[Tanada]

Eighteen-year-old Sarah McKinley and her 3-month-old son were unharmed when two intruders tried to break into their home outside of Oklahoma City on New Year’s Eve. Her husband had died from lung cancer on Christmas Day, and when she realized intruders were attempting to break into her home she had nothing to do but grab her 12-gauge shotgun and pistol, and call 911.

She spoke with the operator for 21 minutes, making sure she had the right to shoot if the men forced their way in.

“I can’t tell you that you can do that, but you do what you have to do to protect your baby,” the dispatcher told her as she held the infant with a bottle, according to KOCO.

She ultimately pulled the trigger.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/mom-cal ... a-shotgun/

When seconds count the Police are only minutes away. 21 minutes in this case.

[Cog]

One less zombie to worry about.

[Fishman]

Good job young lady!!! As of Jan 1 in North Carolina, I can call them afterward.

[Serial_Worrier]

*face palm* If you feel you need to ask permission to defend your home from zombies, then you deserve to die.

[RikkiTikkiTavi]

*face palm* If you feel you need to ask permission to defend your home from zombies, then you deserve to die.

If I was afraid I'd be thrown in prison and separated from my baby, and my husband had just died, I might want to check the law real quick first, too. She's got the whole thing on record via the 911 call, and she pulled the trigger. I think that's one smart, bad ass broad who was thinking damned fast under heavy pressure. Have you ever killed anyone?

[seahorse3]

Serial, that comment shows your an idiot. She did exactly the right thing every step of the way. Intentional or not, she called 911 and got the hole thing preserved on tape as it happened, thus no one could ever question her version of events- remember there was
A survivor that could have made up a different story. Further, her asking if she could shoot was smart bc she was told tondo what she had to do to protect her baby. There is a doctrine in the law that one can rely on authority which this 911 operator arguably has. As
A 18 year old or at any age she was calm and made the tough moral choice to shoot someone point blank which is easier said than done. Have you ever shot someone point blank? How long did it take them to quit gurgling? How much of a mess did it make? How long did you sit there alone with them before someone else came?

[Satori]

if you own firearms you NEED to know the laws of your state
especially if they have what is called the castle doctrine
or more importantly if they don't

heres some quickie info
http://www.totalcriminaldefense.com/ove ... trine.aspx

but check the laws in your state
as a gun owner ,this is one of your responsibilities
and there are many cases where homeowners or store owners have been charged with felonies for shooting someone who was leaving the scene

[Revi]

It sounds like one should tell the person to get out, then if they stay they have the right to use deadly force. The way I see it there are three lines in my house. First is the locked door, next is the security system and the third is deadly force. I hope none of them ever have to be used.

From the article above:

Castle Doctrine Explained

Based on the English Common Law provision that one's home is one's "castle", the Castle Doctrine is a popular yet controversial law that allows for a person whose home is under attack to use force upon the attacker.

As each state has its own Castle laws (just like the 3 strike law), there are a number of limitations and exclusions to the law. Generally speaking, though, the occupant:

must believe that the intruder intends to do serious harm
must believe that the intruder intends to commit a felony
must not have provoked the intruder or threat of harm
may be protecting himself or any other within the residence
may need to announce his presence and intention to retaliate

In all cases, the occupant must legally be in the residence, and the intruder must be there illegally. Additionally, Castle laws may extend these rights to a workplace, car, or other residence where the occupant is legally.

[Revi]

Here's the Maine laws:

http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/s ... ec104.html

[MD]

“I wouldn’t have done it, but it was my son,” McKinley told KOCO. “It’s not an easy decision to make, but it was either going to be him or my son. And it wasn’t going to be my son. There’s nothing more dangerous than a woman with a child.”

Amen.

The woman even retreated to her bedroom and attempted to barricade the door. she shot when he kicked it in.

so cut-and-dried as to be not worth discussing.

I hope she blew the bastards balls off.

[dinopello]

must believe that the intruder intends to do serious harm

If anyone asks you if you thought the "intruder intended to do serious harm", your answer should be "is there another kind ?"

[Ferretlover]

I guess all that manuvering to implement "dumb down America"programs is really working.

[Loki]

Serial, that comment shows your an idiot.

Dude, every comment Serial_Masturbator posts shows he's an idiot. Blocking him helps.

As for the OP, good shoot.

I heard today on the radio that Oregon doesn't have a castle doctrine. First I've heard that, I thought we did. You have to think that the criminal will cause violence to you or yours, otherwise you have to retreat, even if in your own home.

Not that it really matters, I won't be retreating in my own home regardless of the law.

[Cog]

If the intruder is dead, then the only testimony that the police or God forbid a court of law will hear, will be yours and yours alone.

Illinois doesn't have a Castle Law either but there is no responsibility to retreat. There is a quirk in the law which I find somewhat strange. Here it is:

Sec. 7‑2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent,
riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or

(2) He reasonably believes that such force is
necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

I see no real difference between someone who violently breaks into my house as opposed to someone who carefully breaks into my house. Either way, I'm going to be in fear of life since the intruder has no business in my house to begin with. Illinois does have immunity from civil suits in such a case where lethal force is authorized.

[MD]

... I see no real difference between someone who violently breaks into my house as opposed to someone who carefully breaks into my house... Illinois does have immunity from civil suits in such a case where lethal force is authorized.

Illinois has cat-burglar protection, like many states. In some regard it's valid, as sneak-thieves are usually cowards. If you are inclined to shoot first and ask questions later when confronted with an intruder, you should reside in states where that attitude is respected.

Illinois is not one of those states.

[radon]

I see no real difference between someone who violently breaks into my house as opposed to someone who carefully breaks into my house. Either way, I'm going to be in fear of life since the intruder has no business in my house to begin with.

What if you invite him to enter your house, then change your mind and shoot him once he is in, and later testify in the court that he broke into your house, even if carefully.

[Cog]

Illinois has cat-burglar protection, like many states. In some regard it's valid, as sneak-thieves are usually cowards. If you are inclined to shoot first and ask questions later when confronted with an intruder, you should reside in states where that attitude is respected.
Illinois is not one of those states.

What is this cat burgular protection of which you speak? I can find nothing in the Illinois statutes or ordinances which mention it.

But from my point of view I am under no obligation to determine whether the person entering my house only intends to steal or whether he intends to steal and then kill me. Its impossible to know his motivation and its not like you have a great deal of time to figure that out. Someone entering my house without invite in the middle of night immediately puts me in fear of great bodily harm so I'm covered by the second part of the regulation covering the use of deadly force:

(2) He reasonably believes that such force is
necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

Its not a matter of "shooting first and asking questions later," its a matter of coming out of this confrontation alive. Now if I had the circumstance of someone fooling around with the outside lock and had not yet gained entrance, I would turn on a light or yell out that I'm armed, probably both. That would give the opportunity for the burgular to determine his next course of action, which hopefully means running away. But if I wake up and someone is already in the house, my next move is to preserve my tactical options. And that option is respond with deadly force to the intrusion. As I said in Illinois, you have no responsiblity to retreat as you do in othe states.

The burgular/rapists/whatever, crosses the Rubicon when he crosses the threshold of my door.

[Cog]

What if you invite him to enter your house, then change your mind and shoot him once he is in, and later testify in the court that he broke into your house, even if carefully.

You are guilty of a crime of perjury and also murder.

I hope you are not a lawyer or a police officer in real life. That would truly scare me.

[Cog]

There is something further I would like to add to this conversation. As a gun owner you have a responsibility to know the laws of justifiable lethal force in your jurisdiction. You also have the responsibility to train with your gun of choice. I can think of nothing more dangerous than a homeowner fumbling around with ammo, playing around with safeties, and all the while trying to acquire a sight picture on an assailant.

You owe it to yourself and your family to be trained with whatever firearm you intend to use to protect yourself.

There is also another issue. Post-incident be very careful what you say to a police officer. If you don't know what to say, then remain silent. That is your right. It will cause you some grief from the PD but you don't want to provide some prosecutor with statements, however true they might be, as something that can be used against you later.

Saying things like "I shot him down like the dog that he was" is not really where you want to go. Stressing that you were in fear of your life is.

[radon]

You are guilty of a crime of perjury and also murder.

You are, potentially. And I am, in that imaginary setting, is a police officer who does not suffer from lack of imagination and carefully weighs all the possible scenarios of what happened, including abuse of the existing, excessively liberal, law.
What if

"I shot him down like the dog that he was"

is what you think, even though what you say is that

you were in fear of your life