using their latest lethal weapon.

Heck, most of the gun "instructors" are certified by the right wing racist organization the NRA, who has among their board of directors folks like this --

[Marengo]

280. Have you taken a course?

[Hoyt]

294. Have you taken one by the NRA, most gunners take the NRA course. Guess the like listening

to those "certified" by the white wing racist organization.

You can look up the syllabus if you don't believe me. It's very easy for a right wing gun nut to twist "don't shoot people in the back, especially if unarmed," into -- "Tell the police you [not "you"] were so afraid for your life and simply fired at the silhouette, you thought he was armed with a fully automatic rifle like the one your brother-in-law sells in parking lots at gun shows, and was going to kill you, rape your wife and daughter, butcher your son and then go on a killing spree at the next house on the street." Those training courses are BS, and you know it. Lots of gunners like Massad Ayoob's courses, where he teaches classes of mostly white wingers prepare for urban warfare, or some similar junk. The attendees at these courses are not interested in reasons why you don't need a gun, situational awareness, etc. They want to get their permit so they can walk around in public with one or two gunz strapped to their bodies.

[friendly_iconoclast]

303. That's a steaming pile of Colonism:

"Sergeant Colon had had a broad education. He'd been to the School of My Dad Always Said, the College of It Stands to Reason, and was now a postgraduate student at the University of What Some Bloke In the Pub Told Me."

Terry Prachett, Jingo

[Marengo]

345. The instructor for my cwp class is NRA certified, and said nothing like what you claim. I noticed...

You have used quotation marks. Are these statements verbatim quotes? If so, can you provide links or cites?

[Marengo]

346. You didn't answer my question. Have you taken such a course?

[benEzra]

425. I took the State of North Carolina course, authored by the NC Department of Justice.

Which if I'm not mistaken, was run at the time by our now-governor, Roy Cooper (D).

[gilbert sullivan]

544. "gunner"? That is exactly the same kind of insult as "n*gger".

I might be new here but I recognize an uninformed hater when I see one.

[yagotme]

563. Welcome to DU.

And your recognition is spot on. Except, they have been informed, and still hate.

[sarisataka]

286. You could have simply

Said 'No I've never taken a course and I am just assuming'

Please list any Gun Safety Organization that certifies instructors. I will be happy to promote their program.

[friendly_iconoclast]

304. Just out of curiosity- why is your photo collection racially segregated?

[Hoyt]

315. That's racism, something the majority of white wing gunners are quite familiar.

Plus, it's pretty much the clientele at 99% of gun stores, gun shows, NRA meetings, gun advertisements, militia groups, etc.

[friendly_iconoclast]

317. Yes, it is -and in this case the racism is yours

[Marengo]

348. What percentage of white gun owners are racist?

[Hoyt]

351. Well, since 70% of gun owners are right wing, that should put you pretty close.

If they have lots of gunz, promote gunz, belong to or are accepting of the NRA, carry gunz, etc., the precentage is likely higher.

[HAB911]

354. Things that make one go, Hmmmmmmm

[Marengo]

359. Where does the 70% figure come from?

[friendly_iconoclast]

436. Ex recto...

[sarisataka]

368. Despite your claimed familiarity

with NRA based training and it's short comings, you haven't provided a reference to any Gun "Safety" group that offers an alternative to the NRA.

Isn't it ironic that groups promoting themselves as "Safety" organizations don't offer any safety training or certify instructors and leave all such training in the in the hands of the NRA?

[AtheistCrusader]

289. Didn't stop you from casting all kinds of shade on him in your first posts.

[X_Digger]

322. This one hit close to home, Hoyt?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=45338

As a former robber, I locked the door to keep people out, especially police.

[Hoyt]

325. Xdigger, your gun cache not keeping you occupied.? You know the context of that post.

You gun, and George Zimmerman apologists, were rationalizing why gunz were the answer to the situation in the thread. I offered a response, "as a former robber," any dumb gun lover should understand. People who lack perception should not be carrying gunz in public.

[Marengo]

349. Are you a former robber?

[Hoyt]

350. What do you think? You too should not be carrying gunz in public.

[Marengo]

356. You said: "As a former robber, I locked the door to keep people out, especially police."

On the face it seems you are claiming experience in robbery. Perhaps it would be best if you would answer my question clearly to prevent any misunderstanding. Can you answer with a yes or no?

[Hoyt]

361. Yes, because you gunners looking for a rationale to shoot away claimed that if a robber closed

the door to a store, they were getting ready to kill everyone inside. Of course, they did not in the actualy incident cited and I responded to you obsessed gun fanciers with "As a robber," I closed the door to control who was coming in.

Most of you used that as an opportunity to impugn me, while totally missing the point that you don't need a gun in your pants, you are incapable of assessing a situation, and you (collectively) don't have the perception to be walking around with a gun in public.

Does that help? Why is it that gun toters are so obtuse?

?6

[Marengo]

362. Interesting. Would you be willing to share your robbery expertise and experiences? Did you...

Rob private residences, businesses? What were you looking for, what kind of items did you steal? Were you ever armed? Were you convicted? Why did you commit robbery?

[Marengo]

390. Looking forward to your response to my questions in post 362!

[Hoyt]

399. I've already answered. Apparently you are too obtuse to get it.

[Marengo]

410. My questions in that post are specific to your...

Experience as a robber, and you have not answered me directly. If there are other posts on DU which detail your experience, can you provide links

[Hoyt]

421. Yes, I told you where "robber" came from. What the heck is wrong with you besides your

love of gunz?

[Marengo]

434. I'm asking if you are willing to share details about...

Your experience as a robber. It's rare to encounter someone who admits to such a thing, and perhaps whatever info you are willing to post might be useful to protect myself and property from others in your former line of work. Why did you stop, were you convicted?

[Marengo]

514. Since you're back in this thread, how about answering my questions in post#362?

[Marengo]

364. I am licensed by my state of residence to do just that, and now I can clearly understand why...

You are so hostile to it.

[Hoyt]

365. George Zimmerman has a license too.

[Marengo]

367. Is every license holder in the USA comparable to George Zimmerman? What about residents...

Who carry in states where no license is required to carry a concealed weapon (such as New Hampshire). Are they comparable to GZ? What traits are shared?

[Hoyt]

369. I think they all carry pretty much for the same reason. Don't you?

[Marengo]

370. What reason is that?

[Marengo]

391. What reason is that?

[Hoyt]

398. Next time you get ready to strap one on, ask yourself.

[Marengo]

408. I'm asking you to explain what you think the...

Reason is. Clearly you have something in mind, why the reluctance to share?

[Hoyt]

409. Because gunners can't handle the truth.

[Marengo]

411. What "truth" is that?

[Marengo]

435. What "truth" is that? Why won't you reply?

[yagotme]

495. "You can't handle the truth."

[Marengo]

515. What "truth" is that?

[christx30]

545. Probably the reason is that there are some

awful criminals in the world that would murder you for the shoes on your feet, and talking to them isn't going to make them stop.
There was a story I read where 2 guys broke into a home, and tied up the man and his wife. They ended up raping her in front of her husband, and stabbed them both to death. The difference between that story and the one in the OP? The AR-15 in the hands of the victim.
There are some truly terrible people out there that will use violence to enrich and gratify themselves on helpless people. And I'm more than happy in the times that the victims are able to stop the attacks. I don't see any problem whatsoever with criminals being killed. Criminality should not be a risk free operation.

[oneshooter]

535. What happened to your reliance on canned beans and bicycle tires? n/t

[Girard442]

15. Sounds like the home invaders were serious bad guys but...

...I wouldn't like to live next to someone who thinks the best solution to a nasty situation is to smoke everybody he sees.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

20. I'm pretty sure the neighbors are just grateful

the three criminals didn't enter their house.

And I'm pretty damn sure they won't be breaking down the door and wearing masks with intent to do evil.

[cwydro]

23. He didn't "smoke anyone he sees"

He defended his home and family from three criminals who broke in.

[Jonny Appleseed]

70. By smoking anyone he sees...

(damn I always thought this emoticon was a dude with an Uzi firing into the air, but it says "candle&quot

[BannonsLiver]

49. Yes he should have invited them in for tea and biscuits

There they would have discussed motive, conflict avoidance and perhaps the burglars getting into a better line of work. I'm sure it could have all been worked out.

[Marengo]

77. Perhaps he could have offered them an interest-free microloan.

[WoonTars]

109. You break into my house you're getting "smoked" as well.

I'm pretty sure they weren't there to play gin rummy...

[Adrahil]

473. Do we have any evidence that the shooter thinks that way?

Shooting someone isn't a solution to every bad situation. But it is certainly a solution to some. I hope to never have to do such a thing. But I hope I would not hesitate if someone invade my home and presented a threat to me or my family.

[jmg257]

17. Seems a clear case of very bad decision making by the deceased, and their driver.

The son, who lives at the residence, told deputies he was sleeping when he was awakened by “loud bangs” coming from the back door. He armed himself with the rifle and opened fire when the intruders came inside and he encountered them in the hallway, he told the deputies. Two of the intruders died in the kitchen, while the third made his way outside and succumbed to his injuries in the driveway.
Investigators found a knife on one of the deceased in the kitchen and brass knuckles on the other, Mahoney said.
...
Later that afternoon, 21-year-old Elizabeth Marie Rodriguez of Oologah turned herself in at the Broken Arrow Police Department after seeing media reports about the shootings, Mahoney said.
She reportedly indicated to police that she had driven the three burglars to the house and was supposed to have picked them up after the burglary. She was booked into the Wagoner County Jail on three complaints each of first-degree murder and first-degree burglary.

Home invasions are not good career moves.

(Incident will also be marked down as an example of the defense capabilities of an AR. Who'd a thought? )

[Kentonio]

31. Obviously a criminal who deserves to be prosecuted, but..

She was booked into the Wagoner County Jail on three complaints each of first-degree murder and first-degree burglary.

..this stuff just drives me crazy. Woman who isn't even there when the shooting happens ends up charged with the murder of the people she was with? How does this make any sense in a rational justice system?

[jmg257]

36. That is somethng, isn't it? And she turned herself in. Don't think she knew what was headed her way.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

42. She dropped off armed people she knew were there to commit a crime.

3 people wound up dead in a crime she helped commit.

What should she be charged with?

[Kentonio]

51. She should be charged with being an accomplice to a robbery

Or with conspiracy to commit robbery, or whatever the appropriate crime is there. She shouldn't be charged with the robbery itself because she didn't commit it, and she sure as hell shouldn't be charged with the murder of 3 people she not only didn't kill, but who she wasn't even there when they were killed. It's completely ridiculous.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

56. People who commit felonies are responsible for the outcome of the felonies.

You don't get to say "hey I'm only responsible for the good things that happened during that felony"

[Kentonio]

59. It's completely contrary to any reasonable intepretation of justice

Which is why its only America out of the western democracies who have this kind of thing.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

62. It's unreasonable to think that armed home invasion will result in death?

She took part in a felony that resulted in three deaths. The law is supposed to pretend like no one was killed during this crime?

She has to answer for the deaths she helped facilitate.

Just curious. If the homeowner was murdered would you be willing to let her off with such minor charges?

[Kentonio]

123. Absolutely I would. She wasn't there, she didn't pull a trigger or stab anyone.

The idea that dropping the robbers off in a car, somehow makes her responsible for them ending up dead is absolutely bizarre to me. It seems like nothing more than the kind of crazy thinking that has ended up with America having the largest prison population in the world.

[AtheistCrusader]

156. You've confused felony murder with the War On Drugs(TM)

Please recalibrate your equipment.

[Kentonio]

195. No, it's part of the same puritanical attitutes

Justice is supposed to be about the responsibility of the individual for their actions and given their individual circumstance. Once we get into some perverted sense of 'justice' where people are jailed for things they might be expected to think just might happen, there is no justice anymore. This is Wild West bullshit.

[AtheistCrusader]

221. Self Defense has NOTHING to do with Justice.

Not a thing. Zero. Zip. Zilch.

Justifiable use of deadly force in self defense is not punishment, execution, or anything whatsoever along those lines. It is a primal use of force to protect life. We've already 'won' that conversation in reducing it from a reflex or an active depredation strategy to JUST an acceptable use of force in self defense, and society generally understands that.

[Kentonio]

223. Err, I think we're talking at cross purposes here.

I was only talking about the state charging the woman driver with 3 murders, even though she wasn't even present when the shooting happened.

[AtheistCrusader]

224. She participated in the crime. The crime resulted in deaths.

You are correct, I did mix thread forks there, but I find the charge of Felony Murder acceptable in this case.

The state must prove she actively participated, not innocently aided people she didn't know would be Breaking and Entering, and also wasn't an unwilling participant.

This is not different than a felony Conspiracy charge for someone who participated with an overt act within the scope of a conspiracy, but didn't carry out the direct application of the criminal act.

[Kentonio]

227. I would disagree fundamentally even if they had gone there and committed murder.

The fact they went to steal and ended up being the ones killed, makes charging her with murder beyond a mockery.

[AtheistCrusader]

228. Occupational Hazard.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

277. You would disagree even if "they" committed murder?

What?

So, she makes it possible for them to commit the murder, and she's not charged with murder?

I guess the driver of the getaway car doesn't get charged with robbing the bank, either. Maybe just a charge of "illegal parking?"

[Kentonio]

290. There's a reason for 'accessory to' crimes, and this is it.

In this case though, no murder was commited. The homeowner acted in self defense as far as we know, so apparently no-one committed a murder but she's going to be charged with them anyway. That's ridiculous.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

297. And there is a reason this would not fit any accessory statutes.

She would be an accomplice not accessory.

Accessories are not willing participants, present at the time of the crime or directly involved in the commission of the crime.

Furthermore, her being the adult isn't going to help her case.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

295. They went there ARMED to invade a home.

You don't get to do an armed home invasion and pretend like the idea that someone could wind up dead is completely unexpected.

Not sure what the level of expectation needs to be proved here but this scenario fits even the likely higher "reasonable man" test.

Would a "reasonable man" foresee that either the homeowner or perpetrators could be killed in a daytime armed home invasion? I think yes.

I agree there has been some abuses of the felony murder statutes - several years ago, a man was charged for the deaths of helicopter pilots who collided while following a chase. This ain't that.

[Kentonio]

331. Look we clearly disagree completely, so let's just leave it at that.

I don't understand the kind of thinking that makes these cases happen, it runs 100% against everything I believe about justice and fairness so I'm not going to change my mind, and I assume the same is true for you.

[ProfessorGAC]

239. Been That Way Forever Though

Someone dies in the commission of a felony and the felons are culpable in the death. I suppose i can see her being charged as an accessory to first degree murder though, not wholly responsible.

[Baconator]

355. If a driver takes 3 robbers to a bank...

... and they rob the bank and maybe kill someone...

Are you suggesting that the driver is less culpable than the guys inside the bank?

What about the three robbers in the bank? What if only one of them pulls the trigger and kills someone...

Is they physical shooter the only one charged with murder?

[Kentonio]

400. Yep, they're the only one that commited murder.

[Baconator]

407. Holy shit...

That's nuts...

[Kentonio]

437. Sure, it's 'nuts' that people should only be held responsible for things they've actually done..

[Amishman]

572. So a concentration camp guard would be blameless?

After all, they just stood watch in a guard tower and never hurt anyone directly

People are responsible if their actions knowingly enable others​ to commit crimes

[Kentonio]

573. I actually find that example a very complicated one to answer.

And I spent many years studying that war. It opens up some very deep questions about the moral expectations we have about fellow people (and ourselves) and the concept of responsibility and self defence.

We generally accept that people have a right to step outside the bounds of normal law and behavior to protect themselves, and we make exceptions including the right to kill to protect your own safety. When this is extended out to a longer period though, we rarely except the same arguments, and its difficult to morally justify that contradiction.

To use the example you gave, if a man was forced on threat of death to serve in the German army, and was assigned (again without any choice) to stand in a concentration camp watchtower, and as in your example never hurt anyone directly, is that person morally culpable? Should someone sacrifice their own life for a futile gesture against a larger evil? We tend to expand that out to a larger scale and say things like 'if everyone had stood up and opposed then it couldn't have happened', but it still requires individuals to basically commit suicide to achieve a later goal they would never see.

Would you? Would I? It's easy to think we would, but then again history shows us that most people won't when placed in a life or death situation. As a result, I think its unfair to judge when we have never faced the same decision ourselves.

[yagotme]

575. And it wasn't just themselves that were threatened,

their families were, too. They knew if they resisted, etc, their families could be rounded up and put in camps, too.

[Jake Stern]

64. If other cases where this has happened are any guide

they'll use these charges as a bargaining chip in plea negotiations. She can plead guilty to a lesser charge such as aggravated robbery and take 10 years or she can go to trial and possibly end up spending the rest of her life in prison.

Moral of the story: don't drive your friends somewhere to commit felonies and you won't need to worry about facing heavy charges of they get iced.

[Kentonio]

124. And what if it turned out she had been coerced into it?

Suddenly she can't fight the original charge, because if she does and she loses she gets hit with 3 additional murder charges and rots in jail for the rest of her life.

[Jake Stern]

246. Very real possibility

However she likely had multiple chances to notify law enforcement about this BEFORE it happened. A quick anonymous call to 911 would have stopped it dead in it's tracks.

[Kentonio]

267. And then she might have to have gone home to the same area they were all from afterwards

With the questions about how the cops knew they were coming, etc.

[AtheistCrusader]

291. Why wouldn't she be able to fight the charge?

She would actually HAVE to fight the charge, to avoid the additional murder charges.

[Kentonio]

438. Because as someone said above

The prosecutor will probably bargain down on the murder charges to pressure her into a plea deal.

[AtheistCrusader]

443. Then refuse the deal.

You don't have to accept a plea deal.

That is the most ridiculous reason for a class of charge not to exist that I have ever heard.

[Kentonio]

444. Because innocent people are never found guilty?

There are plenty of people rotting in jail for crimes they didn't commit, yet in a case like this someone is supposed to risk facing 3 additional murder charges to clear their name? Plea bargaining is wildly overused to gain convictions that otherwise people would contest, and if you're poor and desperate and can't afford good legal representation, there's a very good chance you'll plead guilty to a minor change you didn't commit to avoid the risk of a lifetime in jail. There are many thousands of people who have done exactly that.

[AtheistCrusader]

447. Because of plea bargaining

innocent people are effectively found guilty all the time

[LisaL]

413. From what has been reported, you are way off track.

[Kentonio]

439. It doesn't matter what the details of this case are

The processes should apply in all cases so that innocent or vulnerable people are never swept up wrongly. Maybe this woman was an evil manipulator, but that doesn't mean the next one won't be a vulnerable victim. If this kind of law enforcement strategy is allowed, then they'll be treated the same.

[Yo_Mama]

259. She drove three kids over to rob a house, and she probably picked the target.

I normally have some qualms about felony murder charges, but in this case, I think felony murder charges are more than warranted.

When an adult is driving three teens around to commit violent crimes, if the kids get killed then the adult is damn sure responsible.

This later article has more detail:
http://www.fox23.com/news/three-killed-in-wagoner-county-shooting/506461840

Rodriguez reportedly knew of the home before the incident. A witness reportedly told investigators that Rodriguez had told the other three suspects to burglarize the home while she waited in the driveway. She reportedly drove away when she heard gunshots.

I would guess that she turned herself in because she expected that the family of at least one of the dead teens would come after her in revenge.

[Kentonio]

270. No disrespect intended, but there are a lot of assumptions there.

[Yo_Mama]

273. Why would she turn herself in? Not much of an assumption, really.

She knew if she turned herself in she was facing hard time. Doesn't matter even if she were driving her own car - she could always report it stolen.

You tell me why she turned herself in. She's the one who drove away, leaving the kids, when she heard shots. It wasn't out of concern for their welfare.

[Lee-Lee]

319. Felony Murder Rule

If you are the participant in a felony and a person ends up dead on account if the act you can be charged with murder.

It would be the same if the home invaders had killed the occupant of the home. She was part of a felony, someone died because of the commission of that felony, so under the law she faces murder charges.

Moral of the story- don't help people commit violent felonies. She had to know that she was party to a crime that might end with someone dead.

[Kentonio]

332. Did she 'have to know that'?

Is that how people think before they get involved in things that might end up in tragedy?

No other western democracy has this kind of rule, only America. Guess who also has the highest murder rates and the highest rates of incarceration amongst the western democracies?

Why is it always America that has to do things differently and with worse outcomes when we have countless examples of other countries doing things more fairly and more successfully?

[Lee-Lee]

335. Actually some other countries have similar laws

Last edited Wed Mar 29, 2017, 06:42 AM - Edit history (1)

Australia calls it "constructive murder" and in the U.K. It is called "Joint Enterprise".

And yes, any person capable had to know that if you are part of a group going about armed and invading homes that it could end like that. Especially in her case given that she was 21 and was driving an 18 year old and two students under 18 to commit a crime while armed.

[Kentonio]

336. Actually..

In England and Wales and certain other Commonwealth countries, this was the understanding of the courts until February 2016, when the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council jointly ruled that it was wrong, and that nothing less than intent to assist the crime would do

[Lee-Lee]

337. You should reread that Wikipedia link you copied and pasted from

It doesn't say what you think it does.

The part you copied and posted refers to the application of the law against participants in a riot as outlined in the sentence right before it, not all applications of the law. Participants in a riot or protest where things got violent were being charged with it even if they had not committed violent acts or any crime at all, and that was an application even further than US law takes it.

The entire doctrine was not overturned, they just tightened it so the application was closer to what we have in the US. Prior to that you could be charged even if you had not committed a criminal act but just could have foreseen that an act, even legal, would have ended in the criminal act. Now you have to be a participant in the criminal act for the law to be applied, as it is in the US.

For example the case that overturned it involved a person who simply brought a person into the presence of another person knowing they were angry at them and could hurt them, but did not break the law. They charged them with the murder despite the defendant not breaking any law. That was overturned.

Under the law as it is still applied there this case would still qualify had it happened there, because she was a participant and co-conspirator in the crime and not just a person acting otherwise lawfully who should have reasonably known that her acts could lead to harm.

[Kentonio]

442. You are quite correct, I mistakenly though the law had been changed a while ago.

It's still extremely controversial in the U.K. it seems, amongst the few people who actually know it exists there.

[EX500rider]

418. "Guess who also has the highest murder rates.."

Actually the US homicide rate at 3.9 per 100,000 isn't very far off the European avg of 3.0

By region
Rates are calculated per 100,000 inhabitants.
UNODC murder rates, most recent year
Region Rate Count
Americas 16.3 157,000
Africa 12.5 135,000
World 6.2 437,000
Europe 3.0 22,000
Oceania 3.0 1,100
Asia 2.9 122,000

And I think the rate is more culturally driven then economically/politically driven or Asia wouldn't be the lowest, lots of poor people in that part of the world.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

[NutmegYankee]

423. Actually, Australia still has this in legal codes, so it's not just the USA.

[HoneyBadger]

43. She (getaway car driver) got charged with 3 counts of 1st degree murder

Her day did not go as planned.

[Bucky]

86. That said, she did okay compared to her passangers

unless she was their uber driver. That'd be F'd up.

[EL34x4]

324. There's growing support for the AR-15 as a home defense weapon.

Light, easy to use, low recoil but most important, lessened over-penetration risk. This is important if you live in the 'burbs and don't want rounds going into your neighbors' homes.

[LexVegas]

19. There are no warning shots if you break into my house. nt

[NWCorona]

26. Same here! Come into my house like that and all bets are off.

[HoneyBadger]

46. You are supposed say excuse me while I whip this out (while leering at the 3 guys in black)

Then you shoot into your ceiling, if they continue to approach (one at a time like in superhero movies), you shoot the knife out of their hands and maybe one in the foot.

Most home defense gunfire take place at under 10' distance and is over in a couple of seconds.

This was a rural community, some would have you believe that they are inherently safe.

[nil desperandum]

118. This is the

correct answer, warning shot could end up in a bystander take aim and do what's required to end the threat to your life.

I've been in this situation, armed with a pistol not a rifle and I wasn't charged either for acting in self defense. I'm glad I lived as did my family, but I would have far preferred to have never had to be placed in this situation in the first place.

Don't do B & Es, it's not worth it when the homeowner is armed. Don't drive people to commit crimes, if you do expect a poor outcome at some point whether that outcome is decades in jail or death in a house or driveway.

I still carry concealed today, entering my home in any fashion other than through the front door with an invitation is a really bad choice.

[bekkilyn]

139. Agreed, so best not to break in in the first place. (nt)

[Kittycow]

27. I have a small handgun for self-defense. ..

but my plan is still to exit out the window if I hear someone breaking in.

[hack89]

41. What about your family? Your kids?

If you live alone your plan is reasonable.

[exboyfil]

54. Exiting might be a bad move as well

Fortify in a room if you can get your whole family in and call 911. More difficult if your family is in other rooms.

You don't know who is outside or whether the intruder can catch you outside as well. I would take my chances inside a door.

The son probably should have stayed in a room unless he thought other family members where in danger.

Of course by even having a gun in your hand who can be shot by LEO with no warrant/no identification. Just see recent case - http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/03/17/appeals_court_rules_officer_who_killed_man_in_his_own_home_cannot_be_sued.html

[Kittycow]

128. Just me in the back bedroom.

ETA: if trucker hubby is home, it's a different story. However this is a good reminder for me to reacquaint myself with Oregon laws since I'm not so sure that he can just shoot an intruder with impunity like hubby thinks that he can.

[Crunchy Frog]

28. I'd likely do the same thing. If I had that kind of weaponry.

I honestly can't condemn the resident. You break into someone's home, masked and armed, you've got a high expectation of being met with lethal force.

[get the red out]

30. Self-defense

Is fine with me. I know that will make people angry, but that's my opinion. Breaking into people's homes has its risks, as it should.

Also, a really good way to scare people away from Liberal ideas in general is to infer that they shouldn't have a right to defend themselves in their own homes.

[nil desperandum]

121. This makes sense

indeed the mission of groups like Pink Pistols is to get a minority community to be comfortable with a firearm for defense.

A well trained individual with a firearm is less likely to be victimized.

It always seemed a progressive ideal to me that everyone is capable of their own defense, especially in a society where the courts have already set a precedent that the police do not have a mandate to protect you from criminals.

[bekkilyn]

187. Makes sense to me too

One reason why if "gun control" were my only political issue, I'd vote Republican. I wish liberals in general would back off on the whole gun control thing and instead promote gun safety and training. People are never going to give up their guns unless all the criminals give theirs up first.

[Jim Beard]

469. Itsn't gun control Gun Saftey with government mandates.

Aren't all the laws so far for safety? I think that purchasing should include a simple one evening one hour instruction/discussion that isn't how to operate a hand gun, but how to use it in certain situations. Like at home with family and you know all family members are accounted for. Or if you spouse is at home and you decided to sneak in with out bothering her. Or like me being an old codger and remembering I now have grandkids around or I have had a medical emergency and the silent pendent sends for the paramedic.

Then what to do outside the house. and more.

[Yo_Mama]

266. True - I don't see what is liberal about the idea that criminals should have impunity.

I never have. I never will.

I was raised in the Mennonite tradition, but WWII and the massacre of millions who were no threat prevent me from being fully Mennonite. I can accept that I should lay down my life, but I could never expect someone else to do so, and sadly, there was another person involved - the father.

I still follow most of the ways and rules, but I can not accept that it was either right or dutiful to exercise non-violence against the Nazis. God did not want those people dead.

The essence of being liberal, to me, is to recognize that each life has value of its own. If one person (or three, or 50 million) do not agree, then I see nothing liberal about expecting the best to sacrifice their lives to the worst. That just leads to more deaths.

I think all those who think it is wrong to defend immediate aggression against life with violence either do so out of some sort of religious principle (even if they don't think it is religious - it's axiomatic), or are basically illiberal.

[Metsie Casey]

32. Bang bang

[link:

|

[Saboburns]

33. There is only one moral to this story.

If you break into someone's house you may get shot dead.

Just as it should be. I was taught this as a little boy.

[liquid diamond]

35. I'm tired of hearing accounts of families

being kidnapped, tortured, raped, and then murdered by criminals in their homes. I have no problem with what that kid did to those burglars.

[Metsie Casey]

39. Yes. Ditto

[Jonny Appleseed]

72. Where do you hear those accounts?

I suspect from prime time tv shows?

[LexVegas]

74. Their door was the one they found that was unlocked...

http://wtkr.com/2017/01/18/richmond-family-remembered-the-day-their-killer-is-scheduled-for-execution/

[Jonny Appleseed]

91. Ricky Gray intended to murder people an planned as such

He wasn't a burglar and his methodology differs from the criminals in the above article. He met with his victims beforehand and in some cases tricked them into letting him in. Using anecdotal evidence to say that all criminals could be crazy spree-murdering torturers is unfounded. I just find it eerily similar to how rightwingers take specific crimes committed by Muslims and immigrants and inflate them to apply to all any and all cases.

It's a collapse of our civility to assume everyone could be something evil and sinister. There have been cases where people have been caught shoplifting and blasted the store owner who confronts them over it with lead. That doesn't mean the store owner should shoot them with a 12-gauge as soon as he sees them pocket a pack of gum. Obviously I'm engaging in hyperbole and I can't say one way or another whether the situation in the OP was truly unavoidable, but I'm worried about the "he's a criminal, hence subhuman" mentality that I see a lot of people displaying. That's a very scary attitude, especially in the era we are currently entering, where police corruption is reaching new heights and the right is trying to shift our country into a police state. Think about how crimes could be twisted in a way that largely innocent people and/or good people are metaphorically burned at the stake by the feverish masses. Scary.

[LexVegas]

105. "I'm tired of hearing accounts of families being kidnapped, tortured, raped, and then murdered....

by criminals in their homes."

"Where do you hear those accounts?"

[Yupster]

305. Google the Wichita Massacre

That's about the worst one I've ever read about.

[Jim Beard]

478. I know of one that happened in a town I lived in nearby.

It really happened but they caught them and later they escaped from jail and all the sherrifs, highway patrols, and city cops were in on the action in two states. They finally found them hiding in a dumpster.

Yes, these things do happen. I have some property outside of town and lots of machinery outside and I never have any problems until I tell people to meet me there several times. Once they know about it, one will return at night.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

281. "Could be?"

If you kick down the door of my house, you "are" something evil and sinister.

[liquid diamond]

148. Bullshit. You think home invasions and murder don't happen in real life?

https://www.washingtonian.com/2016/05/01/dc-savopoulos-mansion-murders-why-hasnt-anyone-else-been-arrested/

https://www.google.com/amp/radaronline.com/exclusives/2011/09/michaela-petit-sexual-assault-testimony-joshua-komisarjevsky-connecticut-murder/amp/

[former9thward]

37. No one fires warning shots.

And they shouldn't. No one on this board was there but based on the story the son did nothing wrong.

[Bucky]

57. I agree, but...

I won't be surprised when more facts come in, complicating this simple story of home-defense.

[ADX]

38. If the report is accurate...

...then I see nothing wrong with this. If they had broken into my house, I'd have shot them too.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes

[AJT]

44. The shooting may have been justified, the young man was probably

terrified, but he has to live with killing 3 teenagers for the rest of his life.

[GulfCoast66]

45. The real tragedy here

Is that 3 people in the prime of their lives feel the need to resort to armed forced entry into a home.

Anyone care to guess the state of support of children and adolescents in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma?

Think they have great schools where children are taught to their potential. Or services for the less privileged to make up for the lack of opportunities they are offered by their families? Generous food stamp and school lunch and after school meals to help the poor spend their scant resources on something to help improve their lot long term. A high minimum wage that actually facilitates class movement?

You think the well off devote time and money to those less privileged and teach their kids we are all the same.

I would guess no to all of the above. But I bet they all love Jesus and the NRA.

Not excusing what they did. I own and use guns. If 3 armed people broke into my house I would not hesitate to shoot as I have a family to protect.

But it is too bad so much of our society is still rooted in Calvinist think about sinners having to pay a price.

[HoneyBadger]

48. If you look at the pictures of the house in news reports, it seems like a really well off area

Which is not to say that they are not children in need within driving distance, there almost always are.

[GulfCoast66]

61. No doubt

I am from this kind of town, admittedly never been to this part of Oklahoma. You often have a relatively small percentage of the residents living a very nice life, a small percentage getting by and a huge number living in poverty.

The almost exact thing happened to a cousin of mine in Arkansas. Very well off family in a very poor small town. Armed intruders broke in on he and his young teen daughter. Fortunately he kept them calm and the stole what the could and his SUV. They caught the kids who lived not 2 miles away. But in abject poverty.

The girl still has issues 10 years later. Had my cousin had a gun handy he would have shot them.

[Kentonio]

191. Great post.

[jmg257]

76. Well then these perps were perfect game...figure they would know better.

Maybe the 1st few jobs didn't go so bad.

[DFW]

89. That kind of stereotype about us Southerners

...brings about just the sort of cleft among progressives that warms the extremist right's hateful hearts.

[Jonny Appleseed]

94. Well that's fine and dandy if I don't share my opinion with rightwingers and just post it on

sites like DU

[AtheistCrusader]

293. DU is publicly indexed on search engines and accessible to view by anyone. And they are watching.

Fortunately we have enforcement mechanisms via the TOS to eliminate some fuel that some provide them.

[Kali]

171. there are some nasty stereotypes of northerners too

rude behavior being one of the biggest.

[LexVegas]

116. That's not a progressive. nt

[cwydro]

146. What utter tripe. nt

[bekkilyn]

161. I hope you are making an attempt at a joke. (nt)

[Kali]

167. You might want to delete that nasty bigotry.

Alerted.

Jonny Appleseed (542 posts)
66. That stereotype that people in the South wait for people to break in just so

they can hunt humans for sport is mostly based in reality.

[Go Vols]

189. South of what? Oregon?

APPLE VALLEY, Calif. (KABC) --
A homeowner shot and killed an alleged intruder early Wednesday morning at a residence in Apple Valley, authorities said.

The incident, in which a man shot another man, occurred at about 1:40 a.m. in the 16000 block of Pauhaska Road, the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department said.

[Marengo]

193. Can you provide the research h data to back that claim?

[safeinOhio]

71. Know a guy that shot an intruder and killed him.

Terrible mess cleaning up all of that blood. Still spent $10k on lawyers, Has nightmares and lots of calls from the intruders' friends saying they are going to get him.

I agree with actions to save your life and family,but start with cheap home security. For a couple hundred bucks, way less than an AR-15. Cameras, fortified doors and windows, a panic alarm and a safe room that you can get everyone in with a phone to call police. Thats where I keep my fire arms unloaded and in a safe. If anyone was to try and kick in the door on my safe room, 911 would have everything recorded and there would be no questions in court. To be safe, it begins way before they get in the house. If this is random, no drugs or gangs, robbers look for the easy one and don't want to stick around when the motion lights come on and the alarms start screaming.

Way better to be smart than be a tuff guy.

[Jonny Appleseed]

75. That's an actual good point

Many people would rather spend money on a killing tool/cure to their impotence than a security system that is far more effective. I can't think of a more descriptive word than "gungho".

[Amishman]

88. Unfortunately good home security costs a lot more than a gun

My cousin was blabbing on Facebook about some radical new AR15 he bought for $400 a few weeks ago. A single good security door costs more than that, even if you install it yourself.

Maybe we should have tax subsidies for home security upgrades like we do for energy efficiency upgrades

[HoneyBadger]

95. My house was broken into

I have

Windows
Wood doors
2 car garage with typical doors and access to the house
Many many unfenced acres
A very long driveway
Tastefully done new construction center hall colonial.

Could have demolished the whole thing and put up a concrete box with no windows on top of stilts.

Nah. Got an alarm system. If it gets broken into again, the cops are there within 45 minutes.

[Amishman]

100. While better than nothing, the alarm and police response time would not help if you are home

[HoneyBadger]

104. Exactly

My country house is in the country, my next door neighbor has over 100 acres, I see him maybe 4 times a year. The police station is quite far away. The alarm signage is supposed to be the deterrent. If anything happens, I am on my own. Big difference from the city, where I am 1 block from multiple Starbucks.

[COLGATE4]

339. The problem, as I see it, is what are you going

to be doing during the 45 minutes it takes for the cops to arrive?

[safeinOhio]

433. Use to be married to a cop

and I can tell you how to get them there real quick. Tell dispatch that someone is breaking in and that are armed and will shoot. Then you get a double Code Red.

[Jonny Appleseed]

96. Yeah that makes sense too.

Gun control legislation in the form of subsidies for home security upgrades may actually come across well. "Wanna protect your family? How about turning your house into a impregnable fortress instead of buying a gun that you may not be able to get to in time?" that would really be a thorn in the side of people spouting the phony "protect your family" talking points (when it's really just about the NRA wanting money).

[anneboleyn]

99. Many people have both. Alarms are a great "surprise," but the police respond VERY SLOWLY to

house alarms if they respond at all. All of the houses in our area now and in my neighborhood when I was growing up have alarms. That didn't stop robberies. An alarm going off alerts the residents and will startle away the ordinary burglar but not other types who know very well that the police MIGHT respond in thirty minutes or so or not at all. And the other types are the ones to worry about.

[Jonny Appleseed]

101. I think people have become numb to the alarm noise

I'd hook it up to an air raid siren that cycles "ALERT: INTRUDERS HAVE ENTERED THE PREMISE, PLEASE NOTIFY LAW ENFORCEMENT"
Even burglars are people and our society has essentially bred us to fear that siren noise. I think the police would respond quicker if they get calls from a dozen of your neighbors too.

[Jim Beard]

479. I remember the police at that time of increased security systems being installed, responded to

excessive amounts of FALSE alarms.

[Yupster]

306. I don't know

His gun was pretty effective. Would a security system have been more effective|?

[Hoyt]

276. +1.

[NutmegYankee]

278. Safe rooms are an Upper Class luxury.

Back in reality, most homes (typically post war construction) can't waste such space.

[safeinOhio]

284. Mine is a closet

I live in 1,000sf home.

[NutmegYankee]

285. A closet isn't a safe room. A safe room requires reinforced walls and door.

And that will require reinforcing the floor and wall for added weight, an expensive retrofit for an older home.

[safeinOhio]

298. Or a closet with

3 inch screws in the hinges, a box that wedges in front of the door to make it very hard to kick it in. If some one gets past that, I have my single shot, 12 g, goose gun. Please google "cheap home security". It really doesn't cost much to help make sure you're safe.

[NutmegYankee]

323. Wooden door I take it.

Honestly, I'd rather not run into a confined place that wasn't shielded and bullet proof. If someone came charging in, I'd probably go for the two pound tool in the night stand just like I'd go for the window breaking tool in the center console of the car if I drove into water. The actual odds of using both is probably the same. In the house scenario, I have multiple windows in the bedroom as a last resort.

[safeinOhio]

328. Bet it would stop

a couple of kids with a pair of brass knuckles and a knife.

[NutmegYankee]

329. Depends on the door.

The police officer in my family is adamant that wooden doors are easily kicked apart.

I'm sure the tool I have would also stop these kids, even just the sight alone. Unlike in public, there is no brandishing law for inside the home.

[Hangingon]

506. How does that goosegun deploy in the closet?

You shoot blindly and they empty a 15 round mag into your closet door. Not my idea of a safe room or a defense strategy.

[benEzra]

430. I'd love to know where I could get two cameras, two fortified doors, alarms, and a safe room

for a couple hundred bucks. Or $500, the cost of a basic AR-15 or used Mini-14.

I'd also point out that having a hardened home, a dog, and a gun aren't mutually exclusive.

[Orsino]

78. "Burglars" says WaPo, but the local story says intruders.

Three death sentences for a B&E, but only two bodies in the house. And a felony murder charge for the accomplice who didn't kill anyone and may not have set foot on the property?

Laws are stupid.

[get the red out]

103. Laws aren't stupid

The "bodies" could have easily been the innocent people in the home. Waaaaaa, cry cry cry for the poor "accomplice", right.

[Orsino]

113. Yes, laws are stupid.

Especially a law that allows someone who wasn't there to be charged with something called murder.

[get the red out]

115. Day in court

Laws provide for everyone to have their day in court, and an attorney.

[Orsino]

122. Yep. Laws are stupid...

...but no law can be even stupider.

There will be a day in court, on which a prosecutor may "encourage" someone who may not ever have been at the scene to plead guilty to an arbitrary "felony murder" charge, when someone else pulled the trigger.

Laws are made by people, people who are often stupid. My hope is that this perp is charged only for what she did do, or conspire to do.

[Baconator]

363. I refer you to my earlier post...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028861876#post355

[yagotme]

499. "Laws are made by people, people who are often stupid."

Mind if I keep this for future reference? Might go good with the next gun ban push.

[Orsino]

502. There's a pithier version:

Legal =! moral.

[benEzra]

426. She *recruited* three people, two of them minors, to conduct an armed home invasion robbery.

And then drove them to the home she had cased. Yes, she is culpable.

http://kfor.com/2017/03/30/more-details-released-on-oklahoma-home-invasion-that-left-three-teen-suspects-dead/amp/

Rodriguez was supposed to be the getaway driver, but investigators say she fled the scene after hearing gunshots.

If someone dies in the commission of a felony, Oklahoma law allows all suspects to be charged with murder, even if they did not actually kill anyone.

According to the Tulsa World, Rodriguez told authorities she planned the burglary of the home and dropped off the three teens and waited outside while they entered the home.

[HoneyBadger]

427. Hopefully she turns her life around

I happened to Google my kid's friend once. She was in the papers a couple of years ago because she was born in jail as her mother was still handcuffed to the bed. Perfectly nice family these days. Great story of rehabilitation. But back then, watch out.

[benEzra]

429. I agree, and she'll certainly have time to reflect.

This would definitely be a wake-up call about one's life choices. She'll have to live with the knowledge that she led those three to their deaths.

[jmg257]

150. Home invaders don't typically get much protection from the law. Your home, your castle.

Armed Robbery isn't taken lightly.

And especially not in someone else's home.

[Orsino]

163. Stories don't say that anything was stolen.

I can well believe that robbery was the motive, and I can't really begrudge the homeowner's being armed. I don't like laws that indemnify the shooter in advance, though, or that killing all the intruders means that no one can testify to an excessive use of deadly force.

"Your home, your castle" is not a blanket rule, not excusing, say, child/spouse abuse. Testosterone-fueled get tough" laws can be too easily invoked to cover hasty or even malicious killing.

If it were to turn out that all the deceased were shot in the back, or that no weapon other than the AR-15 had been brandished? That the intruders were fleeing before any shots were fired? Even the most ardent self-defense advocates should question such an outcome. There may be no witnesses left alive who could tell us what really happened.

Lots of questions, many rendered unanswerable by what may hasty decisions made by an amateur.

[jmg257]

168. Nothing stolen? I wonder why. Seems they didn't make it too far passed breaking through the door.

Castle laws in regards to intruders in someone's home are great laws and always will be the law. Even states like NY, you have no duty to retreat in your home.

Most self-defense advocates will usually give the benefit of the doubt to the potential victim(s). While something nefarious may come out, I don't expect to see it.

In the mean time, those whom are afraid of being shot while invading someone's home should find something better to do.

[Orsino]

192. The witnesses to anything nefarious are likely dead.

That's my main beef.

An AR-15 is a suboptimal weapon for home defense. The possession of such a thing, and that it could be loaded and brought to bear in the situation described speaks to me of an eagerness to use it. That's my other beef, and it may remain only a suspicion--again, because the shooter ensured that no one is likely to testify otherwise.

[jmg257]

199. Yes they are, though the home owners are there too. The AR was suboptimal?! 3-0 would say otherwise.

While I admit it wouldn't be my 1st choice, it is clearly a very viable option...its a semi-auto with likely a decent size mag.

I couldn't a-test to the victim's 'eagerness', though it seems a good thing for him that he clearly had a plan, involving the AR. From being asleep to successfully defending himself against multiple intruders...it worked out.

Just in case the masks, the knife, the breaking in, the female driver witness, and the shooter and resident's testimonies aren't enough, I imagine the police will have to do their job and investigate if something was off or not.

[AtheistCrusader]

233. The fact that one of the invaders was injured, but managed to escape and expire outside tells me

the victims response was not over-the top. It would seem he stopped firing when the threat was removed.

[jmg257]

238. Good point!

[Orsino]

387. It tells us no such thing. n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

404. Absent any claim he fired at him from the window, it does.

[Orsino]

415. Absent any such information, it doesn't. n/t

[Marengo]

202. Firearms in the home should NOT be readily available for home defense?

[Orsino]

388. That doesn't follow.

An AR-15, however, is designed to work at range. For portability and speed in close quarters, a handgun is going to have an edge.

[Straw Man]

412. Wrong again.

An AR-15, however, is designed to work at range.

An AR-15 is an intermediate-range rifle. Of course, any rifle is a longer-range weapon than any handgun, but the development of the AR (like the AK, et al) was driven by the recognition that for small arms, volume of fire is more important than effective range. Therefore, lightness (of rifle as well as ammo) and rate of fire are valued over range. Goodbye .30-06 and .308 "battle rifles" and hello .223/5.56 M-16.

For portability and speed in close quarters, a handgun is going to have an edge.

Handguns are more portable, but are also much more difficult to shoot accurately. Short-barreled rifles are very portable and maneuverable, and have a rate-of-fire that matches that of handguns. If rifles are so inappropriate for close-quarters engagement, why do law-enforcement breaching teams really on them so heavily?

[Orsino]

414. Not wrong at all.

If the shooting in question had all happened out in the yard, I might concur. For shooting and maneuvering room to room, a rifle is awkward--and for frightening off an intruder who may not have a weapon in hand, faster is better.

[Straw Man]

417. I'll ask again.

If the shooting in question had all happened out in the yard, I might concur. For shooting and maneuvering room to room, a rifle is awkward--and for frightening off an intruder who may not have a weapon in hand, faster is better.

If rifles are so awkward, why do tactical-entry teams use them?



And what do you mean by "faster"? Rate of fire? Or are you suggesting that a person can move faster through a house with a handgun than with a short, light rifle? If there is any difference, it's marginal at best.

[Orsino]

450. That's for pros, and offensive use in home invasion.

Big magazines are a definite plus, if one's goal is to make sure all the casualties are on the other side.

[Straw Man]

453. Doubling down on wrong?

That's for pros, and offensive use in home invasion.

Big magazines are a definite plus, if one's goal is to make sure all the casualties are on the other side.

Pros have to move and clear rooms. Home defenders don't; their job is to hunker down and not get killed. If anything, the "unwieldy" nature of rifles would be more of a concern to the pros. Apparently, it isn't an issue. An M1 Garand is "unwieldy"; an AR carbine is not.

A rifle is easier to shoot accurately than a pistol, whether you are a novice or a pro. This is a fact.

Furthermore, police use of deadly force is never supposed to be "offensive" -- i.e. they're not supposed to be shooting people who aren't threatening them with deadly force, and collateral damage (through overpenetration, etc.) is anathema. Their weaponry is chosen with that in mind.

Yes, big magazines are a plus, for home defenders as well, who certainly would want to make sure that "all the casualties are on the other side."

[EX500rider]

509. "Big magazines are a definite plus, if one's goal is to make sure all the casualties are on....

............ the other side."

When would that not be a goal exactly?

[Orsino]

529. When one doesn't seriously expect a combat situation to develop.

A homeowner with an AR-15 might or might not have been expecting a break-in, and may or may not have had any combat training in its use.

A Rambo might keep big magazines around, or even a casual target shooter without any plans ever to have to use it to shoot intruders.

[benEzra]

428. If someone breaks into your house, your job isn't to go room to room and clear it.

Ideally, the gun is there to protect you and your family while the *police* come to clear it. And for defense rather than offense, nothing beats a long gun for precision under stress.

My house has a very narrow hallway and fairly narrow room doors, and a 16" barreled AR with an adjustable stock and light isn't unmanageable. The AR isn't as handy as a Tavor, much less a pistol, but is handier than a Title 1 shotgun and a lot easier to shoot accurately under stress than a pistol. The small, fragile rounds are less likely to exit an exterior wall and endanger one's neighbors than handgun rounds or 00 buckshot are, assuming intelligent choice of load.

[Orsino]

451. A rifle is definitely to be preferred at range with open fields of fire.

Someone whose first instinct is to grab an AR-15 may not be a planner, or could be a prepper who knows exactly what load to yse and where to station himself.

What we have are three dead bodies, and a lot of people eager for us to stop asking questions. The law may be ready to indemnify the killer, but if the lives of the deceased mattered at all, I would hope a clearer picture emerges of their last moments and motivations. I would like to believe that this was necessary self-defense. Hell, I admire minimal application of force. Amateurs don't often have that option, but the law in its wisdom loves arming them anyway.

[Jim Beard]

480. I believe these people have extensive training and they....

also have each others back. I am taking the side that recommends a pistol in close quarters plus it is easier for the intruder to grab the rifle barrel and take it away from the home owner.

[Straw Man]

482. Pistols vs. rifles.

I believe these people have extensive training and they....

also have each others back. I am taking the side that recommends a pistol in close quarters plus it is easier for the intruder to grab the rifle barrel and take it away from the home owner.

At any level of training, a rifle is easier to shoot accurately than a pistol. That is beyond dispute.

As has been said repeatedly in this thread, someone defending his/her home should not be moving around clearing rooms. The intruder cannot grab your rifle if you're hunkered down in the bedroom with it, preferably behind a heavy piece of furniture.

[Jim Beard]

488. You are assuming you are the only one at home. What about the children, are

you going to let them fend for themselves?

[Straw Man]

489. In this case, the man was home alone.

You are assuming you are the only one at home. What about the children, are

you going to let them fend for themselves?

I have no children. I live alone. If I did not, I would sit down with my family and develop an emergency protocol: what to do and where to go in case of an emergency. You do realize, I hope, that pistols too can overpenetrate, and you will be putting family at risk even with a pistol if you don't know where everyone is in a worst-possible-case scenario.

I repeat: Home defenders should make every effort to avoid a room-clearing scenario.

[Marengo]

204. This case would seem to suggest the AR-15 is very effective for home/self defense, if the...

Investigation does find it to be so. Not my first choice for a home defense firearm, but three dead perps with no injury to the shooter seems unlikely to be considered a "suboptimal" outcome.

[AtheistCrusader]

232. You have no idea what you are talking about.

An AR-15 is perfectly suited to such a situation, and is precisely my go-to weapon. 5.56 NATO isn't going to go through too many walls, so it's a hell of a lot safer for my neighbors than if I grab the Garand. Also, it's shorter in length so sweeping through the house is a hell of a lot easier and safer.

Among the various options for long guns, an AR-15 is just about brilliant for this purpose. Takes a fraction of a second to load once it's removed from the safe.

[HoneyBadger]

240. An AR-15 is a suboptimal weapon for home defense???

Maybe

But

1) They are about 1/3 of their former price. Affordability is a big part of home defense
2) They have proven reliability vs most semi handguns like Glocks
3) The standard capacity is 30 rounds vs 5 or 6 in a shotgun or revolver. When you have 3 burglars in your house, and 1 outside, 5 shots means that you can miss once, hit 3-4 times and then have a single shot left if you are lucky, not very safe
4) They always penetrate clothing. Last year at an NYPD shooting, some of their shots bounced off of a Carhartt jacket.

The main issue is that they are unwieldy, almost as unwieldy as the often recommended shotgun.

http://nypost.com/2016/05/19/nypd-checking-ammo-after-knifemans-jacket-stops-cops-bullets/

[Orsino]

389. So, definitely suboptimal.

Unwieldy is not a great selling point.

But they've got incredible stopping power, and outdoors can cover a huge field of fire. Room to room, as in this case, it was as you say unwieldy.

[HoneyBadger]

393. Shotguns, which are always recommended, are even worse

They have shorter range and have longer barrels (by law) than rifles such as AR15's. Pistols generally need a lot more practice to achieve similar accuracy. As always, a negative for some is a pro for others. And people have different abilities. In the hands of an MLB pitcher who has never seen a gun, a baseball is probably his best form of defense.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

283. Three criminals against one homeowner

That's enough to warrant shooting, imo. And the law definitely agrees.

[Old Vet]

211. Not that I wouldnt do the same thing, But this story doesnt pass the smell test.....

I do feel sorry for the parents of the kids who died, And I certainly don't think these kids were pros. What a waste of life.

[Orsino]

217. Yeah, shitty situation.

A number of things had to go badly wrong before anyone committed a crime or injured another. Justice not served.

[sarisataka]

220. So given the actual outcome

What would be justice?

[AtheistCrusader]

234. Self Defense has NOTHING to do with Justice.

They are not relatable terms.

Self Defense is off the table when the threat stops. (Say the perp lays down and stops moving)
Justice still has yet to be done even in that situation, because a crime has been committed. No one is justified in shooting a prone, surrendering invader.

There is no linkage between self defense and justice. None at all.

[Orsino]

392. Except that killing rather precludes any other form of justice.

So many things had to fail for the situation to have occurred at all. The shooter might have been taking the best possible course of action, for an amateur at least, but we'll likely never know.

[AtheistCrusader]

401. When humanity finds a way to reliably halt an attacker without killing them

that point might be more meaningful. Currently, using the level of force reasonably required to make the threat stop, is acceptable, up to and including either Justifiable Homicide or Excusable Homicide depending on your state laws. 'Precluding' justice doesn't matter, because as long as in the moment, lethal force is justifiable, then an excusable homicide that needs no prosecution is an acceptable outcome.

[Orsino]

416. Or reliably raise children to adulthood free of poverty and drug addiction.

Guns are mostly useful only when it's too late for holistic solutions.

[HoneyBadger]

419. These kids did not appear to suffer from either poverty or drug addiction

[Orsino]

448. Perhaps neither directly nor indirectly.

Difficult to say.

[AtheistCrusader]

431. I would say 'useful for situations where holistic solutions are unworkable'.

The gun appears to have functioned fine.
The user appears, on first reported evidence, to have reacted lawfully.

That's as deep as we need to actually go. Unless investigation turns up something interesting.

[Orsino]

449. "Lawful" is not the end of a conversation.

"Moral" is another topic, one which may take precedence.

[AtheistCrusader]

455. I don't second-guess victims. If the response is lawful, it is by definition moral.

If it was legally unjustifiable, then it would also must needs be immoral.

This is how we ended up with 'Castle Doctrine' laws in the US. People would be cleared as having used deadly force in self-defense for justifiable reasons, and therefore not charged, or cleared by a grand jury. Then they spend the next 2-5 years and tens of thousands of dollars defending themselves in civil court from various 'you did an immoral thing and I'm mad' lawsuits. Frankly, those people can go fuck themselves.

But the side effect is this: in passing legal protections against civil suits where no crime was committed in the act of using deadly force in self defense, they ALSO altered, in the case of some states, who/how much investigation is done into whether the act was justifiable. I think it should go to a grand jury, because it IS important that we know if the act was legally justifiable.

But lawyers/assholes pulled the pendulum too far one way, conservative lawmakers decided to pull the pendulum the other way, and we end up with castle doctrine laws preventing justice for people like Trayvon Martin. That case should have been decided on the criminal side of the courts. That's where it belonged. But over-reaction to civil suit abuse gave shelter to his killer. And while everyone pushes and pulls the pendulum on the scales of justice, the truth or 'morality' lay in the middle, but no one wants to leave it there.

We really need to fix that state by state now.

[Orsino]

456. The shooting victims deserve a thought.

We have a wide spectrum that includes acts that are moral and legal. Law enforcement and the justice system will also weigh in, and though they will make determinations, they are not infallible.

All shooters should be second-guessed.

[AtheistCrusader]

457. I think they should be second guessed, and a grand jury is the proper venue for that.

I wouldn't call the home invaders victims in this case, based on the public information, but as I included the caveat earlier, that could change. I do note, the police department IS conducting an in-depth analysis to ensure that the use of force was justifiable, and it MAY be sent to a grand jury, or may be recommended for prosecution directly, depending on the specifics of that state's castle doctrine law, and the findings of the investigation.

[Orsino]

459. There are multiple levels of second-guessing.

Heck, even the initial statement to a cop counts.

I like the idea that a grand jury would at least ask questions when three bodies are involved.

[AtheistCrusader]

462. Turns out the getaway driver never heard the phrase 'never talk to the police'.

Shooter is totally in the clear. Even on the kid that died outside. He was DEFINITELY shot inside the house.

Investigators have released her comments. She's cooked. What a dumbass. There will be no plea bargain either.

[sarisataka]

461. There were no shooting victims in this case

Three people were shot but there was only one victim; he happened to have a gun.

[Orsino]

464. I guess no one shot them.

They're just getting erased.

[sarisataka]

465. The victim shot them

You know the victim- he was the person not committing a violent felony.

That the choices these kids made led to their deaths is tragic, it does not change the fact that they were armed criminals. They are not the victims.

[Orsino]

477. (There can be more than one victim.)

(And sometimes perps become perps because they are also victims.)

[yagotme]

564. I think what you are trying to say is this:

The perps were victimized by the victim who perpetrated the shooting of the perps, turning them into shooting victims, by the victim who defended himself from the perps. I think.

[Orsino]

567. We just don't know whether or not there was good justification for the shooter's killing 3 people.

But they were shooting victims.

[yagotme]

570. That's pretty much of what I was saying in my post.

They got shot. Therefore, they are victims of a shooting. Unfortunately, breaking into someone's home, wearing ski masks, while armed, will not necessarily go your way every time.

Just the basics, 3 against one, B&E, masked, armed (although I don't know if the resident knew of this at time of shooting, but am giving benefit of doubt), "having words", ("Leave?" "Get out?&quot , I have to side with the homeowner. 3 individuals that really want to, can make your life miserable really quick inside an enclosed area. The capability of the AR to provide semi-automatic fire, coupled with a "standard" magazine, seemed to be the best answer at the time.

[Orsino]

571. We don't have to side with anyone based on such incomplete information.

Seems pretty clear that they had planned burglary or robbery, but it's not clear whether they foresaw any sort of confrontation, or brandished their weapons. I guess it's clear, also, that the homeowner was justified in going for a weapon, but did he really need to shoot even one, let alone all three? It looks unlikely that the law will delve more deeply given the statements of the homeowner and the accomplice, and that seems unfortunate, sending a not-so-subtle message that killing intruders is always fully justified.

That's a troubling message.

[yagotme]

574. On the information that has been provided,

if I was asked to go one way or the other, I would have to side with the person in the home. Even just 3 against 1, discounting the knife and knuckles, isn't a "fair" fight. And if you're in your home, and somebody breaks in, yes, I feel you have the right to defend yourself and property. If they didn't turn around and leave at the first sight of the homeowner, armed or not, I can't shed any tears for the perps. Yes, "stuff" can be replaced, but the homeowner could never know exactly how far the perps would go. You don't know, until they do it. Too many instances of home invasion go from robbery, to assault, to even murder. You can't know what's in the person's heart that is breaking down your door. As soon as they commit to doing the crime, they are a criminal as far as I'm concerned. They were armed, and he was armed. He was just armed better.

[Orsino]

576. Well, heck. I guess if we can't choose sides based on incomplete nformation...

...then the terrorists have truly won.

If I have to pick a side, it would be "keep asking questions." How many weapons actually saw use, for a start.

[yagotme]

577. As I stated in my post,

if I HAD to pick a side, with only the current information, dot dot dot.

And for your weapons answer, one, obviously was used. Otherwise the homeowner would have reported stab/slash wounds, or impact wounds. It seems he didn't allow the perps to get close enough to use them. Nor would I.

[Orsino]

579. Supposedly, at least one of the intruders was armed.

I would hope we can learn whether any weapon (other than the AR-15) was used or even brandished, and whether the intruders were already fleeing before the shooting started. These answers might change our opinions of the shooter's actions.

[yagotme]

580. I heard brass knuckles and a knife were recovered at the scene from the perps,

but haven't heard if they had them displayed or not. Forensics will tell the direction/placement of fire from the homeowner. Entrance wounds look different than exit wounds. If all shots were frontals, I'd still have to go with a good defensive shoot.

[oneshooter]

548. In Texas if you are found to be

innocent or not guilty by a court of law (jury or judge only trial) or no-billed by a Grand Jury you can not be sued.

[AtheistCrusader]

229. Why? Based on the information available, everything worked as expected.

[onenote]

381. Now that more facts are out, do you stand by your uninformed opinion?

[beachbum bob]

79. I have no sympathy for criminals and would do the same if some one broke into my house

criminals took the risk....and the home owner reponded

and in Oklahoma for godsake of all place to break into some ones property

[ileus]

82. The AR makes an excellent HD firearm.

[NWCorona]

120. Depends on the rounds used and the training of the owner.

I personally don't like going around corners and through doorways with a long barrel.

[benEzra]

309. The best approach is to shelter in place, call out a verbal warning, and call 911.

Unless there are children in the house you have to get to (and my kids' rooms are adjacent to mine), you don't necessarily have to do a lot of moving. Defense of home is a big reason why 16" barrels (or 14.5" and pinned FS) are more popular these days than 20", even though 20" is ballistically superior.

[jeanmarc]

83. You invade a home that is occupied, you get what you get

Maybe the fire power is excessive, but damn, if you come into my house while I'm in it, I'm going to brain you with a baseball bat or fire poker.

Thieves need to rob houses when people aren't in them. Anything else is going to cause something like this. I have no pity on these idiots.

[WinkyDink]

85. No sympathy for the Devil. Break-in, armed gang of thugs----Should

people prefer they had been able to overpower the young resident, as was obviously their plan?

HELL, no.

[nini]

90. I can't fault the owner

If they had shot at the intruders after they left the house and were running away we'd have a completely different scenario.

Not sure if there was a warning shot but this is the risk you take for going into someone's home then 'exchanging words' with the occupants.

[anneboleyn]

92. The Cheshire, Connecticut home invasion murders changed my ideas about this forever.

This is exactly when a responsible person should be allowed to own and use a weapon -- to protect his or her family. This case made me lose any starry-eyed vision I ever had about such matters (though honestly I have always supported owning a gun to protect the home as long as it is done as responsibly as humanly possible). I grew up in a wealthy neighborhood that despite security measures would get targeted for robberies. I always tried to be alert and careful.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders

[LexVegas]

108. I hear you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Richmond_spree_murders

[Crabby Appleton]

158. And there was this one in DC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Washington,_D.C.,_mass_killing

[liquid diamond]

222. I just provided a link on that story too. That poor family.

I can't believe some of the shit I'm reading in this thread. Sympathizing with criminals. Smdh.

[sarisataka]

110. This is why we need a database

of all gun owners. It would allow proper risk management that could have saved three lives. They could have selected an unarmed house where folks won't fight back when you wave a knife at them and a couple taps with the brass knucks will ensure they remain cowed. Or at least armed up to be prepared for encountering some Rambo wannabe armed for war.

[linuxman]

117. Nonsense.

I've been assured that this sort of thing never happens.

[Victor_c3]

119. I would have done the same

I won't shed any tears for the intruders. It's not like they were knocking on the door unarmed and asking for help.

The only thing I would criticize is the use of an AR-15 over something more sensible considering the environment. .223 from an AR-15 will penetrate up to 18" of hardwood and potentially g through your walls and into a neighbors home. I'd opt for a weapon with less penetrating power for safety of those not involved.

[benEzra]

310. .223 Remington with civilian loads is about the least penetrating of all effective rounds.

55gr .223 JHP penetrates less in wallboard than 9mm JHP, .45 ACP JHP, and 00 buckshot, and is less lethal after penetrating even one or two walls than any of those. About the only thing that penetrates less wallboard than light .223 JHP is birdshot, and that isn't reliably effective.

Military M855A1 or other highly penetrative loads are a different story, of course, but one of the reasons my preferred HD gun is a .223 is its more limited penetration compared to good alternatives.

[AtheistCrusader]

130. Warning shots are illegal. Full stop.

Please stop furthering that ridiculous and dangerous meme.

[Heddi]

133. I was the victim of a home invasion roughly 9 months ago

at 2am, while my husband and I were sleeping, a complete stranger broke into our home.

Unless you have woke up to the sound of breaking glass, running footsteps and a stranger standing in your doorway at 2am, you have *NO* fucking idea what you would do or feel or say.

I thought I knew -- until it happened to me.

Who is that? why is he here? are there other people? Omg I'm just wearing a t-shirt? Is my husband hurt> Is someone else in the house? Is he going to kill me? is he going to kill my husband? Is he going to rape me? Is he going to make me wish I was dead after it's all done? Who else is in the house?

And all of that in the first 2 seconds of opening my eyes.

Do not even presume to think you know what you would do, say, think, or feel when you have that...it is beyond abject terror. It is a completely unique way of thought that I had never experienced before, and hope to never experience again.

I fully support castle doctrine laws, and am glad I live in a state where our self-defense against the asshole who broke into my house and attempted to kill my husband and I were seen as the justifiable self-defense that it was, and not a single bit of armchair quarterbacking by the police of "why didn't you talk to him" or "you should have sat him down for tea and scones."

In fact, the police told us together and individually that we were lucky we weren't killed by waiting as long as we did to protect ourselves -- that we should have shot the intruder the minute he came in the room.

[LexVegas]

136. What you describe is my worst nightmare. I have 2 daughters....

Which is why I own self-defense firearms.

[Heddi]

137. we had a firearm

that jammed.

We also had a plan b method that did not fail.

Within a week of the break in we upgraded our weapon to one that was less likely to fail, and also had a much greater liklihood of...not failing

[LexVegas]

175. I am glad you came out ok.

I have multiple firearms, and check them regularly.

[NWCorona]

205. Get a good revolver. Those don't jam.

[Heddi]

208. we went to the gun store

and handled and shot numerous guns and got one that we both felt comfortable with, as far as capacity, weight, kick, etc.

[LOL Lib]

140. Thank you!

There is a clear line drawn in the sand when someone enters your home wishing to harm you. Physical harm or monetary harm is irrelevant. Trying to defend the criminal in this scenario is ridiculous. I am so sorry for the trauma you and your family had to endure.

Warning to anyone who wants to enter my home without invitation. Do so at your own risk. Don't blame me when you leave in a body bag.

[hamsterjill]

190. This!!!!

No one knows until they are faced with the actual situation. I crack up at gun owners who claim they will shoot at a thief, turn him/her over and shoot again, etc.

I also crack up at people who think they don't need to protect themselves.

Each and every situation is unique and NO ONE KNOWS how he/she will react in a particular situation until actually faced with that situation. It's easy to be an arm chair quarterback, but a completely different thing to be in real fear of your life without knowing the end game.

I am glad you and your husband are both still here to post about this!

[raccoon]

196. I'm glad you and your family are OK.

And as you said, no one can know what they'd do in that situation until it happens to them.

It's easy to sit back and say what you'd have done when you're not in the situation. The intruders have the element of surprise--you don't.

[Heddi]

254. Exactly.

we were fast asleep. He dove through our window and ran to our bedroom before we even had the time to turn on the light and know what was going on. That light went on to find a complete stranger standing ~4 feet from my side of the bed.

I have never had my brain in such overdrive. I mean I had 17,837,873 thoughts in the span of 2 seconds. It was...unreal. And I wish for no one to ever experience it.

[tallahasseedem]

385. This is my worst nightmare for me and my family...

I am SO happy to hear that everything worked out, but am so sorry that you had to go through all of that!

[58Sunliner]

253. So sorry that you had to go through that. I'm glad you are here.

[Yo_Mama]

262. Glad you survived, hope the trauma gets better. I know a guy who killed three.

He waited as long as he could, until the five intruders separated the girls ... He killed three of them but only opened fire when it became clear that they wouldn't just rob and leave.

It is bad - just not the worst. But still, having to do that....

I hope things get better for you and your husband. I really hope so. It makes it all the worse to have people accusing you of wanting to do it. Twice victimized.

[Warren DeMontague]

142. are we supposed to be mad at the homeowner, here?

I'm confused.

[tammywammy]

144. Apparently to some the homeowner was a blood thirsty savage that couldn't wait to kill

He was just aching for three people to break into his house so he could fulfill his murderous rage.

Or something.

What a strange tread.

[GulfCoast66]

180. But, but...

He was a Southerner with an AR15. He must be the bad guy🙄

[Egnever]

149. Some here seem to think so

Personally I think if you are breaking into someone else's house you are basically handing the owner a license to kill you.

You know that going in and chose to do it anyway that is on you not the home owner.

In a state like Oklahoma where owning a gun gives you street cred you have to be a lunatic to do home invasions.

No sympathy for the dead folks whatsoever here they rolled the dice and lost. Had the owner not had his gun it may have been him dead instead of them.

I hate guns but if you are willing to break into someone else's house you get zero sympathy from me if you wind up dead.

[HoneyBadger]

169. In OK, illegal guns (used in a crime) are as unlawful as illegal knives or brass knuckles

The criminals were not very smart. Had they lived, they would faced weapon charges.

[Vinca]

153. If 3 masked guys dressed in black smashed through my back door, I'd be inclined

to shoot, too. It's amazing how stupid criminals are. With 300 million guns in this country they should have considered what might happen if they violently break into a house.

[greytdemocrat]

357. As would I.

Sorry, you have just picked the
wrong house and made a very
fatal mistake.

[frogmarch]

155. I hate guns, but what was

the homeowner supposed to do?

[Act_of_Reparation]

157. "Warning shots"?

One is legally permitted to fire a weapon in self defense if, and only if, one feels their life is in immediate danger. If you fire into the air, and not your target, then it is self-evident that you did not feel your life to be in immediate danger, and that those shots are not therefore legally justified.

You can be prosecuted for firing shots of into the air. And in some cases the sentence is not light.

[Kaleva]

198. I believe it's illegal in Michigan to fire warning shots.

[AtheistCrusader]

236. It's likely illegal in every state, if not explicitly, it would be used as evidence that

deadly force was not warranted. The argument goes, if you are willing to turn the barrel of your gun in a 'safe direction' and discharge it, you are NOT justified employing deadly force (firing the gun).

[TexasBushwhacker]

159. Something seems off. Why would the driver turn herself in?

It says she turned herself in after hearing about it on the media. Why would she do that, unless she knows something that that totally changes everything?

[HoneyBadger]

166. Sometimes people do it for leniency

[jmg257]

172. She knows why she dropped the three off...then gets arrested. Not sure she has some secret

information. Certainly didn't help her.

According to the Wagoner County Sheriff's Office, the suspects' getaway driver has been arrested. The 21-year-old woman, Elizabeth Marie Rodriguez, turned herself in at the Broken Arrow Police Department hours after the shooting, saying she had information. Wagoner County investigators interviewed her at the police department and subsequently arrested her on complaints of three counts of first-degree murder and three counts of first-degree burglary.

[NWCorona]

201. She probably doesn't want the swat team coming looking for her.

[Yo_Mama]

263. She expects the family of at least one of the dead boys to seek revenge.

It's safer to be in the hands of the police. That's the only reason.

And yes, this does happen.

[Lee-Lee]

321. I'm sure there was evidence connecting them to her

Cell phones with call records and text messages, witnesses who saw them together, etc. I'm sure she had a history with at least one of them, people don't just meet someone and decide to drive them to a home invasion.

They were bound to be looking for how they got there, and they would have connected her to them pretty quickly.

[obamanut2012]

160. Defsense against home invasion is one thing, this is murder

One suspect was shot in the back in the driveway while fleeing.

That is murder.

[jmg257]

164. You have a link to that? Report I read says he was shot inside and tried to run out.

[tammywammy]

181. Link please.

The articles I've read said he was shot inside the house.

[NWCorona]

200. Actually reports say that he was shot in the house and collapsed in the driveway. Nt

[ileus]

206. Where did you learn this?

[AtheistCrusader]

237. Please don't make up facts. It's bad form.

[Baconator]

371. Well, that was embarrassing

[luvMIdog]

170. Masked people had the option of weighing possible outcomes before smashing their way in

If you are part of a group of masked intruders you make a CHOICE to smash your way into a home where the outcome could be deadly for you.
THREE MASKED INTRUDERS that would scare anyone. Hell, one would scare the living daylights out of me. The person in the home has every right to defend themselves.

[Marengo]

173. Ah, so AR-15s ARE effective for home defense after all.

[Calculating]

183. Yes

Good argument for high cap magazines too. Multiple armed home invaders.

[Paladin]

194. Well, just as long as you're happy about it. (nt)

[Marengo]

215. Would be interesting to know how many rounds were fired.

[yagotme]

504. I believe I read somewhere, 12. nt

[Calculating]

178. No tears here for the home invaders

I would do the exact same thing if 3 masked thugs with a knife and brass knuckles tried breaking in while I was home. Only difference is I would have used my AK as I don't own an AR15. Don't wanna get shot dead? Don't break into homes.

[Adrahil]

179. Having a hard time feeling bad about this.

Invade my house, while armed, with intent to rob at the least? Yeah, expect to be on the receiving end on some bullets. And no, no warnings. You enter my home violently, you forfeit the right to warnings.

[Binkie The Clown]

182. I favor gun control. I hate violence. And I don't know all the facts in the case, but...

I'm 71 years old and if three armed men broke into my house I would have to assume that they were there to do me bodily harm. If I were armed with a gun I would not calmly discuss the matter with them. I would, in a complete panic, defend my life in whatever way I could.

On the other hand, I'm not armed, and in my 71 years I've never been in that kind of danger, so the odds are I'll never have to face that situation.

[MrScorpio]

188. As American as cherry pie.

[geek tragedy]

197. self-defense-these three punks got themselves killed nt

[Blue_Tires]

203. Wait just a goddamned minute

Officials say a fourth suspect will likely face charges related to the incident. The 21-year-old female, who deputies say was the getaway driver, went into police custody. She was later identified as Elizabeth Marie Rodriguez. She was eventually booked on three complaints of first-degree murder and three complaints of first-degree burglary. In Oklahoma, those believed to be committing a felony that results in a death can face murder charges, even if they did not actually kill anyone.

http://www.fox23.com/news/three-killed-in-wagoner-county-shooting/506461840

So she's being charged with a triple homicide because her partners got killed?

[ileus]

209. It's a game she decided to play...she would have mashed

the gas pedal if they'd run out after poking holes in the home owners.

[Blue_Tires]

213. I thought the law wasn't supposed to rule based

on what somebody "would" have done...?

She could argue that she didn't know about one of her partners carrying a knife...

She could argue that she was assured that nobody was home and nobody was going to get hurt...

She might even try arguing that she didn't even drive them to the scene of the crime; her only job was to drive the getaway...

I know OK can be really draconian with the law, but this seems like a stretch...

[AtheistCrusader]

242. All of that MAY be useful in her defense at trial.

She'll be charged, doesn't mean she'll be convicted. Hopefully she has a competent defense attorney and didn't tell the police anything.

[hack89]

243. This has been settled law for a very long time

she can argue whatever she wants - during a trial.

[Blue_Tires]

247. Is it always applied, though?

I swear I've seen cases where felony murder wasn't applied to this standard... Why wasn't Ethan Couch charged with it when he was committing multiple felonies and killed multiple people?

[hack89]

250. In most felony murder statutes, the crimes it applies to are limited and defined

it is not just any felony - it is certain felonies. Here is the list for Oklahoma:

forcible rape

robbery with a dangerous weapon

kidnapping

escape from lawful custody

first-degree burglary/arson

murder of a person other than the deceased

shooting/discharge of a firearm/crossbow with intent to kill a person other than the deceased

intentional discharge of a firearm/[specify other deadly weapon into a dwelling/(building used for business/public purposes)

unlawful distributing or dispensing of controlled dangerous substances

trafficking in illegal drugs

In Ethan Couch's case, Texas has a specific crime of "intoxication manslaughter" that was applied.

[Lee-Lee]

320. It's up to the prosecution but they generally live to use it

Because it's an easy case to work. Is the person dead? Are they dead because of a felonious act that the accused was a party to? Case closed.

Every state is different but many have list of certain crimes that are eligible for felony murder.

I worked a case when I was a deputy where three people were stealing cars. Two spotted a car and phoned the third partner to go steal it. He did, got into a high speed case when a State Trooper attempted to pull him over, wrecked his car and died. When the investigation revealed he had stolen the car on order for the other two they were charged and convicted of felony murder for his death.

[NutmegYankee]

334. IIRC, Couch was committing a misdemeanor (driving while intoxicated) when he killed the 4 people.

Hence, felony murder would not apply, though he can be (and was) charged for the deaths separately as he directly caused them.

[GulfCoast66]

244. That is the law in most states

She participated in a armed felony that resulted in deaths.

Unless she did it under duress or can convince a prosecutor or jury she was clueless a crime was being committed she will spend the rest of her life in jail. And since they were wearing black with masks and were armed it is a stretch that she did not know.

[NWCorona]

219. Felony murder case law has been established since the 19th century.

[AtheistCrusader]

241. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

This is generally the law in most states in the US. Commit a felony, someone dies in the process, all people found guilty of committing said felony are now charged with murder.

An example, you go to rob a gas station. You point a gun at the teller. He has a heart attack.

You didn't shoot him. But he died. You were committing a felony. You are charged with murder.
Same if you an a buddy rob same-said store and the teller shoots and kills your buddy. You are charged with murder.

This is common in the US.

[Yo_Mama]

264. Yes, and deservedly so. You have an adult telling kids to go commit a violent entry.

While sometimes I have wondered, this appears to be one of those cases that not only justifies the charge, but justifies the law that is the basis for the charge.

Using kids as cannon fodder is damned criminal.

[NutmegYankee]

274. Felony Murder, a common law principle.

If during the commission of a felony someone is killed, you can be charged in their deaths.

For example, if you and a friend decided to rob a bank, and the security guard shot your friend dead, you could be charged with felony murder for his death.

[leftyladyfrommo]

314. Yep.

She dropped the boys off at the house. Now she is being held without bond and has 3 murder counts against her.

Wow!

[Petrushka]

382. Some reports indicate she was the one who planned the burglary.

http://heavy.com/news/2017/03/elizabeth-liz-marie-rodriguez-kohler-broken-arrow-oklahoma-burglary-murder-getaway-driver-facebook-photos-pictures/

[Lee-Lee]

384. Yep- it appears she planned it land chose the house

The home was chosen because she had made a delivery for her employer there previously and felt it would be a good target, and evidently they returned the second time because they didn't steal enough to pay her rent the first time.

If she did indeed choose the home, plan the robbery, drive them there and then drive them there again to steal more because she didn't get all the money she wanted the first time felony murder for their deaths is 100% warranted.

[HoneyBadger]

386. Various little local news reports here

Driver selected home due to expensive items

Another female witness being interview (probably the one in the car with the driver)

Lot of sad high school kids saying that they cannot believe it

I read elsewhere that they had stolen liquor earlier that day and may have been drinking, which is of course illegal.

http://m.newson6.com/Articles.aspx?catId=112042

[Oneironaut]

207. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Give the kid a medal!

Three useless losers were removed from society, and it didn't cost the taxpayers a dime.

Anyone who invades someone's' home and won't leave has escalated it to deadly force, imo.

[Lunabell]

214. I am on the home owner's side.

If you break into my house, you're dead if I can help it. Period.

[sarisataka]

230. Just curious

What seems "off"to you?

Armed intruders break into a house, resident responds with legal deadly force to an imminent threat of great bodily harm.

By all means investigate to verify these facts but what is "off" here?

[58Sunliner]

249. You take your life into your hands when you break and enter.

"Later that afternoon, 21-year-old Elizabeth Marie Rodriguez of Oologah turned herself in at the Broken Arrow Police Department after seeing media reports about the shootings, Mahoney said.
She reportedly indicated to police that she had driven the three burglars to the house and was supposed to have picked them up after the burglary."
This happened about noon, as police were called @12:30 pm.
Most home burglaries happen between 10 am and 2 pm.
Sad, but I would do the same. You never know what perps will do, even if their initial intention is not to harm.
I feel bad for these kids losing their lives that way.

[louis-t]

251. They call it "make my day"?

[stevenleser]

268. I'm a big gun control advocate. I won't lose any sleep over what happened in this situation.

People who commit armed robbery should understand they could easily end up dead for their pursuits.

The problem with this when you take it to the conclusion pro-gun folks want, i.e. where everyone is armed is, folks who then commit robberies and other crimes will be prepared to, and likely will, shoot everyone they see upon break in.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

287. If you break into my house

I have no reason to believe you are here only to take my things. I will fear what you plan on doing to me or my children. And I don't care if you are a fifteen year old boy with a cherub face, because my kids come before you.

So, yeah, I very likely "will shoot everyone 'they' see upon break in." Anything else is a gamble with our lives.

[stevenleser]

296. No, I meant the robbers will shoot everyone they see if they believe everyone is armed

that's what I mean by the logical conclusion of folks who don't think there should be gun control and think everyone should be armed.

[friendly_iconoclast]

299. You are arguing against a position no one here has taken

[stevenleser]

308. I'm not arguing and I never said anyone took that position.

I'm stating what I think will happen if robbers believe everyone is armed.

[Amishman]

395. Burglers don't seem to take things to that type of conclusion

If they did, it would be standard practice to burn the house after the burglary. After all, can't pull prints or get a detailed list of what was stolen if the house is a burnt out shell.

[stevenleser]

396. Might get caught for Burglary is different motivation than "might be shot dead"

Misdemeanor burglary could be a few months in jail. That's not a big risk.

Losing your life is a totally different proposition. If you know everyone or close to everyone is armed and thus encountering a person means likely being shot, you are going to do one of two things. Either #1 - Try to meticulously plan a burglary such that no one is home, and/or #2 - Be prepared to shoot anyone you can encounter during the burglary before they shoot you.

[bucolic_frolic]

279. If we're not secure in our own homes, we've lost everything

[Morris64]

292. I hope some folks in here will be inspired by this thread

to read their self-defense/use of force statutes. Perhaps even take some classes themselves. Not just forearms training but empty hand, verbal judo, scenario-based training. My local PD even provides classes to local businesses for active shooter response.

It would also be nice to see people discussing facts rather than spinning speculations to align with their ideology and pre-judgements of the people on either side of this incident.

[marlakay]

300. I live in a high property crime area

Because of drugs and low incomes. My town is gradually getting worse so more drugs, more homeless with not much money in area to help them.

We caught two cars full of people casing our block and called cops each time. One car had a guy on probation from burglary, i heard cop yelling at him and i live in a nice kept but homes built in late 80's neighborhood.

So as a person who hates guns, my hubby wanted to buy one, we got a dog instead. That was our compromise he has been begging for one for years.

That said as much as I hate guns if 3 people came in to rob me and 2 had weapons, if I had a gun and knew how to use it i would. I don't blame the owners son.

[Kacy]

302. Broken Arrow isnt remotely rural and is a rich town by Olahoma standards.

It merges with Tulsa.

Just saying.

There is no helping this situation. Kick in a door…

[Tatiana]

307. Some decades ago, two robbers attempted to break into my grandmother's apartment.

She shot both, one dead, one wounded. They were very young.

I didn't have much sympathy for the idiots. I was just glad my grandmother was safe.

What I want to know is where are the parents of the juveniles? How did it come to this?

[exboyfil]

326. Better Call Saul

She just confessed herself into the next 30+ years of her life in prison.

[underthematrix]

327. This is a very strange story.

I have a suspicion but I'll wait to pass judgment. Yes very strange indeed.

[EL34x4]

330. The deceased have been identified

Max Cook, Jacob Redfearn, and Jake Woodruff

[img][/img]

http://www.newson6.com/story/35019378/owasso-brothers-hope-friends-death-serves-as-lesson-to-others

[HoneyBadger]

340. Max Cook, the driver's 16 year old boyfriend describes himself thusly on FB

Im a beast

https://www.facebook.com/max.cook.5074?lst=18506000%3A100005459232912%3A1490742680

[LisaL]

379. Later articles say he is 18. Some say 19.

[HoneyBadger]

380. Yep, 19 as of late

And possibly the father of the baby the driver may be pregnant with. The youngest of her 3 kids happens to look a lot like him also. Another burglar, Woodruff (Woodriff?) was 18 initially, his sister said that he was 15 and news has him at 16 now.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4362076/Burglary-mastermind-pregnant-gunned-perpetrator.html

[LisaL]

406. She already has 3 kids.

That somebody will have to take care of.

[nitpicker]

333. Link to BBC

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39413376

[HoneyBadger]

338. Looks like the getaway driver might be a pedophile also

She was reportedly in a relationship with the 16 year old Max Cook. The shooter was reportedly very frightened when the burglars broke in and shot each once with the family rifle.

[HoneyBadger]

341. Shooter was a college student studying criminal justice

And holding down 2 jobs

[LibraLiz1973]

342. I knew someone who was killed by home intruders

The teenage intruders killed her and her father with a gun from the house.

If someone breaks into my house I'm not firing warning shots. I'll be more like Al pacino in Scarface. Sorry but it's true. Break in wearing a ski mask with two friends and I'm not thinking you're coming in to chill.

[HoneyBadger]

343. All were shot once each inside, one was able to get outside

The driver apparently departed without trying to take her friend to the hospital

[HoneyBadger]

344. Driver seems to have 3 kids under 3 years old

Two look like her, the youngest looks like the 16 year old Max Cook.

https://www.facebook.com/elizabeth.kohler.9843?pnref=lhc

Self described as bad mommy to 3 little monsters, beautiful crazy disaster, living it day to day.

Terrible for those kids to lose their mother to jail and possibly their dad or even their 3 dads.

[Lee-Lee]

372. New details- 911 audio released and details on the females involvement

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/state/hear-the-call-man-who-fatally-shot-teen-intruders-tells/article_e8a0e87d-4893-5810-8e1f-23abe76887d7.html

Interesting bits, the shooter initially though he had only hit two of them, barricaded himself in the bedroom after the initial confrontation then called 911 and asked that they send an ambulance with the police because "I believe one of em's shot bad."

Most interesting is this quote:

A probable cause affidavit from Wagoner County District Court says Elizabeth Rodriguez, 21, of Collinsville, planned the burglary of the home and drove her three teenage accomplices to the residence on two separate occasions Monday “wanting to steal items.”

The document indicates that she intended to wait in the driveway during the burglary but left when she heard the gunshots.

So the 21 year old woman was dating a 16 year old and planned the robbery, getting her juvenile boyfriend and his two friends to do the dangerous parts, then she fled as soon as she heard the shots.

Since she drove there twice she must have had some reason she targeted that home. Maybe it was just random, but I would bet for one reason or another she had an idea there was a specific reason to go after it. The investigators should be looking for connections between her and anyone who was in the home doing repairs or anything else.

But now seeing they have evidence she planned it and was the ringleader there is no question felony murder charges are warranted.

[HoneyBadger]

373. More interesting than that

They emptied the garage first, but the driver decided that they needed more and sent them into the house. That was a big mistake. Sounds like they were used to cutting school and robbing houses when the occupants were out.

She also had another kid in the car that is now talking.

[Lee-Lee]

375. I didn't see that detail until you mentioned it and I went looking

Seems very few news outlets are running with it as much now that it's looking like a very clear and justified self defense case.

They had not only already robbed the garage, but had left and drove to the home again to rob it of even more stuff.

I also found that my hunch above was correct- the house was not chosen at random but because the female had made some sort of delivery there as part of her job and decided from what she saw it would be a good place to rob.

[HoneyBadger]

420. They have identified the person that the driver called from McDonald's (where she went after)

https://www.facebook.com/ethan.ellison.52?hc_location=ufi

http://abc13.com/news/911-calls-released-in-fatal-home-invasion-triple-shooting/1825839/

He was apparently a regular participant in the burglary crew, I suppose that he had the day off. He has an amazing amount of detail about the burglary and is quite negative about the shooter.

[HoneyBadger]

422. If you choose to read his FB, past all the girls mourning their friends and him cursing out others

Hitting a lick means getting money fast; i.e. robbing someone, apparently for the unborn baby according to him

Plug house is a house with a gun, i.e. a problem when you are hitting a lick

He definitely seems connected, the brother of one of the dead was contacting him trying to find out what happened, Monday, before many details were out. There is something about the one that died in the driveway trying to enter the getaway car, but the driver took off anyway. Also said that they were all shot inside the house.

[EllieBC]

452. He is not the brightest star in the firmament.

All those posts, publically, that allude that he had knowledge.

[Abu Pepe]

424. well I don't think people should have AR 15s unless they are police

or military. Having said that I think deadly force was probably lawful and maybe justified in this case. Armed intruders in someone's house in the middle of the night usually don't get the benefit of doubt.

[Straw Man]

441. Here's the thing.

well I don't think people should have AR 15s unless they are police

or military. Having said that I think deadly force was probably lawful and maybe justified in this case. Armed intruders in someone's house in the middle of the night usually don't get the benefit of doubt.

In this particular instance -- one against three -- an AR-15 proved very successful for the task of self-defense. Handguns are much harder to shoot accurately, and manual-action (as opposed to semi-auto) rifles and shotguns have a slower rate of fire. Without the AR-15, his probability of a successful defense would have been reduced. So given the fact that you think deadly force was "probably lawful and maybe justified in this case," why would you want to deny the defender his use of the most effective tool?

[Abu Pepe]

454. he could have defended his home with a pump or semi auto 12 G W/ #1 shot

Less likely to penetrate walls and kill family or neighbors. Less need for accurate aiming. Not just as good but better than a high capacity rifle in dark close quarters in a residential setting.

[Straw Man]

458. Shotgun myths.

he could have defended his home with a pump or semi auto 12 G W/ #1 shot

Less likely to penetrate walls and kill family or neighbors. Less need for accurate aiming. Not just as good but better than a high capacity rifle in dark close quarters in a residential setting.

The pump shotgun has a slower rate-of-fire than a semi-auto, and neither type of shotgun has anywhere near the ammo capacity of the AR. This is crucial when facing multiple assailants.

Testing shows that #1 shot and frangible .223 are very similar in terms of overpenetration: six sheets of drywall for the #1 shot, eight sheets for the .223: in other words, substantial overpenetration for both.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o-truth-3-the-shotgun-meets-the-box-o-truth/

http://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o-truth-4-miscellaneous-rounds-meet-the-box-o-truth/

At indoor distances, the spread of a shot pattern will be approximately fist-sized. This is the pattern for #1 shot:



In terms of hitting center-mass on a human body, accurate aiming will still be necessary. Shotguns -- especially at close ranges -- do not provide the "wall of death" that movies would lead you to believe.

[HoneyBadger]

460. Semi shotgun is less reliable than an AR15 unless you spend 3x the cost of an AR15

Pump is cheaper. Both pump and semi 12 gauge have significantly higher recoil than an AR15, making it more difficult to handle. And they are difficult to get with collapsible stocks that allow quick fitting to different users.

[benEzra]

463. An AR or a Tavor/AUG/Mini-14 are centerfire .22's; a 12-gauge is .729. Big difference in recoil.

Both have to be aimed at in-home distances, and it's a lot easier to put a light on an AR than it is on a typical pump shotgun.

If one is a nonhunter, a small-caliber carbine is handier, generally more reliable, and doubles as a fun plinking or target gun, since that's what almost all AR-15's are used for.

[Lee-Lee]

467. As others have said, you are pretty much 100% wrong

At the ranges inside a residence with typical construction your suit pattern is so tight it hits all in a couple inches, effectively letting lots of pelleted through walls. Use of ammunition in an AR that is designed to be frangible it even light varmint lids will fracture when they hit drywall and not penetrate with much energy left.

Less aiming needed is a myth- as said above your shot is all still tightly grouped at such close range.

So your two claimed advantages are wrong. But the disadvantages of increased recoil, more unwieldy platform, lower capacity and slower follow on shots all are very real.

[Hoyt]

476. I think pellet gun would have been sufficient against these guys, who supposedly had a knife and

brass knucks. They obviously weren't there to kill. Again, once inside the house, they sealed their fate, but Christ I hope this thread doesn't morph into gunners arguing over best means to kill 3 teenagers who were essentially unarmed, and trying to claim whose lethal weapons is bigger/better than someone else's gun.

[Straw Man]

481. Lethal weapons.

Last edited Mon Apr 3, 2017, 01:52 AM - Edit history (1)

I think pellet gun would have been sufficient against these guys, who supposedly had a knife and

brass knucks. They obviously weren't there to kill.

Are you claiming that a knife is not a lethal weapon? Look at the FBI murder stats: knife killings outnumber rifle killings by a factor of approximately 3 to 1. Blunt instrument killings also outnumber rifle killings, but only just.

Do you have any basis for the contention that they "weren't there to kill"? Isn't death the ultimate threat in armed robbery? Otherwise victims might just as well tell home invaders to go fuck themselves. Or maybe throw cans of beans at them.

It is very easy to kill someone with a knife or a blunt instrument. Pellet gun? Only if you use it as a club.

Again, once inside the house, they sealed their fate, but Christ I hope this thread doesn't morph into gunners arguing over best means to kill 3 teenagers who were essentially unarmed, and trying to claim whose lethal weapons is bigger/better than someone else's gun.

It wasn't the "gunners" who started speculating about the choice of defense weapon. I was responding to this:

well I don't think people should have AR 15s unless they are police

or military.

--http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028861876#post424

[Hoyt]

486. No gun advocate, I'm claiming there was no evidence they were in that house to kill anyone.

For that reason, the sound of a shell being chambered probably would have sent them running.

I'm also claiming that they sealed their fate by entering the house and the homeowner had a right to shoot away, although I question whether it was necessary. Since I wasn't there, doubt goes to homeowner.

I'm also claiming gunners use these rare cases to rationalize the arming up of America, accumulating more gunz than they could use for anything other than getting a rise out of drooling over their lethal weapon collection, strapping a gun or two on to go to Chuck E Cheese, endless gunner talk about loads and best gun for urban warfare and similar BS, etc.

[Straw Man]

490. Would you be willing to stake your life on that?

No gun advocate, I'm claiming there was no evidence they were in that house to kill anyone.

A simple rule: Don't impute anything but the worst motives to armed intruders who have violently entered your home. You won't really know if they intend to kill you until you are dead. Then it's too late.

Oh, and by the way? A violent assault can end in death even if death was not the intended result.

For that reason, the sound of a shell being chambered probably would have sent them running.

Maybe or maybe not. This isn't the movies, Hoyt. It's real life.

I'm also claiming that they sealed their fate by entering the house and the homeowner had a right to shoot away, although I question whether it was necessary. Since I wasn't there, doubt goes to homeowner.

Congratulations! You have said something of value.

I'm also claiming gunners use these rare cases to rationalize the arming up of America, accumulating more gunz than they could use for anything other than getting a rise out of drooling over their lethal weapon collection, strapping a gun or two on to go to Chuck E Cheese, endless gunner talk about loads and best gun for urban warfare and similar BS, etc.

Blah, blah, blah -- you've just negated your commonsense statement above with a bunch of irrelevant canards. Oh well ...

[Hoyt]

496. Didn't read all that BS. If you are going to "impute" the worst to anyone walking down the street,

Last edited Mon Apr 3, 2017, 02:50 PM - Edit history (1)

then you are the epitome of my opinion of the typical gun toter/advocate and likely a supporter of folks like George Zimmerman.

I'm sorry, a guy with a knife and brass knuckles in his pocket is not necessarily bent on killing a homeowner who happens to be there when they thought the house was empty. Again, I can't fault the son, but I think I could have sent those 3 running til they collapsed without resorting to shooting all three center mass. Daddy trained his son well, if that's the kind of crud that you think of on a daily basis.

Should I "impute" the worst in all the gunners around here, when they strap a gun on to go to the store? No need to answer, because I usually do.

[Straw Man]

503. Anyone walking down the street? Not at all.

Didn't read all that BS. If you are going to "impute" the worst to anyone walking down the street,

then you are the epitome of my opinion of the typical gun toter/advocate and likely a supporter of folks like George Zimmerman.

Please tell me, Hoyt, that you can distinguish between "anyone walking down the street" and three armed people who have broken into your house.

Since you admit that you didn't read the rest of my post, why do you feel qualified to comment on it?

[Hoyt]

507. Because I read the first part and though it was BS. Fact is, the son will not be charged

with shooting the three, and shouldn't. But, I believe he could have handled it differently. What is really bad about all of this is that gunners just "normalize" shooting 3 teenagers, who did not have a gun, like it's something to aspire to. Why should I be surprised? Many gunners here supported George Zimmerman for stalking, intimidating and shooting an unarmed teenager center mass, and then coming up with a cock and bull story of how he was afraid for his life.

[Straw Man]

512. You feel justified in commenting on things you haven't read.

I think that says it all.

[Hoyt]

518. I guarantee, there is nothing a gun fancier is going to say that I haven't heard hundreds of times

before. I read your first paragraph and glanced to see if the rest of the post was similar gunner crud, it was and sounded straight from the NRA.

[Straw Man]

525. Nice dodge.

If you can't refute it, ignore it.

Stay classy, Hoyt.

[Jim Beard]

487. I agree. Seems as we have advocates for AR15's since it killed all of them instead of

reducing mortality but still incapacitating them. I firmly believe a pistol if the best weapon for home defense.

[Marengo]

510. A pistol reduces mortality and incapacitates rather than kills?

[linuxman]

492. What was the knife for, Hoyt?

Cutting a fucking cheesecake?

[Hoyt]

497. If it was in his pocket, it could have been a boy scout knife. I suspect most of the

gunners and those cheering the son shooting 3 teenagers with an AR15 probably carry a bigger knife than that kid had, along with a gun or two strapped to their bodies when they go to Chuck E Cheese.

[linuxman]

500. Yeah. And the brass knuckles were probably just there in case the robbers

found a stack of rustling papers.

LOL. Yep. A real fucking boy scout. Committing a string of armed B+Es.

If I thought you actually believed anything you write, I'd be sad.

[Hoyt]

501. I bet some of our gunners here carry similar implements in their urban warfare pants.

I knew guys in high school who carried brass knuckles. It made them feel big, kind of like what guns do for many gunners.

[Marengo]

513. Did you carry a knife while committing robbery?

[Hoyt]

519. A machete, it made gunners mess their pants and cower.

[Straw Man]

527. How did that make you feel?

[Hoyt]

528. Since it never happened, can't say. How does fondling your guns, strapping one on to go to

the store, or practicing to shoot people, make you feel?

[Straw Man]

540. Oh, so you lied? Or was it an attempt at humor?

Since it never happened, can't say. How does fondling your guns, strapping one on to go to

the store, or practicing to shoot people, make you feel?

I've never done any of those things.

[Marengo]

538. Clever...I if that were true, you would most likely not be in any condition to conspicuously

Ignore certain questions repeatedly posed to you.

[Codeine]

494. If someone has a knife and you have a pellet gun

it's going to end badly for you; the pellet gun is a painful annoyance, while the knife is a deadly, lethal weapon.

[Hoyt]

498. Not if the knife isn't in their hand and they are looking to kill me. That does not appear

to be the case here. Sounds like they did not expect anyone home. If so, why would they leave with a load and then come back. You guys just look for reasons to shoot someone center mass and rationalize another gun acquisition.

[Codeine]

521. I'm not a gun person.

I just think you're being stupid, simplistic and a bit of a cartoon.

[Hoyt]

522. So you are OK with several policemen shooting a mentally ill person at 20 feet with a knife when

it's darn clear he hasn't got a chance to get to them? The police will cite some study that a man can cover 20 feet in 2 seconds or something, so better put a couple of bullets in their chest.

Plus, I know how lots of gun people are. They'll use this to go home oil up their guns to get prepared to go to the range this weekend and shoot Trayvon Martin targets.

I think this situation could have been handled without killing 3 teenagers. Not saying what the son did is illegal, because it's what gunners teach their kids, but it was likely unnecessary.

[Codeine]

523. Of course I'm not. But I'm intelligent enough

not to conflate two entirely unrelated events. YMMV

[Hoyt]

524. Actually, they are quite similar and your typical gunner will support the shooter in both cases.

[Jim Beard]

546. Excellent points Hoyt! I have been wanting to make the same comparison but got caught up in other th

things. I mean hell, I have seen youtubes of two cops surrounding a guy with a knife and they both blow him away when one could have gone for the legs, disarmed and tournique applied. If the guy was still a threat, the take proper action.

[Jim Beard]

547. Good Point, if they were not expecting anyone, they would not have the knife out rather

they would be wanting to use their hands to carry stuff.

[sarisataka]

551. If they were not expecting anyone

Why did they put on masks?

[Jim Beard]

553. They wanted to be like ZORRO.

[Marengo]

505. No one has ever been killed with a knife?

[Hoyt]

508. Let me guess, you are a gun fancier? Knife, rock, fists, scary people, etc., are all

just a reason for you to carry a gun to go to the store, stock pile a weapon cache, and subscribe to direct notification of any new entry to the "NRA Armed Citizen Report."

[Marengo]

511. Was Tiffany Ferguson tickled to death in Nashville Tennessee? Looks like she was knifed to death...

In her apartment by a burglar. Guess thieves who carry knives aren't so harmless after all.

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/crime/2017/02/28/woman-stabbed-citys-wedgewood-houston-neighborhood/98516202/

[Hoyt]

517. Typical NRA BS. 22 people were killed by a knife in China. It doesn't matter, if there were no crime

you guys would still need to strap on a gun to go to the store, and you'd still be promoting guns and talking about the best gun to shoot teenagers with no guns or totally unarmed like Trayvon Martin.

[Marengo]

537. In other words, knife armed thieves are not harmless. I appreciate your acknowledgement...

Of that point.

[Hoyt]

539. People with perception problems should not be toting guns in public.

[Marengo]

542. Who are you referring to?

[jmg257]

552. "Need to" or "want to"...what's amazing is you can

Strap one on to go to the store in most places if you so desire.

With so many options these days, it's fairly simple.

[tblue37]

432. Every time I see the subject line of this thread in GD, I immediately

think of the opening to a "Three ___ walk into a bar" joke.

I know that is crass since people died, but I can't help it. The pattern of "Three burglars entered an Oklahoma home" is just too close to the pattern of "Three ___ walked into a bar."

[HoneyBadger]

445. The driver did an interview for the news

I think that a lot of local crimes will be tied to her by the police.

[HoneyBadger]

466. There seems to be an argument that one should use the minimum amount of force needed

I agree, however that has nothing whatsoever to do with the type of weapon. It means when the threat has ended, you step back. Which the shooter did. Even the driver said in an interview that the shooter was frightened and had the right to shoot. She just wanted everyone to be shot in the leg.

[Warren DeMontague]

468. The only thing that really seems legitimately debateable is the charge against the driver

I have no problem with someone defending themselves in their own home.

[Fluke a Snooker]

470. I do. Sometimes society must ensure laws for all people for the greater good.

This is one of those examples. The situation would have been far better handled by reporting the incident to the police, who would have apprehended the individuals who broke in, who probably were not getting resources they need because of the incredibly bleak economic situation put upon them through oppressive GOP policies. In that case, they would have been punished with reasonable jail time, but more importantly, been provided with the assistance they need to reintegrate into society, while the homeowner would just get his insurance money to pay for the damage done (sometimes even getting MORE than he deserves; see video below) Instead, a young life is snuffed away, and a homeowner will have to pay the price with a (hopefully) long prison sentence.

[sarisataka]

471. What jail sentence

do you believe is appropriate for crime victims?

[Warren DeMontague]

475. ...

[Warren DeMontague]

474. "see video below"- a clip from Trading Places?

I think you're just fucking around, here.

[liberalhistorian]

516. So, what's the problem? The kids just wanted to

come in to join hands with them to sing 'Kumbaya" in three-part harmony, a true demonstration of brotherhood and unity. The weapons were just for keeping time and rhythm during the song. Couldn't the homeowners have taken the time to understand that?

[napi21]

526. I hate myself for having to say this, but the laws are written to protect the homeowner's

right to protect his home from invasion. I'm really sorry that 3 teens were too stupid to recognize the risk they were taking by B&E. Potential criminals should educate themselves to what they are risking. I doubt they are willing to risk their lives.

[Orrex]

530. Out of curiosity...

Has the media flooded the internet with "thug-ified" pictures of the three intruders?

[Lee-Lee]

531. On the same note

Have there been protests of their death without anyone knowing the facts and wildly inaccurate claims circulated about the events surrounding the shooting?

[Orrex]

532. Is it the same note, though?

When a shooting victim is black, the media has a well-documented tendency to paint the deceased as a dangerous miscreant, dredging up irrelevant criminal records and any unflattering picture they can find. This happens even when the deceased is the victim of outright murder (as in the recent stabbing in NYC), and it's certainly the case when a black man is killed by police. The assumption (and the corresponding narrative) is that, whatever the circumstances, the deceased was a dangerous character. A fifteen year old boy, for instance, will be described as a man, often in menacing terms (muscle-bound, intimidating, hulking, towering, etc.) If they can find a picture of the kid flashing gang signs on Halloween, then clearly he deserves to die for jaywalking.

When a shooting victim is white, that simply doesn't happen, or it happens very rarely. Hell, when the criminal is white, he's often painted as a misunderstood youth or a confused kid--even when he's in his upper 20s.

It's not the same note because there's no equity in it. The media clearly pursues a narrative heavily informed by the color of the person's skin, and the darker the skin, the less flattering the narrative.

[Lee-Lee]

534. I'm talking about the overall reaction not just one specific aspect

If you want to focus on one aspect, then your point is valid.

But focusing on just that single aspect of reaction ignores a whole lot of other aspects.

[Orrex]

536. Ah, I see.

Well, I don't think that protests are too common when an intruder is shot by a homeowner, except maybe in cases where the intruder has fled the scene and is shot in the back.

Most times the protests are the result of dubiously justified shootings by police, especially when a grand jury works to clear the police in question.

I'm not sure that we can look at the overall reaction without considering the specific aspects, because they're really at the root of it.

[HoneyBadger]

558. Exactly the opposite

The most comprehensive article (Tulsa article below) thus far shows pictures of them as children, not thugs, certainly not as a 19 year old for instance and paints them as caring and compassionate. The driver on the other hand.....

[Orrex]

559. Yes indeed. They're portrayed as good, fresh-faced kids who made a bad choice

But a black teen is invariably painted as a criminal who finally paid the price for his violent lifestyle.

[HoneyBadger]

560. Is there a specific black teen that you are speaking of?

[Orrex]

561. Trayvon Martin is the most obvious example

[steve2470]

541. I totally get why the son "smoked" the intruders

I'm a very peaceful guy and not violent in the least. I don't even own a gun.

However, you break into my home and I'm going to kill you unless you get away quickly. It's that simple. Home invasions are WRONG, period. If you need shelter, ask politely. Knock on the door. If you need food, knock on the door. If you need money, jesus, ask politely. But don't freaking invade my home.

I don't have an AR-15 but I have knives. I would have killed them also or at least scared the shit out of them. The only bad part of this story is the fact that they are all so young, just kids. That's really sad but then again, I damn sure knew at their age not to commit such a horrible and stupid act.

Kids, don't do this. It's not cool at all. These kids died.

[steve2470]

543. What we know: a timeline of the Wagoner County triple homicide

http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/what-we-know-a-timeline-of-the-wagoner-county-triple/article_d10af933-05c3-5638-834f-ce59ac5682b7.html

very long article, has full details.

[Jim Beard]

549. Thanks for posting the newspaper link. I had mentioned earlier

that a person needs to be careful of other family members in the house. I was told it wasn't right for this story but apparently I was right.

[Jim Beard]

550. Just because its your property doesn't mean anything..................................

http://abcnews.go.com/US/homeowner-arrested-fatally-shooting-intruder-found-shower-police/story?id=46536513

Homeowner arrested after fatally shooting intruder he found in his shower: Police

A Washington state homeowner was arrested on murder charges Saturday after he fatally shot a man he found taking a shower in his home, according to police.

The homeowner shot Nathaniel Joseph Rosa, 31, multiple times after, he said, he noticed signs of forced entry at his home in Mason County, Washington, the county sheriff's office said Saturday.

The homeowner, who has not been identified, was arrested on second-degree murder charges, the office said.

The sheriff's office announced the arrest via Twitter and said it would release more information in a press release Monday.

"There is more to the story that can not be released yet," the office said in a Twitter post Saturday.

The homeowner said he arrived at the home, one of at least two that he owns in the Belfair, Washington, area, around 8 a.m. and noticed that a door had been kicked in, according to police.

The homeowner went inside and exchanged words with Rosa, who was in the shower at the time, police said. The homeowner left the premises without calling the police and returned with a firearm, police said.

[Locutusofborg]

554. It depends on state law

Different states have different laws on shooting home invaders.
Under what is called "the Castle Doctrine," in some states, a person is privileged to use deadly force against anyone who unlawfully enters their home. In these states, there is no need to take the time to assess the intruder's ability to use deadly or nonlethal force. However, the specifics and applicability vary state to state.

[Locutusofborg]

555. Oklahoma law

21-1289.25. Physical or deadly force against intruder.

PHYSICAL OR DEADLY FORCE AGAINST INTRUDER
A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes or places of business.
B. A person or an owner, manager or employee of a business is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
1. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle, or a place of business, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against the will of that person from the dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle, or place of business; and
2. The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
C. The presumption set forth in subsection B of this section does not apply if:
1. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not a protective order from domestic violence in effect or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;
2. The person or persons sought to be removed are children or grandchildren, or are otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
3. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle, or place of business to further an unlawful activity.
D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
E. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter the dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle of another person, or a place of business is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
F. A person who uses force, as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsections B and D of this section, is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes charging or prosecuting the defendant.
G. A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force, but the law enforcement agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
H. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection F of this section.
I. The provisions of this section and the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act shall not be construed to require any person using a pistol pursuant to the provisions of this section to be licensed in any manner.
J. As used in this section:
1. “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people;
2. “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest; and
3. “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

[Jim Beard]

556. They got it right on this one..................

The guy owned 2 houses in close proximity, one his home and the other for his business. The owner went into the business house at 8am and saw the guy taking a shower and they argue. Owner left and went back home to get his rifle returned to the guy showering and blew him away THRU the shower curtain. He then called 911.

I think this guy would be charged with a crime anywhere.

[Locutusofborg]

557. No Charges

Zach Peters will not face charges in connection with the shooting, officials said. The Wagoner County District Attorney's Office ruled that Peters acted justifiably in his use of deadly force to defend the home.
http://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/broken-arrow/three-dead-in-broken-arrow-home-invasion-officials-to-update-investigation-monday

[Lurks Often]

562. The homeowner will almost certainly be going to jail

If the comment "The homeowner left the premises without calling the police and returned with a firearm" is true, then the home owner loses the ability to claim self defense.

Since he was able to leave the house the first time without being in danger, his return means he intentionally put himself in a "dangerous" situation. To put it a different way, he chose to escalate a situation be returning with a firearm instead of calling the police.

[yagotme]

565. Correct.

He had the opportunity to do it the right way. Call the police, inform them of an intruder on your property, and they are refusing to leave. Let them handle it, it's their job. Going back and doing it yourself is vigilante style justice.

[Lee-Lee]

568. Textbook example of doing everything wrong in that example

I will probably start using this one as a case study of what not to do in my classes.

Choosing to arm yourself and return to a confrontation eliminates any possible claim of self defense. Even in the most permissive of states on self defense it doesn't fly. Murder charges are totally warranted.

[Recursion]

569. "Warning shots" land somewhere

There's not really a safe way to fire a warning shot in a home.

[louis-t]

578. I'm sure the shooter will be hailed as a hero and

asked to ride and wave from a float in the next 'Broken Arrow Days' parade.

[yagotme]

581. I don't know about "hero",

but if it is found that he justifiably defended himself in his home from 3 masked, armed intruders, no innocent bystanders hurt, it's my opinion that that incident went down the right way.