Getaway driver arrested for murder.

Armed usually means with a loaded gun. None of the three had a gun. That tells you they were not there to kill. The ski masks were likely donned to stop ID on area CCTV camera.

CCTV? In suburban Oklahoma? Damn, that's ignorant. You know so little about the place and people, yet you insist you know better than everyone what happened, what could have happened, what should have happened. CCTV. I mean, daaaaaamn, you know too little to even know how ridiculous that suggestion is.
 
The three burglar teens are the authors of their own mishap. However, we can't have people feeling they are free to shoot dead anyone who happens to trespass on their property. That is a terrible precedent. What on earth do you have there: the old Wild West...?

I live in Florida, we certainly can!!! Though the likelihood I will need to is extremely low - but, hey, I do value my life much, much, more than that of someone forcing their way in with intent to harm - and I am not a mind reader!!!:D:D
 
Armed usually means with a loaded gun.

In regards to the story that I told about scum robbing me of my cellphone, the cops told me that if they were caught, they would be charged with armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon. Their weapon? A rock.
 
Armed usually means with a loaded gun. None of the three had a gun. That tells you they were not there to kill. The ski masks were likely donned to stop ID on area CCTV camera.

I agree it can take a split second, that is why the law needs to be very clear on this. I am sure we can all think of an occasion when we could have happily caused someone a painful injury, and thank goodness you didn't.

People don't kill others with knives? Or are you saying knives are not meant to kill?

If it's the first, you are wrong, if it's the second I have over 2 dozen items that prove you wrong, just in my "old and boring" knife drawer.
 
He did shoot randomly. Hit one in the upper body - had no idea what happened to the others - thought one was still talking and that he'd only shot two. One managed to crawl out to the lawn, whereupon the getaway driver drove off and left him to die.
This is very naive thinking; shooting randomly would most likely ensure no one was injured at all. Try it sometime with a semi-automatic rifle yourself and you will understand.

Armed usually means with a loaded gun. None of the three had a gun.
Really? I don't think anyone actually believes this is true. Is that what the word means in the UK? It certainly doesn't mean this in the USA or in any dictionary I've read.
 
Last edited:

I think the right term is denial.
“They just made a bad judgment call, and they ended up dying because of it,” he said.
Really? A bad call? One bad call? I say their bad call was actually a long string of fatal errors starting with the plan to break in, to bring weapons and finally not retreat prior to being shot.

Collins said he doesn’t believe that his friends ever set out to hurt anyone.
That's what the weapons were for then I suppose.

“I’m getting blasted on Facebook for sticking up for my friend and grieving over my friend’s death when I know he’s not like that,” she said. “If they don’t know him, they don’t deserve to talk down on him.”
Unless he was dragged to the crime scene by the others, he really was like that. He deserves it all as far as I can tell.
 
This is very naive thinking; shooting randomly would most likely ensure no one was injured at all. Try it sometime with a semi-automatic rifle yourself and you will understand.


Really? I don't think anyone actually believes this is true. Is that what the word means in the UK? It certainly doesn't mean this in the USA or in any dictionary I've read.

It sad that Americans live in such a dangerous country they cheer when criminals are shot and sleep with AR 15's by their beds.

To come out en masse like macho Rambo Terminators when some 16-year old kid dies on somebody's kitchen floor or front lawn (albeit because of their colossal stupidity) informs me there is something wrong with your society.

Where you have this type of fear (cf Oscar Pistorius) it is usually an indicator of wide social distance (cf Brazil), leading to a situation where the rich have to put up barricades around themselves to keep out the no-hope poor, who themselves get even more violent.

Mad world. Illogical world.
 
Last edited:
This is very naive thinking; shooting randomly would most likely ensure no one was injured at all. Try it sometime with a semi-automatic rifle yourself and you will understand.


Really? I don't think anyone actually believes this is true. Is that what the word means in the UK? It certainly doesn't mean this in the USA or in any dictionary I've read.

Armed robbery means = with a gun or imitation gun in the UK. A knife, baton or a cosh is merely 'an offensive weapon'.

If referring to a knife, a newsreader might say, 'armed with a knife', but if he or she just says, 'armed' it is taken to mean, with a gun.
 
Vixen, any chance you could clarify what you mean when you claimed shooting randomly resulted in three people bring killed? I've been shooting rifles for many years, I've never been able to hit any target by shooting randomly. How do you do it?

It sad that Americans live in such a dangerous country they cheer when criminals are shot ....
This doesn't happen in the UK?

To come out en masse like macho Rambo Terminators when some 16-year old kid dies on somebody's kitchen floor or front lawn (albeit because of their colossal stupidity) informs me there is something wrong with your society.
Where is this happening? Got a link?

Armed robbery means = with a gun or imitation gun in the UK. A knife, baton or a cosh is merely 'an offensive weapon'.
You're making this up right? Got a link to the law which says you're correct?
 
Last edited:
Armed robbery means = with a gun or imitation gun in the UK. A knife, baton or a cosh is merely 'an offensive weapon'.

If referring to a knife, a newsreader might say, 'armed with a knife', but if he or she just says, 'armed' it is taken to mean, with a gun.

So what? Jack the Ripper did just fine with a knife.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Assault-Deadly-Weapon.htm
An assault with a deadly weapon occurs when an attacker accompanies a physical attack with a physical object capable of inflicting serious bodily injury or death, by virtue of its design or construction. Because the use of a dangerous object creates a risk of such serious consequences, all states classify assault with a deadly weapon as a felony. (Judges and lawyers often refer to the crime as “ADW.”)

“Deadly weapon” generally refers to a wide range of objects that can inflict mortal or great bodily harm—for example a car or a golf club. Some states consider knives and guns as "deadly weapons per se," which means that the prosecutor need not present evidence of their ability to cause mortal or serious injury. And some instruments, such as pocketknives, shoes, canes, walking sticks, and stones, while not deadly by design, can become "deadly weapons" depending on how the defendant has used them.

http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/violent_crimes/armed-robbery.htm
Armed robbery is a form of robbery which involves theft of property and carrying (or the pretense) of a weapon. It is considered a higher category of offenses relating to thefts and the use of force. Even though many of the elements of theft, robbery, and armed robbery overlap, an armed robbery conviction has significantly harsher consequences. Continue to learn more about the offense of armed robbery . . .
In addition to firearms, other items can be considered weapons or deadly weapons. Different states use different standards for what is required regarding the use of a deadly weapon. Some only require the use of a weapon, which is any object that could potentially harm another. Other states says it is any object that is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury, even if there is no actual injury inflicted. There are no limitations on what object can potentially be considered a weapon under either standard. Weapons include: knives, bb guns, lead pipes, broken bottles, pieces of glass. If a defendant cannot avoid a conviction for robbery, usually the best defensive theory will be to negate the weapon or deadly weapon allegation in order to get the lesser charge.
 
Last edited:
Read back on this thread. About 99% are glad these three teens were shot dead!

No, it doesn't happen in the UK.

Glad? Not really. More that I don't care. And think it certainly should not be criminal on the part of the guy that shot them.
 
Read back on this thread. About 99% are glad these three teens were shot dead!
99%? How many people are posting in this thread? Twenty or so? I didn't get an exact count, but with 9 pages of 40 posts each that is under 400 posts so far. 99% of people who are glad the teens are dead would most likely include both me and you. I know I haven't expressed any glee over these deaths and brief scan of the pages shows very little glee in general.

I have seen much disagreement with your claims and conclusions though. If a person does not agree with what you say, then they're glad these people were killed?

How about more skepticism and less hyperbole?

How about telling us exactly what armed robbery means in the UK statutes? You can't really expect anyone here to just take your word on it can you?
 
Last edited:
Wow. As someone who hates guns and has often found fault with "stand your ground" nonsense, I can't believe anyone could argue that it's in any way wrong to shoot 3 people who have invaded your home. Unless they break in while you're right next to a door that is 15 feet or less away from a police station, getting your gun and taking your shot(s) is a very reasonable course of action.

Could have been once the situation got out of control. But I would like to know what led up to this situation.

Did there people know each other? I bet they did....and I bet there's a whole-nuther story we have not been told.
 
I'm with you, but the law in the US seems to work differently and a fleeing criminal can be shot in the back with immunity, if I recall correctly. i think there's case law that tallies with this (I may be wrong, I often am).

I'm wondering - not of you, but of anyone that knows about this stuff - what the law is in this instance.

It’s a bit complicated. As usual, it varies a great deal from state to state.

In all cases that I am aware of a person may use force to defend themselves if that force is the only means available. In some states a person is required to first attempt to flee and seek safety if possible before using force. Other states have “stand your ground” laws that do not require the person to attempt to flee and allow the use of force necessary for defense.

Some states have a “felling felon” rule that allows a fleeing felon to be stopped with deadly force. In Tennessee v. Garner (1985) the Supreme Court ruled that police cannot use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon unless that felon poses immediate danger to the officer or to others. The court ruled that is an unlawful seizure. In an odd twist, some states allow citizens to use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon even if the felon does not pose an immediate threat. Citizens have more leeway than the police. However, there may be more restrictions on a citizen such as knowing absolutely that a felony has occurred and that the person is the felon, while police may use deadly force to stop someone suspected of a felon if they pose an immediate threat.

Some states that a “castle doctrine” that says that a person can use deadly force against anybody who unlawfully enters their residence (or business or vehicle). The concept is that in such a circumstance the person has the presumption of imminent peril of death.

Of course that is just criminal law. Civil liability can be a whole other issue.

Oklahoma has the castle rule (21-1289.25), so it is unlikely that the resident in this case will face any criminal or civil problems:

“A person…is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm …when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death…to another if the person against whom the defensive force was used…had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a…residence; and 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.”

It also covers civil liability:

“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.”
 
Armed usually means with a loaded gun. None of the three had a gun. That tells you they were not there to kill. The ski masks were likely donned to stop ID on area CCTV camera.

I agree it can take a split second, that is why the law needs to be very clear on this. I am sure we can all think of an occasion when we could have happily caused someone a painful injury, and thank goodness you didn't.

No, though it might in GB..... Armed means carrying anything that might be used as a weapon and is clearly dangerous. A screwdriver is quite effective for murdering/harming badly a person, so are coshes, so are razor blades. Stuffed bunnies, not so much.
 

Back
Top Bottom