Gotta love legal gun ownership...

[OU-HSV]

..this is why it's important and this is how it comes in handy....

http://www.baledger.com/articles/2010/04/02/news/doc4bb5fdd3368c6180801131.txt


Homeowner shoots, kills intruder
No charges filed by TCSO
Published:
Friday, April 2, 2010 9:23 AM CDT


On Thursday, April 1, 2010 at approximately 10 p.m., a homeowner and his wife return to their residence in the area of 6000 N. Owasso, to discover a window open and back door slightly ajar. The homeowner having a valid Oklahoma Carry Concealed Weapon Permit proceeded to enter the residence to check on the contents. When the homeowner approached a back hallway, an intruder confronted him.

The intruder was yielding a 3-foot sword and was dressed in all black clothing. The intruder made a threatening statement and advanced towards the homeowner. The homeowner produced a handgun, that he was authorized to carry, and ordered the intruder to stop. As the intruder continued to advance, the homeowner fired one shot sticking the intruder in the abdomen. The intruder dropped to his knees and reached behind his back, indicating he was reaching for another weapon, so the homeowner fired a second and third shot, striking the intruder in the chest area, killing him.


Tulsa County Sheriff’s Investigators were called to the scene after patrol deputies secured the area. Investigators located on the intruder a 38-caliber handgun; the homeowner’s 9mm pistol, a knife and stun gun.

Currently, the intruder’s identity is unknown. He is just described as a white male in his mid- to late- 20s. The body has been taken to the medical examiner’s office for possible forensic identification.

Tulsa County Sheriff’s Office Investigators interviewed the homeowners at length and no criminal charges were filed. All reports will be sent to the Tulsa County District Attorney’s Office for further review.
BTW, who the hell tries to rob a house using a sword. That's like the second sword incident in Broken Arrow in the last month.

[ouleaf]

..this is why it's important and this is how it comes in handy....

http://www.baledger.com/articles/2010/04/02/news/doc4bb5fdd3368c6180801131.txt


BTW, who the hell tries to rob a house using a sword. That's like the second sword incident in Broken Arrow in the last month.

Maybe it was the home owners sword that was just out in plain site that he grabbed when he heard the homeowners come inside??? If your robbing a place it wouldn't make any sense for you to bring a big huge sword in with you.

[delhalew]

Score one for the good guys.

[C&CDean]

Another reason why people are stupid to have a 9-millimeter for personal carry/home defense. A .357 or a .45 would have blown his ****ing spleen out his back and the next two shots wouldn't have been necessary.

[NormanPride]

I'd rather not kill someone just because they broke in to my home. I don't mind crippling them or something, but death is very permanent for something like breaking and entering.

inb4 "you endanger my family and yer gunna die"

[Jello Biafra]

I'd rather not kill someone just because they broke in to my home. I don't mind crippling them or something, but death is very permanent for something like breaking and entering.

inb4 "you endanger my family and yer gunna die"

NP,

in understand both sides of the argument however, why do you think that dude was in your house? it certainly wasnt to talk to you about the shade of paint you chose for the living room. he was in there to do ill to you and yours...and the fact that he was weilding a sword just screams about the guys mental stability...imo, thats how you come across news stories that start off with "a body was found today in the woods in rural oklahoma"

[SoonerInKCMO]

The homeowner was dumb to go into his house in this situation and he got lucky when the intruder brandished the sword instead of the .38 he had with him. Could've just as easily been the homeowner that was killed.

[tommieharris91]

I'd rather not kill someone just because they broke in to my home. I don't mind crippling them or something, but death is very permanent for something like breaking and entering.

inb4 "you endanger my family and yer gunna die"

I'm with you... kinda. Often times, the only way you know someone in that situation isn't gonna harm you or anyone around you is if they're dead. He had to put at least 2 in him to make sure that the intruder wasn't going to continue being a threat.

All that said, Oklahoma has "Make My Day" and "Stand Your Ground" laws that ensure that self-defense is a legal defense that can be used when facing a murder or manslaughter charge over a situation like this one.

[NormanPride]

NP,

in understand both sides of the argument however, why do you think that dude was in your house? it certainly wasnt to talk to you about the shade of paint you chose for the living room. he was in there to do ill to you and yours...and the fact that he was weilding a sword just screams about the guys mental stability...imo, thats how you come across news stories that start off with "a body was found today in the woods in rural oklahoma"

Exactly. Is it all worth that? It's just stuff, man. Not life. As KCMO said he could have easily been holding a gun and then the homeowner is dead and the wife/kids are scarred for life. You find someone rifling through your crap, let the professionals handle it. IMO, this was incredibly stupid, and I hope the police officers called to the scene told him as much. I get much more satisfaction in knowing the dude is behind bars and hopefully reflecting on his decisions rather than just dead. I don't like the idea of deciding who lives or dies. Not my job.

But I'm an adamant pacifist.

[NormanPride]

I'm with you... kinda. Often times, the only way you know someone in that situation isn't gonna harm you or anyone around you is if they're dead. He had to put at least 2 in him to make sure that the intruder wasn't going to continue being a threat.

All that said, Oklahoma has "Make My Day" and "Stand Your Ground" laws that ensure that self-defense is a legal defense that can be used when facing a murder or manslaughter charge over a situation like this one.

No doubt. As much as I hate death (I didn't cheer when Saddam was put down, it just made me sad) I wouldn't hesitate to plug someone if there was a chance they could hurt baj.

[BudSooner]

The where abouts of one Mike Leach of Casper Wyoming are unknown.
:D

[yermom]

I'd rather not kill someone just because they broke in to my home. I don't mind crippling them or something, but death is very permanent for something like breaking and entering.

inb4 "you endanger my family and yer gunna die"

if you wing a guy with a gun/weapon intent on doing you harm, you aren't doing yourself any favors

i'll agree though. i think that's a good chance to call the cops before going in. now if you are in the house when it happens, it's something else...

[NormanPride]

if you wing a guy with a gun/weapon intent on doing you harm, you aren't doing yourself any favors

i'll agree though. i think that's a good chance to call the cops before going in. now if you are in the house when it happens, it's something else...

No doubt. Again, I have no qualms with protecting your family. But this dude went in looking for trouble.

[OUMallen]

The homeowner was dumb to go into his house in this situation and he got lucky when the intruder brandished the sword instead of the .38 he had with him. Could've just as easily been the homeowner that was killed.

Yes. There could, and Dean is going to blow smoke out of his ears, but there COULD be grounds for wrongful death on behalf of retardninja's family.

The homeowner knew something was amiss and willingly entered the house with his gun, looking for trouble, basically. At that point, you're entering to defend property, not life.

I don't think an Oklahoma jury would find the owner liable, but this is a classic law school final exam question.

The privilege to use deadly force is typically considered when you are IN your home and you fear imminent bodily harm to you or your family. For example, if someone enters your home like that and you're inside, fire away! If you run out the back door though and are pretty much safe, but decide to go back into the house for whatever reason, you probably lose the privilege to use deadly force.


All that being said, the dude had a ninja sword and a pistol. What the hell else did he think was going to happen?

[Leroy Lizard]

IMO, this was incredibly stupid, and I hope the police officers called to the scene told him as much.

All in all, it worked out pretty well. Homeowner gets to keep his stuff. There is one less bad element on the street. And the police didn't even have to lift a finger.

[OUMallen]

All in all, it worked out pretty well. Homeowner gets to keep his stuff. There is one less bad element on the street. And the police didn't even have to lift a finger.

Yeah, who cares about human life? It's certainly not more important than stuff.

[OUMallen]

Oklahoma's Make My Day Law is interesting. It might make my above point moot.



A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.

B. A person 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, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against the will of that person from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; 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, or occupied vehicle 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, or occupied vehicle of another person 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, Sections 1290.1 through 1290.26 of this title, 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.




The bolded part might take away my point...the owner has a right to be in his house. That part seems key...the owner entered lawfully and was allowed to be there, which is the sticking point of general tort law I mentioned above (i.e.- you shouldn't go to the threat on purpose if you want the privilege of deadly force). Once inside, which the statute seems to allow, he was certainly threatened and was allowed to fire away.

[Leroy Lizard]

The privilege to use deadly force is typically considered when you are IN your home and you fear imminent bodily harm to you or your family. For example, if someone enters your home like that and you're inside, fire away! If you run out the back door though and are pretty much safe, but decide to go back into the house for whatever reason, you probably lose the privilege to use deadly force.

As I see it, the man was not looking for trouble. He was entering his home, as is his right, and using a gun for protection in case he was attacked. Since he ordered the intruder to stop (which may be BS, but dead men tell no tales, which is why you don't let the intruder live through the ordeal), he did what was necessary to prevent harm, but was forced to take action in self-defense.

[Leroy Lizard]

Yeah, who cares about human life? It's certainly not more important than stuff.

It's not a matter of life over stuff. The intruder was clearly a threat to the public safety, not just a burglar. (Although I don't shed tears over shot burglars either.)

[OUMallen]

Hundreds of year of developed tort caselaw say you're wrong. Tort law holds human life in high regard, unlike yourself, apparently.


Although, like I said above, looks like the legislature has preempted the common law with on-point statute. And the statute makes sense.

[Leroy Lizard]

The bolded part might take away my point...the owner has a right to be in his house.

What a concept!

[OUMallen]

It's not a matter of life over stuff. The intruder was clearly a threat to the public safety, not just a burglar. (Although I don't shed tears over shot burglars either.)

So it's a private citizen's job to enter into a threatening situation to kill him?

[Leroy Lizard]

Hundreds of year of developed tort caselaw say you're wrong. Tort law holds human life in high regard, unlike yourself, apparently.

Explain the death penalty then.

[Leroy Lizard]

So it's a private citizen's job to enter into a threatening situation to kill him?

It's not his JOB, if that is what you're asking. And he didn't enter a threatening situation with the express purpose of killing anyone.

[OUMallen]

What a concept!

This is above your aptitude, I see.

[OUMallen]

It's not his JOB, if that is what you're asking. And he didn't enter a threatening situation with the express purpose of killing anyone.

That's why he had his pistol at the ready. Got it.

[Leroy Lizard]

Still crying over the dead intruder?

[yermom]

Yes. There could, and Dean is going to blow smoke out of his ears, but there COULD be grounds for wrongful death on behalf of retardninja's family.

The homeowner knew something was amiss and willingly entered the house with his gun, looking for trouble, basically. At that point, you're entering to defend property, not life.

I don't think an Oklahoma jury would find the owner liable, but this is a classic law school final exam question.

The privilege to use deadly force is typically considered when you are IN your home and you fear imminent bodily harm to you or your family. For example, if someone enters your home like that and you're inside, fire away! If you run out the back door though and are pretty much safe, but decide to go back into the house for whatever reason, you probably lose the privilege to use deadly force.


All that being said, the dude had a ninja sword and a pistol. What the hell else did he think was going to happen?

he was IN his home, and was being attacked. he was defending his life at that point. assuming what he says is true.


i don't know about you, but if i'm in someone's house and they produce a gun and tell me to leave, i'm starting to use a lot of "yes sir" and "no sir" and not making any sudden movements

Dumbass McNinja is the one choosing someone's property over his life

[OUMallen]

Explain the death penalty then.

Explain Blue Sky Laws then. What's that have to do with the price of rice in China?

I'll entertain it though: death penalties are provided for by statute. Not by any tort law I ever studyed.

[Leroy Lizard]

That's why he had his pistol at the ready. Got it.

First of all, the concept of self-defense seems lost on you. If I'm walking through my house with a gun because I heard a strange noise, I'm not "out to kill someone."

Second, he ordered the intruder to stop. If his job was to enter and kill, he would have just shot him.

[OUMallen]

he was IN his home, and was being attacked. he was defending his life at that point. assuming what he says is true.


I didn't write tort caselaw. I'm just telling you how it generally goes, as I remember it from school. If you're not in the threat of imminent harm from an intruder, and you enter into that harm when you have a chance not to, you might lose your privilege to use deadly force.



i don't know about you, but if i'm in someone's house and they produce a gun and tell me to leave, i'm starting to use a lot of "yes sir" and "no sir" and not making any sudden movements

Hahahaha me too! I'm on the ground with my hands behind my head!

[Leroy Lizard]

Explain Blue Sky Laws then. What's that have to do with the price of rice in China?

I'll entertain it though: death penalties are provided for by statute. Not by any tort law I ever studyed.

Sorry, I missed the word "tort" when I first read your statement.

As you said, your original point is moot. He has a right to enter his home, which seems pretty fundamental to most of us, but obviously not everyone.

[OUMallen]

First of all, the concept of self-defense seems lost on you. If I'm walking through my house with a gun because I heard a strange noise, I'm not "out to kill someone."

Second, he ordered the intruder to stop. If his job was to enter and kill, he would have just shot him.

Actually LL, pretty sure I have an OK understanding of how this works seeing as I studied it in law school.

Here's what you're missing from old tort law (which may be superseded by the statute I posted): If you're not in imminent danger, and you knowingly and willingly enter into a situation where there's imminent danger and you don't HAVE to do it to protect someone, then you may lose your legal privilege to use deadly force. In TORT. In a CIVIL court. The DA might not bring charges in a CRIMINAL court, but as far as tort law goes in civil court, you may be exposed to liability.

The trigger for using deadly force is not "SOMEONE'S IN MY HOUSE!!!" It's "I FEAR IMMINENT BODILY HARM OR DEATH TO ME OR SOMEONE ELSE!" If you're in your bedroom and someone breaks into your home, you're going to be pretty scared of imminent harm. If you're outside away from harm and have to approach the harm, you're not in harm's way, now are you?

If you can't understand that, then I suggest you drop it, because you're just yelling in the wind at this point.

[NormanPride]

Mmmmm... torts....

[OUMallen]

Sorry, I missed the word "tort" when I first read your statement.

As you said, your original point is moot. He has a right to enter his home, which seems pretty fundamental to most of us, but obviously not everyone.

It very possibly may be moot. This is an interesting fact pattern.

The duty to retreat referenced in the statute is not intended for in your home, but when you are out in public. Tort law generally allowed you to stand your ground in your home. However, individuals were charged with a duty to retreat out in public when faced with a threat. This was a policy to avoid violence of any kind. The statute preempts that duty to retreat in public. the home was already considered a safe place by tort law.

What's interesting is that the guy entered his home when he didn't have to...you could raise an argument that, sure he had a right to be in his home, but he suspected someone was in there, he suspected violence could occur, and he entered anyway. Could he be found liable for something since he was a direct cause of that person's death? Maybe. I would hope not, but maybe.

[Leroy Lizard]

(delete

[Leroy Lizard]

(delete)

[tommieharris91]

BTW, every state in the union should have Oklahoma's law.

I believe 40 have a "Make my Day" law. Ours was adopted from Florida.

[Leroy Lizard]

Here's what you're missing from old tort law (which may be superseded by the statute I posted): If you're not in imminent danger, and you knowingly and willingly enter into a situation where there's imminent danger...

He didn't.

imminent: Imminent danger is an immediate threat of harm, which varies depending on the context in which it is used.

There was no immediate threat of harm because the homeowner wasn't even certain there was anyone inside the home.

If a loud noise wakes me up, I can investigate the noise. I can also carry a gun with me.

[Leroy Lizard]

What's interesting is that the guy entered his home when he didn't have to....

I think it's pretty unreasonable to expect people to call the police any time they see a door ajar. If you live out in the country it may be a long time before the county sheriff even shows up.

[OUMallen]

He didn't.

imminent: Imminent danger is an immediate threat of harm, which varies depending on the context in which it is used.

There was no immediate threat of harm because the homeowner wasn't even certain there was anyone inside the home.

If a loud noise wakes me up, I can investigate the noise. I can also carry a gun with me.

These are all facts that would have to be determined at court. They can't be just assumed.

But if he had no clue there was anything amiss, then sure, he would be certainly allowed to enter his home and put a few holes in that guy in that situation when he discovered him there with a sword, even by old school tort law standards.

If he saw something was wrong and suspected someone was in the house and chose to enter, then under old tort law standards, the jury will be pretty important at that point.

[OUMallen]

I think it's pretty unreasonable to expect people to call the police any time they see a door ajar. If you live out in the country it may be a long time before the county sheriff even shows up.

Who cares what you (or I) think? The law is the law for a reason, and tort law developed that way for a reason.

If you enter the house and you think it's been broken into, you're just tainting a crime scene. If you enter the house without calling the cops, well, you may end up getting shot or shooting someone.

Again, the old school tort law would rather us go waaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of our way than kill. That would possibly include a phone call to cops and waiting a bit.

[OUMallen]

(And you're not alone in your line of thinking at all, nor are you unreasonable. That's why we have that statute- because lots of people agree with you. I am a fan of that statute. I just wonder if this situation fits it.)

[yermom]

and if he was in the UK, he might be in jail right now :eek:

[Leroy Lizard]

Could he even carry a gun in the UK?

[49r]

Three pages in and nobody's tried to make a Pirate vs. Ninja joke.

This is why the South Oval sucks now.

[Leroy Lizard]

These are all facts that would have to be determined at court. They can't be just assumed.

But if he had no clue there was anything amiss, then sure, he would be certainly allowed to enter his home and put a few holes in that guy in that situation when he discovered him there with a sword, even by old school tort law standards.

If he saw something was wrong and suspected someone was in the house and chose to enter, then under old tort law standards, the jury will be pretty important at that point.

So how are you distinguishing between an immediate threat and a threat in general?

Suppose he had a pretty good inkling that someone was inside the home. Is that an IMMEDIATE threat? What does the law say?

[49r]

...you know something like, "Redneck >>> Ninja". You know.

[olevetonahill]

I love these kind of debates

Ya know what ? It dont mean a flying monkey **** what Yall think one way or the other . The LAW is pretty clear . Now If you are so Adamant against killin some one, sit yer *** O/S and wait on the PoPo.
If on the other hand ya think a maggot outta be crushed then go inside and blow the mother ****er away .
EES SIMPLE

[Curly Bill]

There's a dead POS that will not break into anymore homes. That's a win for everybody, so lets just celebrate that fact and move on. :D

[yermom]

Could he even carry a gun in the UK?

most likely not. but even if it was a cricket bat, i don't think they are supposed to even fight back at all

[olevetonahill]

There's a dead POS that will not break into anymore homes. That's a win for everybody, so lets just celebrate that fact and move on. :D

Dayum skippy bro

Say the H/O sat O/S all skeered and **** and let the Maggot get away .
said Maggot then goes on down the street and breaks into Grannies House , She screams he then Kills her with said H/O weapons that he stole.

****, the dude ended any future threat , That is definitely a WIN .
Plus No expensive trial and incarceration of said maggot .

[Breadburner]

One less thieving scumbag in the world......

[Curly Bill]

Dayum skippy bro

Say the H/O sat O/S all skeered and **** and let the Maggot get away .
said Maggot then goes on down the street and breaks into Grannies House , She screams he then Kills her with said H/O weapons that he stole.

****, the dude ended any future threat , That is definitely a WIN .
Plus No expensive trial and incarceration of said maggot .

Yup, maggot breaks into my crib and I'm in a situation where I can do something about it, I'm going to do the rest of society a favor.

...and I don't mean detaining him where he can be toted off to jail so he can get out and do it again.

....and yeah, I don't think I'd lose a minutes sleep over it.

[OUMallen]

Man, it's not often I ever think this....maybe never that I've ever thought this actually, but I'm thankful for the unreasonable, whiny, bleeding heart liberals that balance you guys out.

The lack of respect and sanctity for life, even for a thief, in this thread makes me sad.

[Leroy Lizard]

The home is sanctuary. Enter at your own risk.

[OUMallen]

So how are you distinguishing between an immediate threat and a threat in general?

Suppose he had a pretty good inkling that someone was inside the home. Is that an IMMEDIATE threat? What does the law say?

I don't know for sure, I'm not a walking arbiter of what caselaw, judges, juries all in the aggregate and historically would say.

But an immediate threat needs to be pretty imminent. It's concrete and realizable. And it's happening within a short, short period of time.

However, I can say from my studies and memory that if he's outside the home, safe, and someone is inside the home, there's no imminent threat to him or his wife. And that's going to be a pretty accurate assessment, I think.

[Curly Bill]

Man, it's not often I ever think this....maybe never that I've ever thought this actually, but I'm thankful for the unreasonable, whiny, bleeding heart liberals that balance you guys out.

The lack of respect and sanctity for life, even for a thief, in this thread makes me sad.


...and this made me chuckle. :D

[yermom]

Man, it's not often I ever think this....maybe never that I've ever thought this actually, but I'm thankful for the unreasonable, whiny, bleeding heart liberals that balance you guys out.

The lack of respect and sanctity for life, even for a thief, in this thread makes me sad.

you steal **** from my house? that's not worthy of being shot

charge me with a sword in my house? that pretty much forfeiture or respect and sanctity of life at that point

[olevetonahill]

Man, it's not often I ever think this....maybe never that I've ever thought this actually, but I'm thankful for the unreasonable, whiny, bleeding heart liberals that balance you guys out.

The lack of respect and sanctity for life, even for a thief, in this thread makes me sad.

Just what do you think this Human life that you revere so much , intended to do with the weapons he was in the process of stealing ?


Personally I hope to never again take a life
but if Im forced to I aint gonna worry to much about a maggot .

[Leroy Lizard]

However, I can say from my studies and memory that if he's outside the home, safe, and someone is inside the home, there's no imminent threat to him or his wife. And that's going to be a pretty accurate assessment, I think.

Imminent threat is being used here twice, in the situation where the homeowner entered the dwelling and in the situation where he fired his gun. I assume we are talking about the former. The question is, "Did the homeowner willingly enter into a situation where danger was imminent?"

No.

Therefore, as I see it, he is perfectly in his right to enter the home with a loaded gun to secure the premises, whether there is a Make My Day law or not.

Now, if he saw the intruder inside the home and entered, that would be different. (Although I would personally side with the homeowner in just about any situation, but that's just my attitude.)

[OUMallen]

you steal **** from my house? that's not worthy of being shot

charge me with a sword in my house? that pretty much forfeiture or respect and sanctity of life at that point

I agree with those things. It's the posts that say basically say "who cares what the law is, one less thief is alive and that's a good thing."

This one is sad to me:



Yup, maggot breaks into my crib and I'm in a situation where I can do something about it, I'm going to do the rest of society a favor.

...and I don't mean detaining him where he can be toted off to jail so he can get out and do it again.

....and yeah, I don't think I'd lose a minutes sleep over it.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, the poster is saying that even if he is not in harm's way, he'll be happy to murder someone that is stealing stuff in his empty house.

[Curly Bill]

Unless I'm misunderstanding, the poster is saying that even if he is not in harm's way, he'll be happy to exterminate someone that is stealing stuff in his empty house.

FIXED

[OUMallen]

Imminent threat is being used here twice, in the situation where the homeowner entered the dwelling and in the situation where he fired his gun. I assume we are talking about the former. The question is, "Did the homeowner willingly enter into a situation where danger was imminent?"

No.

Therefore, as I see it, he is perfectly in his right to enter the home with a loaded gun to secure the premises, whether there is a Make My Day law or not.

Now, if he saw the intruder inside the home and entered, that would be different. (Although I would personally side with the homeowner in just about any situation, but that's just my attitude.)

You can have your opinion. It's just that centuries of caselaw disagree with you.

The point is, again: if he's entering to "secure the premises" he may be intentionally and knowingly putting himself in harm's way. He's going TO a potential threat. And as such, there's a chance that he will lose his right to use deadly force in a civil case under old tort caselaw, which like we've said, is probably preempted by statute.

Also, again, if he just walks in without any idea someone's in the house, that's different.

I don't think it needs to be repeated again.

[olevetonahill]

Mallen , How in hell do you come up with MURDER in this scenario?

[OUMallen]

FIXED

You're nothing if not consistent. ;)

[OUMallen]

Mallen , How in hell do you come up with MURDER in this scenario?

I meant, "murder" just as in killing someone. Not as in a criminal, court of law, sense.

Although, without the make your day law, if someone is in your house, and you're outside it, and you go in guns blazing, you might be brought up on murder charges, I suppose...interesting question.

Just because you don't have to retreat doesn't mean you can be aggressive, either.

[SCOUT]

I am guessing that some people haven't experienced the joy of being robbed. I, thankfully have not, but I do know someone who was. He managed a fast food restaurant at the time. Two guys came in just before closing and locked the door. One guy put a .45 to his head and made him lie on the floor while his buddy robbed the store. He said that it seemed like he laid their forever and that he actually became resigned to the fact that he would soon be dead. Fortunately, the criminal let him live.

That was about 15 years ago and he still goes to counseling.

People who will rob you for your things could very well rob you of your life. They have no respect for you or your things and I am pretty confident that they are not losing any sleep about their actions.

I am not saying that anyone who is a robber should be killed, but it seems like some posters are thinking of these criminals like Jean Valjean in Les Miserables instead of what they most likely are.

[Leroy Lizard]

The real culprit in all this is our justice system. We don't hand out harsh enough punishments for burglary, which forces homeowners into situations they are not trained to handle.

That intruder should have been facing about a ten-year sentence at minimum, 25 years if he was armed. As it stands, he would have plea bargained down to a second-degree burglary, which is a misdemeanor. I'm not sure he would have faced any jail time at all.

A burglar is the lowest form of thief. They are scum and they have no business in our community. Lock them up for a very, very long time and incidences like this will be rarer.

[Curly Bill]

Is it OK if I don't go into the home to confront the maggot, let him come outside and then shoot him? :D

[OUMallen]

The real culprit in all this is our justice system. We don't hand out harsh enough punishments for burglary, which forces homeowners into situations they are not trained to handle.

That intruder should have been facing about a ten-year sentence at minimum, 25 years if he was armed. As it stands, he would have plea bargained down to a second-degree burglary, which is a misdemeanor. I'm not sure he would have faced any jail time at all.

A burglar is the lowest form of thief. They are scum and they have no business in our community. Lock them up for a very, very long time and incidences like this will be rarer.

I agree with all of those, although I'd make it a caveat that they encounter someone. Either someone was in the home, or someone came home while they were doing it.

[OUMallen]

Is it OK if I don't go into the home to confront the maggot, let him come outside and then shoot him? :D

If I'm your lawyer, I suggest you just stomp the snot outta him. :texan:

[Curly Bill]

If I'm your lawyer, I suggest you just stomp the snot outta him. :texan:

Before or after I shoot him?

[Leroy Lizard]

The point is, again: if he's entering to "secure the premises" he may be intentionally and knowingly putting himself in harm's way. He's going TO a potential threat.

But that doesn't seem to jive with the definitions of "imminent danger" I have read.

If I hear a noise at night and investigate, am I putting myself in IMMINENT danger? How are you defining imminent?

[Leroy Lizard]

I agree with all of those, although I'd make it a caveat that they encounter someone. Either someone was in the home, or someone came home while they were doing it.

Why should the seriousness of the crime depend on happenstance? It's his intent and actions that matter, not whether he was fortunate that no one came home.

No burglar plans to be interrupted.

[OUMallen]

Why should the seriousness of the crime depend on happenstance? It's his intent and actions that matter, not whether he was fortunate that no one came home.

No burglar plans to be interrupted.

Just saying that if you want to increase the punishment by a lot, there should be some reasonableness to it. I don't think entering an empty house when no one is home and taking a $500 TV should be 25+ years.

[OUMallen]

But that doesn't seem to jive with the definitions of "imminent danger" I have read.

If I hear a noise at night and investigate, am I putting myself in IMMINENT danger? How are you defining imminent?

That sounds like you're already in the house. When you're already in the house, you don't have a duty to run away. You can make sure the house is empty, use deadly force if needed. Almost any interaction at that point will qualify as being imminently afraid of bodily harm.

However, wht if that noise is someone tied up in a burlap sack in your living room? You can't just walk up and shoot them. What if someone is completely nekkid and unconscious? You know they don't have a weapon, you can't just walk up and shoot them. You have to actually have some fear there.

If you're outside, and you know someone is inside, I don't know whether you're allowed to go in looking to kill. At that point, you're safe.

[OUMallen]

Before or after I shoot him?

Depends on the boots.

[Curly Bill]

Just saying that if you want to increase the punishment by a lot, there should be some reasonableness to it. I don't think entering an empty house when no one is home and taking a $500 TV should be 25+ years.

I don't think it should be 25+ years either, I think we should just shoot the slime.

[OU-HSV]

I think it's pretty unreasonable to expect people to call the police any time they see a door ajar. If you live out in the country it may be a long time before the county sheriff even shows up.

Let's note a couple of things in the article. Seems the story could be a little vague. But first off to me (I guess it depends on the layout of this residence), but how would the homeowner notice a BACK door being ajar, when most home owners enter their home either through a garage or a front door. Seems maybe they drove up and saw the window open. Then maybe cautiously entered their home and saw the back door open. At that point (if not before then), you bet your *** I'd be getting my gun out (whether I had already called the cops or not).
It was 10 PM, the intruder confronted the homeowner in his home wearing all black clothing and a weapon (although a sword) still this D-bag is in my house wearing all black clothes and has a weapon and who knows if he has a gun too or not, but I'm damn sure not gonna take the time to find out if he has a gun. Especially if what the home owner says is true about telling the intruder to stop, and especially if the intruder made the threatening statement that the homeowner claims he made. Seems the homeowner used his instincts, which IMO were good instincts, and took the proper action. Yeah so what the homeowner entered his own home after possibly noticing something didn't look right.
No offense to any cops who may post on here, but let's not all kid ourselves and act like EVERY city and county has the fastest police response. I've seen cops take an hour to make it to accident scenes before, so if I'm that home owner I'm not gonna take the chance and sit in my driveway like a sitting duck. And I'm also not going to take the chance of this intruder getting away and making a reappearance in my home or someone elses home and let him threaten my life or my family's life...or some other family's life.

I just don't understand the mentality of you people who actually feel sorry for intruders like this. I mean seriously, what's the problem with entering your own home (whether knowing or not knowing there's an intruder), then confronting the intruder and when the intruder doesn't cooperate or give in, shoot him. IMO the intruder was lucky enough the home owner (supposedly) gave him a chance to stop his actions.
It's not like the bad guy was in the road in front of the good guys yard and accidentally stepped on his property and the good guy blew his head off with a 12 gauge because of it. The bad guy was inside the good guys home, which right there tells you he meant to do harm to the good guy's property and/or family. That's enough said.

[OU-HSV]

First of all, the concept of self-defense seems lost on you. If I'm walking through my house with a gun because I heard a strange noise, I'm not "out to kill someone."

Second, he ordered the intruder to stop. If his job was to enter and kill, he would have just shot him.
I agree with this, among many of the other posts of yours in this thread. According to your red dots...here's a change for you, I'll give you some green. :D

[Curly Bill]

Let's note a couple of things in the article. Seems the story could be a little vague. But first off to me (I guess it depends on the layout of this residence), but how would the homeowner notice a BACK door being ajar, when most home owners enter their home either through a garage or a front door. Seems maybe they drove up and saw the window open. Then maybe cautiously entered their home and saw the back door open. At that point (if not before then), you bet your *** I'd be getting my gun out (whether I had already called the cops or not).
It was 10 PM, the intruder confronted the homeowner in his home wearing all black clothing and a weapon (although a sword) still this D-bag is in my house wearing all black clothes and has a weapon and who knows if he has a gun too or not, but I'm damn sure not gonna take the time to find out if he has a gun. Especially if what the home owner says is true about telling the intruder to stop, and especially if the intruder made the threatening statement that the homeowner claims he made. Seems the homeowner used his instincts, which IMO were good instincts, and took the proper action. Yeah so what the homeowner entered his own home after possibly noticing something didn't look right.
No offense to any cops who may post on here, but let's not all kid ourselves and act like EVERY city and county has the fastest police response. I've seen cops take an hour to make it to accident scenes before, so if I'm that home owner I'm not gonna take the chance and sit in my driveway like a sitting duck. And I'm also not going to take the chance of this intruder getting away and making a reappearance in my home or someone elses home and let him threaten my life or my family's life...or some other family's life.

I just don't understand the mentality of you people who actually feel sorry for intruders like this. I mean seriously, what's the problem with entering your own home (whether knowing or not knowing there's an intruder), then confronting the intruder and when the intruder doesn't cooperate or give in, shoot him. IMO the intruder was lucky enough the home owner (supposedly) gave him a chance to stop his actions.
It's not like the bad guy was in the road in front of the good guys yard and accidentally stepped on his property and the good guy blew his head off with a 12 gauge because of it. The bad guy was inside the good guys home, which right there tells you he meant to do harm to the good guy's property and/or family. That's enough said.

This^^^

[Leroy Lizard]

Just saying that if you want to increase the punishment by a lot, there should be some reasonableness to it. I don't think entering an empty house when no one is home and taking a $500 TV should be 25+ years.

Why not?

If you let him out in one year (Ha! More like one week) he can go back to burglarizing homes and putting homeowners at risk. And sooner or later someone gets shot.

Besides, breaking into a home is the most despicable form of thievery, and those that perpetrate deserve no mercy whatsoever.

Send a message: Break into homes and you won't see freedom for a very long time. And this will give police real motivation for going after such scum. As it stands, why bother?

[Leroy Lizard]

That sounds like you're already in the house. When you're already in the house, you don't have a duty to run away. You can make sure the house is empty, use deadly force if needed. Almost any interaction at that point will qualify as being imminently afraid of bodily harm.

The question we are focusing on is, "what is imminent danger"? If I hear a strange sound in my house at night, or I see one of my doors ajar, neither of those represent imminent danger.

Whether I am already in the house or not is beside the point.


If you're outside, and you know someone is inside, I don't know whether you're allowed to go in looking to kill. At that point, you're safe.

Would you please get off the "Looking to kill" crap? I'm investigating a noise, or seeing if someone is inside my home. I'm not looking to kill anyone.

[GottaHavePride]

The question we are focusing on is, "what is imminent danger"? If I hear a strange sound in my house at night, or I see one of my doors ajar, neither of those represent imminent danger.

Whether I am already in the house or not is beside the point.



Would you please get off the "Looking to kill" crap? I'm investigating a noise, or seeing if someone is inside my home. I'm not looking to kill anyone.

But the part in bold there actually makes a HUGE difference in the eyes of the law. If you are IN your house when an intruder enters, you are are allowed to respond to the situation as necessary, up to and including deadly force if you feel your life or the lives of your family are threatened.

If you are NOT inside your house and SUSPECT there might be an intruder in your house, it is - in a legal sense - much more prudent to stay the hell OUT of your house and call police officers to deal with the situation.

If you enter the house, suspecting there may be an intruder inside, you're walking into a potentially dangerous situation. In THAT case, if you shoot and kill an intruder, a prosecutor could very easily charge you with premeditated murder, because you had to stop and think "there might be an intruder in there. I am going to go confront the bastard and possibly kill him."

HOWEVER, the previously referenced Oklahoma State Law makes it very unlikely that a person defending his home (in Oklahoma) under ANY circumstances will face any criminal charges. (But also, that doesn't necessarily stop the burglar's family from bringing civil claims against you - wrongful death or some such...)

[Leroy Lizard]

No offense to any cops who may post on here, but let's not all kid ourselves and act like EVERY city and county has the fastest police response. I've seen cops take an hour to make it to accident scenes before, so if I'm that home owner I'm not gonna take the chance and sit in my driveway like a sitting duck.

You mean, like a scared little lamb? Because that's the way the burglar apologists want you to be.

Hear a noise at night? Stay cowering in your bed, because if you get a weapon and investigate you might hurt a criminal. It's better to lay there and let them steal whatever they want.

Later, the police might get your stuff back. Probably not. The burglar apologists don't care, because in their minds the most important thing in the world is that the burglar didn't get hurt.

They will then congratulate you for doing the right thing. "Way to go Bob!" After all, what's a tv and stereo? You can always work long hours to replace those. Your time is free, right?

Of course, the burglar won't work. He can simply steal whatever needs.

So you're a grade-A schmuck! You work your *** off to buy something, and allow someone to just come in and take it.

And that's the way they want it.

[Leroy Lizard]

But the part in bold there actually makes a HUGE difference in the eyes of the law. If you are IN your house when an intruder enters, you are are allowed to respond to the situation as necessary, up to and including deadly force if you feel your life or the lives of your family are threatened.

If you are NOT inside your house and SUSPECT there might be an intruder in your house, it is - in a legal sense - much more prudent to stay the hell OUT of your house and call police officers to deal with the situation.

If you enter the house, suspecting there may be an intruder inside, you're walking into a potentially dangerous situation.

But does that constitute IMMINENT danger?

I keep asking, but no one answers. What constitutes imminent danger?

I think someone has broken into my home. They may still be inside. They may not. Does walking inside constitute imminent danger?

No, according to my understanding of the word "imminent."

[Curly Bill]

If it's my freaking house, I'm gonna walk inside when I want. If there's a bad guy inside and the poor soul happens to get shot, then tough luck -- he shouldn't have been there.

[NormanPride]

Okay, so now that Leroy's on ignore, I'd like to say that I just hate killing. I don't fault the guy in the situation he was in, and I don't fault people stuck in their homes when someone invades. My wish is that he hadn't invaded at all and stayed back to relay information to the police. There was a perfect example in last week's Tulsa World about a guy that followed two robbers of a Sonic, and the information he gave lead to their arrest. No loss of life, bad guys behind bars. That's all I prefer.

[Crucifax Autumn]

I just keep whorn, duck, and volunteer players out of my neighborhood and don't have to worry about break ins.

[OUMallen]

But does that constitute IMMINENT danger?

I keep asking, but no one answers. What constitutes imminent danger?

I think someone has broken into my home. They may still be inside. They may not. Does walking inside constitute imminent danger?

No, according to my understanding of the word "imminent."

I answered earlier. If you're outside, and they're inside, you're probably not in imminent danger.

If you choose to go inside at that point, you have put yourself at the risk of imminent danger, and you may not be afforded the defense.

Stop with the burglar apologist horsecrap. No one is apologizing for burglars.

[Leroy Lizard]

Okay, so now that Leroy's on ignore, I'd like to say that I just hate killing. I don't fault the guy in the situation he was in, and I don't fault people stuck in their homes when someone invades. My wish is that he hadn't invaded at all and stayed back to relay information to the police. There was a perfect example in last week's Tulsa World about a guy that followed two robbers of a Sonic, and the information he gave lead to their arrest. No loss of life, bad guys behind bars. That's all I prefer.


Oh yes, everyone will end up living happily ever after. Here is more on that story. Sniff. Isn't it wondeful that the robber wasn't injured?


There are similarities between the Sonic heist and a string of other recent fast-food restaurant robberies.

A man with a similar description tried to rob the Sonic drive-in at 5908 S. Lewis Ave. about 9 p.m. Feb. 23. The robber fired two rounds through the glass from outside the locked restaurant and then entered, Walker said last month. He punched an employee and demanded cash from a safe, but he left before the employees could get it open.

Thankfully, the robber wasn't hurt.


On Feb. 18, the Sonic at 4531 E. 51st St. was robbed about 8:40 p.m., police said. The bandit pointed a handgun at employees, fired once into the ceiling and demanded money from the safe.

Luckily, none of those bullets hit the robber.


The Braum’s at 5130 S. Peoria Ave. was robbed Feb. 16 in a similar manner. The robber entered about 8:35 p.m. and quickly went behind the counter to the kitchen area, Walker said. He fired one round from a revolver into the ceiling and then ordered the manager to open the safe.


But remember, the robber didn't get hurt, so it's all good. He'll be out in six months, no worse for wear. In the meantime, I feel sorry for you if you own a pizza joint or Sonic in Tulsa, or happen to work in one.

[Leroy Lizard]

If you choose to go inside at that point, you have put yourself at the risk of imminent danger, and you may not be afforded the defense.

And no definition of "imminent" that I have seen appears to agree with you. The term is not a synonym for "risk" or "taking a chance." Again, here is a legal definition:

"Imminent danger is an immediate threat of harm"

http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/imminent-danger/

Note the term "immediate." Going into a house that you think MIGHT have someone inside is not placing yourself in immediate danger because you haven't even established that a threat even exists.

However, if you peer into the window and see that there is a man inside and he is armed, then going into the house and confronting the criminal does constitute an immediate threat of harm.

It it was up to me, I would rule according to two basic tenets: (1) No criminal, by his presence in your home, can prevent you from exercising your right to go into your home and (2) you have the basic right to protect yourself. Add those two together and you should have a bullet-proof defense for the type of occurrence that took place.

In an ideal world.

[OU-HSV]

If it's my freaking house, I'm gonna walk inside when I want. If there's a bad guy inside and the poor soul happens to get shot, then tough luck -- he shouldn't have been there.

yep

[OU-HSV]

Okay, so now that Leroy's on ignore, I'd like to say that I just hate killing. I don't fault the guy in the situation he was in, and I don't fault people stuck in their homes when someone invades. My wish is that he hadn't invaded at all and stayed back to relay information to the police. There was a perfect example in last week's Tulsa World about a guy that followed two robbers of a Sonic, and the information he gave lead to their arrest. No loss of life, bad guys behind bars. That's all I prefer.

I'm not saying killing is the answer to all situations. But I have no problem with this man killing his intruder, and I have no problem with other such similar situations.
And to keep it honest, this particular case can't be compared to the sonic story you mentioned. At least from what we can gather/guess from this small article, there was no car for the intruder because it would've or should have at least been mentioned.

So to satisfy your wishes in this case, the best thing that could've happened would've been the intruder heard them drive up, got spooked and ran off...and at best the homeowner would call the cops with a description of an intruder wearing all black who ran a certain direction. And oops, the intruder dropped a sword, but it didn't have finger prints on it, so that's worthless too. And I think we all know what this all would've led to...absolutely nothing. Oh wait, that is, except for a man and his wife who would then have many sleepless nights trying to get this out of their mind and hoping the robber wouldn't return. And I'm sure the intruder would continue to rob homes, and threaten people and possibly kill people if need be for many years to come. And chances are if the intruder returned to this same home while they were home, the home owner would have his gun handy again and blast the dude anyways.

[OU-HSV]

And I just want to add that I live in B.A. and have other family and friends who live in B.A. and I'm glad to know there's now one less dirt bag walking the streets in my city

[OKC-SLC]

And I just want to add that I live in B.A. and have other family and friends who live in B.A. and I'm glad to know there's now one less dirt bag walking the streets in my city

sounds like the real dirt bag is the homeowner.


(insert a rolls eyes thing here)

[Leroy Lizard]

And maybe the fact that one dirt bag got shot could make others think twice about robbing your home.

[OU-HSV]

Here's an update per the Tulsa World. Big surprise, the dirtbag had a record:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100402_11_0_TURLEY322310


TURLEY — A homeowner shot and killed a burglar Thursday night when the man threatened him with a sword, sheriff’s officials said.
The burglar who was shot at 6017 N. Owasso Ave. was identified as Billy Jean Tiffey III, 19, Tulsa County Sheriff’s Sgt. Shannon Clark said.

The homeowner, Michael Lish, and his wife arrived home about 10 p.m. to find the back door ajar and a window open, spokesman Clark said.

As Lish, who had a concealed-weapon permit, searched the house, an intruder wearing all-black clothing confronted him while wielding a sword.

The intruder made a threatening statement and walked toward Lish, so Lish ordered him to stop, Clark said. As the intruder continued to walk toward him, Lish fired one shot, striking Tiffey in the abdomen.

Tiffey dropped to his knees and reached behind his back, appearing to the homeowner as if he was reaching for another weapon, the investigation showed. Lish then fired a second and third shot, striking Tiffey in the chest area, killing him, Clark said.

Investigators found that Tiffey was also carrying a .38-caliber pistol, the homeowner’s 9 mm pistol, a knife and a stun gun.

Authorities interviewed the residents, and no arrests were made, Clark said. The case will be sent to the Tulsa County District Attorney’s Office for further review.

Under Oklahoma’s “Make My Day” law, a person can use force — including deadly force — to defend his or her home.

Tiffey has a previous criminal record and had been on probation since Feb. 24 on counts of unlawful possession of a controlled drug and

possession of paraphernalia, court records show.
He was arrested again Feb. 28 and then charged March 8 with driving under the influence and driving under suspension, court records show.

Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100402_11_0_TURLEY322310

Guess I made a mistake originally, because I thought this happened in B.A., either way my feelings/opinion about the outcome of this incident don't waiver.

[Chuck Bao]

Honestly, I would be much more concerned about accidentally shooting my daughter-in-law who may have tried unsuccessfully to reach me on cell phone and had no other option but to gain access through a window to get the birth certificate of my son for a job interview. Okay, that wasn't the case here, but it could have been, as improbable as it sounds. I am only saying that going in, ready to shoot the intruder, could turn horribly, horribly wrong. Okay, back to your legal arguments on this case in point.

[OU_Sooners75]

I wonder how many people that are saying stuff like, "yeah, it was just a human life taken," were saying that when that abortion doctor in Wichita got murdered last year?

Yes, I agree, the doctor was vicious in his own right, but he was not breaking the law, yet so many people here were happy when he got murdered.

[Leroy Lizard]

I wonder how many people that are saying stuff like, "yeah, it was just a human life taken," were saying that when that abortion doctor in Wichita got murdered last year?

That's a sticky argument because in their view he was murdering children and the only way to stop him was to kill him.

I'm not in agreement, but I understand their argument. If you truly think the unborn are babies, then you need to do whatever it takes to stop him.


Yes, I agree, the doctor was vicious in his own right, but he was not breaking the law, yet so many people here were happy when he got murdered.

Whether he was performing legal abortions is of no consequence in their eyes. To them, it's like the holocaust. What difference does it make if the mass killings were technically legal?

[Leroy Lizard]

Honestly, I would be much more concerned about accidentally shooting my daughter-in-law who may have tried unsuccessfully to reach me on cell phone and had no other option but to gain access through a window to get the birth certificate of my son for a job interview. Okay, that wasn't the case here, but it could have been, as improbable as it sounds.

Okay, make sure the intruder isn't your daughter-in-law first before blowing the scumbag away.

[Leroy Lizard]

Guess I made a mistake originally, because I thought this happened in B.A., either way my feelings/opinion about the outcome of this incident don't waiver.

Letting him out of jail didn't exactly do anyone any favors, did it?

[unbiasedtruth]

3 words.....

legalize open carry.....

nuff said on gun ownership.....

[Curly Bill]

Don't kid yourself, you'd lose several minutes sleep over it.

LOL, you obviously don't know me at all. ;)

[OU-HSV]

Letting him out of jail didn't exactly do anyone any favors, did it?

Exactly

[MR2-Sooner86]

Why is everybody getting their panties in a bunch over this? The gene pool just got cleaned up a little. I figured everybody would be happy.

If he didn't want to die, he shouldn't have been breaking into somebody else's house. Case closed.

[85Sooner]

Why are they making sure that we know he had a CCL license? Is that required to defend your own home in Oklahoma?

[Leroy Lizard]

A homeowner shot a burglar. But dammit all, he has the right to do that. We have to lock him up for something. Let's check to see if maybe he broke the law before entering the house. And if that doesn't work... maybe he was driving with an expired license.

On a more serious note: Since the man shot the intruder in his own home, do the police have probable cause to check to see if he has a CCL license? Do they need probable cause?

Just curious.

[Sooner Eclipse]

A homeowner shot a burglar. But dammit all, he has the right to do that. We have to lock him up for something. Let's check to see if maybe he broke the law before entering the house. And if that doesn't work... maybe he was driving with an expired license.

On a more serious note: Since the man shot the intruder in his own home, do the police have probable cause to check to see if he has a CCL license? Do they need probable cause?

Just curious.

If you are carrying with a CCL and are approached by law enforcement in any way, you have to disclose that you are packing and produce the CCL immediately.

[Curly Bill]

If you are carrying with a CCL and are approached by law enforcement in any way, you have to disclose that you are packing and produce the CCL immediately.

At least in Texas this is no longer true. I was pulled over a few weeks ago because my tag lights were out. I told the popo that I was a CCL holder, but not packing at the time, and he told me the law had been changed to where we no longer had to tell them.

[Curly Bill]

At least in Texas this is no longer true. I was pulled over a few weeks ago because my tag lights were out. I told the popo that I was a CCL holder, but not packing at the time, and he told me the law had been changed to where we no longer had to tell them.

Still, popo approaches me I'm gonna tell em just because I think it's the smart thing to do. ;)

[delhalew]

Why are they making sure that we know he had a CCL license? Is that required to defend your own home in Oklahoma?

Your responsibilities as a CCL carrier are greater as you are supposed to be educated as to when deadly force is acceptable and among the the most responsible of folks.

Also, Mallon is talking all this case law and weeping over dead scumbags. All the while he doesn't realize that the Castle Doctrine, not Make My Day(which we don't have in OK), eliminate a homeowners responsibility to retreat.

[Leroy Lizard]

Your responsibilities as a CCL carrier are greater as you are supposed to be educated as to when deadly force is acceptable and among the the most responsible of folks.

True enough, but if a homeowner without any training or CCL could have legally defended himself in the same manner, then why is the man being held to a higher standard in this specific instance.

To me, whether or not he had a CCL is completely irrelevant to this particular incident, although it could be used as a defense by the homeowner.

[tommieharris91]

Also, Mallon is talking all this case law and weeping over dead scumbags. All the while he doesn't realize that the Castle Doctrine, not Make My Day(which we don't have in OK), eliminate a homeowners responsibility to retreat.

We DO have Make My Day AND Stand Your Ground laws in OK.

Make My Day and Stand Your Ground Statutes (http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeID=69782) (Mallen quoted this on the first page)

[bluedogok]

The lack of respect and sanctity for life, even for a thief, in this thread makes me sad.
The thief gave up any respect for his or your life or the sanctity for life when he chose break/enter into a place that he was unauthorized to enter. To me when someone does that they gave up all pretense of thinking their life was not possibly on the line. The burglar made that CHOICE on their own. As far as I am concerned one less burglar is a good thing, I would feel the same way if it was a distant family member who stole from our grandmother (among other residences and crimes) instead of sitting in the Federal Pen in El Reno. If someone crosses my door threshold or window sill with my wife and I in the house it isn't going to end well. If they make the choice to enter they knowingly made the choice to put all of our lives on the line and to think any different is just more of their own stupidity.

I don't trust the police to do much either, when our house was broken into last August the alarm company called APD, they came by and reported it a false alarm never noticing the back bedroom window was left wide open with a patio chair underneath it. Other than calling APD and telling them it did happening and missing item list they didn't seem to care about it.


You can have your opinion. It's just that centuries of caselaw disagree with you.
It doesn't matter, current state law supersedes that historical caselaw.


Let's note a couple of things in the article. Seems the story could be a little vague. But first off to me (I guess it depends on the layout of this residence), but how would the homeowner notice a BACK door being ajar, when most home owners enter their home either through a garage or a front door. Seems maybe they drove up and saw the window open. Then maybe cautiously entered their home and saw the back door open. At that point (if not before then), you bet your *** I'd be getting my gun out (whether I had already called the cops or not).
It could be a rear located garage, quite a few houses that I have designed are like many of the older homes (like Heritage Hills) with the garage in the back but a drive to the front. Most of the residents of that style home enter through a back door.

[Scott D]

...you know something like, "Redneck >>> Ninja". You know.

I was going to make some crack about the only one I could think of breaking in with a sword to rob me would be a down on their luck Dwight Schrute, but it'd just turn into a political pissing contest in 3 posts anyway.

[delhalew]

We DO have Make My Day AND Stand Your Ground laws in OK.

Make My Day and Stand Your Ground Statutes (http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeID=69782) (Mallen quoted this on the first page)

That is the Castle Doctrine. You may have noticed it applies to "dwellings", including a vehicle.

Florida for one, has a Make My Day law that extends the same rights of lawful for to ones person in public...pretty much anywhere. I think they have the usual exceptions of bars and fed/municipal buildings. We do have some of these protections in Oklahoma, but as I have been instructed, we do not have the protections from civil suit that such a law would provide.

[tommieharris91]

That is the Castle Doctrine. You may have noticed it applies to "dwellings", including a vehicle.

Florida for one, has a Make My Day law that extends the same rights of lawful for to ones person in public...pretty much anywhere. I think they have the usual exceptions of bars and fed/municipal buildings. We do have some of these protections in Oklahoma, but as I have been instructed, we do not have the protections from civil suit that such a law would provide.

I don't think you realize that castle laws and "Make My Day" laws are the same thing. We're arguing semantics, and we're also making the same point.

[delhalew]

Fine, but tell me what the hell you want to call Florida's laws which are a hell of a lot looser than ours, as far as free range perp ventilation is concerned.:D

[tommieharris91]

Fine, but tell me what the hell you want to call Florida's laws which are a hell of a lot looser than ours, as far as free range perp ventilation is concerned.:D

I won't cry over a dead burglar, but I'm also not an injury lawyer. :D

[delhalew]

I won't cry over a dead burglar, but I'm also not an injury lawyer. :D

Yeah, if you were an injury lawyer...you'd laugh all the way to the bank:D

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I'd rather not kill someone just because they broke in to my home. I don't mind crippling them or something, but death is very permanent for something like breaking and entering.

inb4 "you endanger my family and yer gunna die"

From a legal standpoint, not that I want to kill someone, I would rather the perp leaves my house in a body bag. Just makes the legal aspects nicer and more final and prevents dumbass jury awards to Mr. Perp for being shot.

[Chuck Bao]

That's pretty depressing any way you look at it.

Several years ago, my sister damn near shot herself in the mirror. She thought she had a perp in her home late at night. She got her bedside table gun - a pistol with a laser sight - and crept out down the hall into her front room. In the far side of the room she could see a red light and assumed that the perp also had a laser sight and a gun. Of course, she points the gun at the mirror and nearly scares herself to death.

In my opinion, it wouldn't be a bad idea to figure out this type of stuff in advance before you may need it.

[Leroy Lizard]

She used a laser sight? At night? Why not just wear glow-in-the-dark clothes and ring a cow bell?

[Tulsa_Fireman]

It's not a SEAL team insertion into the wilds of Nicaragua. Backlighting isn't exactly a bad thing.

[Jello Biafra]

i was thinking "situational awareness in your own house" is not a bad thing.

and o yeh, the mirror only reflects images...not bullets lol

[OUMallen]

Your responsibilities as a CCL carrier are greater as you are supposed to be educated as to when deadly force is acceptable and among the the most responsible of folks.

Also, Mallon is talking all this case law and weeping over dead scumbags. All the while he doesn't realize that the Castle Doctrine, not Make My Day(which we don't have in OK), eliminate a homeowners responsibility to retreat.

Einstein, I've drawn the distinction the entire thread.

[delhalew]

Situational awareness and familiarity with your firearm are job number one. Buying a weapon and letting it gather dust on your nightstand or other unsecure location is a big problem. If can't assess the situation in your own home, you have a long way to go as far as defending yourself.

[Leroy Lizard]

It's not a SEAL team insertion into the wilds of Nicaragua. Backlighting isn't exactly a bad thing.

I keep the lights off and remain hidden if at all possible. With a laser beam poking around the room, I know exactly where to fire if I'm an armed burglar.

And why use a laser sight in the first place?

[delhalew]

Einstein, I've drawn the distinction the entire thread.

Did you just find that? I thought we hammered that out already.

[delhalew]

I keep the lights off and remain hidden if at all possible. With a laser beam poking around the room, I know exactly where to fire if I'm an armed burglar.

And why use a laser sight in the first place?

This is what I wonder. I prefer a dark home and flashlight mounted for the duel use of target accuasition and blinding of the perp.

[Okla-homey]

Just a few general observations and personal opinions.

First off, whether the homeowner bears any civil liability sounding in tort is an open question, but I would trust a Tulsa jury to do the right thing if the case got to them. Moreover, if the jury believes the homeowner's testimony that he reasonably feared for his life, Defendant homeowner wins under Oklahoma, or any other jurisdiction's law.

Now, as to whether or not the homeowner gets sued in the first place, most likely, if dead maggot's family looks for a lawyer to take the case, you can bet it would be on a contingency fee agreement. Which means the lawyer gets a percentage of the recovery and nothing if the case nets a goose egg. Based on the facts as they appear in the paper, any recovery is a long shot, and most plaintiff's lawyers are faced with a business decision when the potential client walks through the door. To wit, "can I make this guy (and me) enough money to compensate for the money I'll have to spend to litigate this case?" I suspect here, the answer to that question is "no." Now, disregard the above discussion of contingency fee agreements if the dead maggot's family can offord to hire someone to sue the homeowner and pay his fee by the hour. Unless maggot is from a wealthy family, that's also very unlikely

Second off, I echo other posters assertions that its generally best to kill the intruder. For two reasons. No. 1: dead men tell no tales, thus only your side of the story will be heard. No. 2: dead young unmarried men are less valuable than injured guys, especially permanently injured guys -- in terms of the case's value to the Plaintiff in a civil lawsuit.

Finally, I bet no criminal charges will be filed against the homeowner, unless there is a lot more to this story than we know.

[Leroy Lizard]

Just a few general observations and personal opinions.

First off, whether the homeowner bears any civil liability sounding in tort is an open question, but I would trust a Tulsa jury to do the right thing if the case got to them. Moreover, if the jury believes the homeowner's testimony that he reasonably feared for his life, Defendant homeowner wins under Oklahoma, or any other jurisdiction's law.

I think that laws should be changed to make it assumed that the homeowner feared for his life and incumbent on the perpetrator to prove that such wasn't the case.

[delhalew]

That speaks to the difference of opinion Mallan and I have. Whatever semantic arguements we have. The "Castle Doctrine" makes assumed during most events that in the home you defended against civil suit. We in OK can not count on that in public even if we are within the law. We have to rely on a jury to do right by us.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

But I'm an adamant pacifist.

Any body else find this ironic from a dude that has a dolphin brandishing a gun as an avatar.

[Jello Biafra]

I think that laws should be changed to make it assumed that the homeowner feared for his life and incumbent on the perpetrator to prove that such wasn't the case.

i would assume that's the way it would be for most of us. wouldn't it automatically be assumed that you feared for your life? (or your family) i mean, there is a dude in your house weilding a sword that YOU didnt invite in...

I find that dude in my house after noticing the window open, the first thing im thinking of is "kill this high mofo before he gets to my kids"

[Jello Biafra]

Any body else find this ironic from a dude that has a dolphin brandishing a gun as an avatar.

yeh but the dolphin only takes the gun out in public when he is protesting net fishing for tuna...;)

[Bourbon St Sooner]

yeh but the dolphin only takes the gun out in public when he is protesting net fishing for tuna...;)

See the dolphin needs the sword instead of the pistol so he can get out of the net. Who says dolphins are smart?

[C&CDean]

Laser sights are alright - unless you're walking around holding the button down like Chuck's sister. That's just plain dumb. It ain't a flashlight...

On a sidenote, I purchased a new Glock Model 30 in .45 caliber Friday afternoon from Old Dog Guns in Lexington. I would have bought the 10mm but I couldn't find ammo - even at Bass Pro Shop or Academy. Even walmarts carry the .45 - albeit in FMJ. I'll use the FMJ for plinking and load up better ammo when carrying.

[Leroy Lizard]

i would assume that's the way it would be for most of us. wouldn't it automatically be assumed that you feared for your life? (or your family) i mean, there is a dude in your house weilding a sword that YOU didnt invite in...

No, I don't think it is.

And I think whether the man is armed or not should be irrelevant. A strange man in your house = fear for your life. Automatically assumed.

The perpetrator would have to prove that you were not in fear of your life, a tall order.

[OU-HSV]

Just a few general observations and personal opinions.

First off, whether the homeowner bears any civil liability sounding in tort is an open question, but I would trust a Tulsa jury to do the right thing if the case got to them. Moreover, if the jury believes the homeowner's testimony that he reasonably feared for his life, Defendant homeowner wins under Oklahoma, or any other jurisdiction's law.

Now, as to whether or not the homeowner gets sued in the first place, most likely, if dead maggot's family looks for a lawyer to take the case, you can bet it would be on a contingency fee agreement. Which means the lawyer gets a percentage of the recovery and nothing if the case nets a goose egg. Based on the facts as they appear in the paper, any recovery is a long shot, and most plaintiff's lawyers are faced with a business decision when the potential client walks through the door. To wit, "can I make this guy (and me) enough money to compensate for the money I'll have to spend to litigate this case?" I suspect here, the answer to that question is "no." Now, disregard the above discussion of contingency fee agreements if the dead maggot's family can offord to hire someone to sue the homeowner and pay his fee by the hour. Unless maggot is from a wealthy family, that's also very unlikely

Second off, I echo other posters assertions that its generally best to kill the intruder. For two reasons. No. 1: dead men tell no tales, thus only your side of the story will be heard. No. 2: dead young unmarried men are less valuable than injured guys, especially permanently injured guys -- in terms of the case's value to the Plaintiff in a civil lawsuit.

Finally, I bet no criminal charges will be filed against the homeowner, unless there is a lot more to this story than we know.

Nice informative post. Good stuff.