Getaway driver arrested for murder.

DevilsAdvocate said:
The unlawful carry law (21-1272) was amended last November to remove all reference to knives. Knives are legal to carry now. However, a knife still falls under the definition of a "deadly or dangerous weapon". Both the knife and the brass knuckles in the burglary would be deadly or dangerous weapons.

As long as we seem to be going through the entirety of the Oklahoma criminal statutes, I did notice that Oklahoma still has laws against blasphemy and profane swearing (21-901 to 21-905):



If you dare trifle with Jesus in the great state of Oklahoma you might find yourself a dollar short:
Click to expand...

JC on a *********** crutch giving the Holy Spirit a BJ while sodomizing his daddy!!!
 
ponderingturtle said:
You can't finish them off if you only wound them and that ends the threat to you. It is not a penalty but a result of defending yourself.

Not all negative results to something are a punishment for it. If the shooter didn't stop when the threat was neutralized he could be charged with murder. But the goal of the defense is to neutralize the threat.
Click to expand...

True. There was a case not too long ago about some old psycho in Minnesota that killed two kids that broke into his house. Unlike this case, that guy decided to execute them after they were already incapacitated. Then left them there, dead, in his house for a day before calling the authorities. And he audio recorded it (which showed he taunted one of them as he executed her) and told the cops all about it! Oh yeah, he also made it look like he wasn't home to lure them there, and laid in wait in his basement.

He was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and given a life sentence. Deservedly so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_David_Smith_killings
 
Last edited:
Yeggster said:
That's not correct ... you are not taking into account any sort of reality.

The object was MICRONS tall ...

The object was MILES tall ...

Yes you COULD measure a man's hight in fraction of a Parsec ... or the distance to the nearest sun in Attometers ... but nobody does that.
Click to expand...

Welcome to science, where conversion factors are a thing and we can impress you with how many dollar bills need to be stacked up to reach the moon.

(And the number of letters in this post far exceeds the number of words.)

If you really want to reduce police response time, if that's a big concern, become one.
 
Vixen said:
Being British, I feel sure I would politely but firmly demand to know what they were doing, and invite them to leave.
Click to expand...

You know, I disagree with Vixen here, but I'll give her this. She does sound really, really British.

I don't happen to own any guns, despite my Okie heritage, but I think that expecting the worst from masked men breaking into my house is quite reasonable, and that this reasonable expectation justifies a violent reaction.

Still, inviting them to leave is mighty British, at least as far as my prejudices go. (I get these prejudices from BBC4, so they're quite accurate I'm sure.)
 
Vixen said:
We have been told 'it is illegal to point a gun at somebody'.

Maybe the other solution is to call the police before descending the stairs with your AR 15.
Click to expand...

Er, no, it's not illegal to point a gun at somebody in certain situations. Surely, you jest.

If someone else is pointing a gun at me, for instance, and he isn't a police officer and I'm not engaged in any crimes, then I'm allowed to defend myself. Again, things might be different in the UK, but in the US, generally speaking, we have the right of self-defense. This includes, often (and depending on the local laws), the right to defend one's home from invasion with deadly force.

We don't usually think that the homeowner is required to invite the person to leave.
 
Matthew Best said:
Presumably if they're British too, you can just take it on trust.
Click to expand...

Brilliant! Honestly, really funny! Thanks for that.

Okay, I know it might sound like I'm being sarcastic, but I'm not. I think that's a really funny reply.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
The unlawful carry law (21-1272) was amended last November to remove all reference to knives. Knives are legal to carry now. However, a knife still falls under the definition of a "deadly or dangerous weapon". Both the knife and the brass knuckles in the burglary would be deadly or dangerous weapons.

As long as we seem to be going through the entirety of the Oklahoma criminal statutes, I did notice that Oklahoma still has laws against blasphemy and profane swearing (21-901 to 21-905):



If you dare trifle with Jesus in the great state of Oklahoma you might find yourself a dollar short:
Click to expand...

Well, to be sure, it's just unenforceable and no one has gotten around to remove it.

To be more realistic, no politician in OK has any incentive in removing this law. Being pro-blasphemy doesn't gain many votes.
 
Tony Stark said:
True. There was a case not too long ago about some old psycho in Minnesota that killed two kids that broke into his house. Unlike this case, that guy decided to execute them after they were already incapacitated. Then left them there, dead, in his house for a day before calling the authorities. And he audio recorded it (which showed he taunted one of them as he executed her) and told the cops all about it! Oh yeah, he also made it look like he wasn't home to lure them there, and laid in wait in his basement.

He was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and given a life sentence. Deservedly so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_David_Smith_killings
Click to expand...


I note that the 15-year old girl in the car with 21-year old Elizabeth Roderiguez, the self-confessed ring leader, claims she heard twelve shots.

That's a far cry from the two shots, as claimed by Peters, the 23-year old homeowner's soon, the shooter.

So, technically, the 15-year old could also be charged with first degree murder? The sister/girlfriend of one of the dead teens?

Re Byron Smith, what he did was pure vindictiveness, but sad that an old vet should have been brought to that level.
 
Argumemnon said:
Vixen?
Click to expand...

Because the first assumption should be, they are there to burgle.

It seems rash to me to put your life at risk, just for the sake of protecting a small amount of cash or a piece of white goods.

Call the police and leave it to them.

My policy is always to walk away from trouble.

Revenge is good, but it is a dish best served cold. Instead of blasting the burglar with a shotgun, enjoy the sense of justice instead, when the perps are subjected to due legal process.
 
phiwum said:
Er, no, it's not illegal to point a gun at somebody in certain situations. Surely, you jest.

If someone else is pointing a gun at me, for instance, and he isn't a police officer and I'm not engaged in any crimes, then I'm allowed to defend myself. Again, things might be different in the UK, but in the US, generally speaking, we have the right of self-defense. This includes, often (and depending on the local laws), the right to defend one's home from invasion with deadly force.

We don't usually think that the homeowner is required to invite the person to leave.
Click to expand...

No, this is what a poster told me, when I suggested pointing your gun and shouting FREEZE - PUT YOUR HANDS ON YOUR HEAD - YOU HAVE THREE SECONDS TO GET OUT.

We don't have a gun culture in the UK and most burglars are highly nervous and keen to leg it with their spoils as fast as possible. The majority do NOT want to be confronted with the homeowner. It is surely safer for the homeowner to just let them flee.
 
Vixen said:
Because the first assumption should be, they are there to burgle.

It seems rash to me to put your life at risk, just for the sake of protecting a small amount of cash or a piece of white goods.

Call the police and leave it to them.

My policy is always to walk away from trouble.

Revenge is good, but it is a dish best served cold. Instead of blasting the burglar with a shotgun, enjoy the sense of justice instead, when the perps are subjected to due legal process.
Click to expand...
To repeat: When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Another saying we have here: I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.

This signature is intended to irritate people.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
No, this is what a poster told me, when I suggested pointing your gun and shouting FREEZE - PUT YOUR HANDS ON YOUR HEAD - YOU HAVE THREE SECONDS TO GET OUT.

We don't have a gun culture in the UK and most burglars are highly nervous and keen to leg it with their spoils as fast as possible. The majority do NOT want to be confronted with the homeowner. It is surely safer for the homeowner to just let them flee.
Click to expand...

The problem with your suggestion, and any suggestion of the sort is what happens when the bad guy doesn't respond as expected? You are right back in the same dilemma of shoot or don't shoot. Somewhere there will always be a line to cross, and you will never be sure if this time shooting was the right thing to do. We just can't know.
 
Vixen said:
I note that the 15-year old girl in the car with 21-year old Elizabeth Roderiguez, the self-confessed ring leader, claims she heard twelve shots.

That's a far cry from the two shots, as claimed by Peters, the 23-year old homeowner's soon, the shooter.

So, technically, the 15-year old could also be charged with first degree murder? The sister/girlfriend of one of the dead teens?

Re Byron Smith, what he did was pure vindictiveness, but sad that an old vet should have been brought to that level.
Click to expand...

First, we shouldn't take anyone's account hearing a particular number of shots too seriously. You and I are really not well-trained for that.

Second, whether or not the fifteen-year-old is brought on similar charges is a matter for the prosecutor. He might think that charity suggests otherwise, or he might think that he has a thin case to show she was involved, or it might be some combination of each of these considerations.

Honestly, I'd be fine with dropping the charge for the driver, or at least lessening the offense. That's a whole other ball of wax from your main argument, that a homeowner ought to ask if someone who's broken into his home needs help and invite him to leave. That, I think, is the nigh universal point of contention with your claim.
 
Vixen said:
Because the first assumption should be, they are there to burgle.
Click to expand...
Why would you assume that?

It seems rash to me to put your life at risk, just for the sake of protecting a small amount of cash or a piece of white goods.
Click to expand...
Quite rash to be invading someone's home.

Call the police and leave it to them.
Click to expand...
They were called after the victim neutralized the threat.
My policy is always to walk away from trouble.
Click to expand...
Always a good policy if possible.

Revenge is good, but it is a dish best served cold. Instead of blasting the burglar with a shotgun, enjoy the sense of justice instead, when the perps are subjected to due legal process.
Click to expand...
Who says this has anything to do with revenge? Besides you, I mean. The getaway perp claims this wasn't their first home invasion, and they had pulled carjackings* as well. These aren't innocent first-timers, they are violent offenders.


*car·jack·ing
/ˈkärˌjakiNG/
noun: carjacking; plural noun: carjackings; noun: car-jacking; plural noun: car-jackings

the action of violently stealing an occupied car
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom