Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

https://gma.yahoo.com/killing-3-teens-during-burglary-may-test-oklahoma-010103618--abc-news-topstories.html

At this point, there are three dead guys, armed, in someone's home. I'm not really seeing much of a controversy here. I guess it was simply a "bad assault weapon" topic.

See that I don't think you can argue with. If you break into someone's home and they defend themselves, you've only got yourself to blame.

Now, whether or not there needs to be an investigation to check the story etc I dunno, but I'd hope so - I cast no aspersions, but imagine if the shooter was in on the burglary, and it was some massively convoluted plan to take out people he had beef with (it's not likely to be that here, as I understand the burglars weren't known to their intended victims).

 cuda1179 wrote:
https://gma.yahoo.com/killing-3-teens-during-burglary-may-test-oklahoma-010103618--abc-news-topstories.html

At this point, there are three dead guys, armed, in someone's home. I'm not really seeing much of a controversy here. I guess it was simply a "bad assault weapon" topic.

I'm 100% with the home owner on this, but it's always sad to see human life wasted like this...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
https://gma.yahoo.com/killing-3-teens-during-burglary-may-test-oklahoma-010103618--abc-news-topstories.html

At this point, there are three dead guys, armed, in someone's home. I'm not really seeing much of a controversy here. I guess it was simply a "bad assault weapon" topic.

I'm 100% with the home owner on this, but it's always sad to see human life wasted like this...

Its terribly sad. Its terribly sad three kids valued property more than their own lives.

Also lets examine: this wasn't a robbery. This was a home invasion. From the driver that surrendered later:
*They had cased the joint.
*They knew it was on the outskirts of town.
*They knew the person was home (he had words with them but they did not withdraw).
*They were armed and had masks.
*They kicked and did not retreat.

I think I'd like it more if it were adequate force for whatever threat. Like if they have a gun shoot them, but if its bats and such you should at least warn them before shooting them; if they're running at you then it's obvious the warning won't work. But like the issue with all that then is it becomes hard to prove if it was justified or not.

He did warn them. They still came. If only someone had gotten to them in time to teach them properly, to value themselves more than stuff.

Oh then while it's sad, it was their choice.

 n0t_u wrote:
I think I'd like it more if it were adequate force for whatever threat. Like if they have a gun shoot them, but if its bats and such you should at least warn them before shooting them; if they're running at you then it's obvious the warning won't work. But like the issue with all that then is it becomes hard to prove if it was justified or not.

I can only speak from the perspective of British law, but when we've had cases like this over here, the judges have reasonably concluded that homeowners being invaded at 3am, are shocked, frightened, and have not the time to do a risk assessment!

What's the reasoning behind the getaway driver being charged with murder? Can't say I disagree but just wanted an explanation.

 Medium of Death wrote:
What's the reasoning behind the getaway driver being charged with murder? Can't say I disagree but just wanted an explanation.

Joint enterprise.

 Medium of Death wrote:
What's the reasoning behind the getaway driver being charged with murder? Can't say I disagree but just wanted an explanation.

The driver is a 21 year old woman who dropped off 3 males ages 16-18 at a home to commit a felony home invasion so she's an accessory to the lesser crimes and charges with murder because Oklahoma law lets you charge people with murder as a result of deaths caused in the commencement of a felony. The woman drove the boys to the felony so she bears responsibility at least in part for their deaths during that felony.

This really isn't a case of Stand Your Ground because it happened inside a residence it invokes the Castle Doctrine instead.

 Medium of Death wrote:
What's the reasoning behind the getaway driver being charged with murder? Can't say I disagree but just wanted an explanation.

They were part of the overall crime. Under many state's law, a co-conspirator can be charged with the crime of the others. Additionally this may include the results of that crime, including deaths resulting.

Don't like it, hey don't be a ing criminal get away driver to a gang of home invaders.

EDIT: Ninja'd by PD.

Thanks chaps. Don't disagree, just wanted to know the technicalities.

Yeah there's no issue here. Three armed individuals invaded a person's home, got killed in self defense.

I read that two died inside the property, and one expired outside.

For understanding of the technicality of this law, where would the shooter stand on the third one, that died outside, if the entry wounds were to his back, perhaps suggestive that person had tried to leave the property?

Again - no aspersions cast. Just trying to understand the letter of the law.

If the perp was shot while in the house, the shooter is likely going to be okay, even if shot placement was in the back.


Lesson learned for the day, don't bring brass knuckles to a rifle fight.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Don't break into people's homes and you don't get shot. Simple!

 CptJake wrote:
If the perp was shot while in the house, the shooter is likely going to be okay, even if shot placement was in the back.


Lesson learned for the day, don't bring brass knuckles to a rifle fight.

They obviously had not good intentions breaking in armed for a fight. Only the home owner was better armed for a fight and they lost. Hard.

 CptJake wrote:
If the perp was shot while in the house, the shooter is likely going to be okay, even if shot placement was in the back.


Lesson learned for the day, don't bring brass knuckles to a rifle fight.

What would happen if one of the robbers was outside the property, say, fleeing the scene, and got shot?

Would the home owner be liable?

 CptJake wrote:
If the perp was shot while in the house, the shooter is likely going to be okay, even if shot placement was in the back.


Lesson learned for the day, don't bring brass knuckles to a rifle fight.

You say likely?

Is that based on the law itself, or the chances of a favourable Jury?

I ask because we had something similar here in the UK. Oiks broke into a farm. Farmer fights back with his (legally held) shotgun. One gets jobbed in the house, but the other was shot in the back some distance away - which suggested he was fleeing the scene. Farmer was OK on the first, but if memory serves did time for the second.

I guess if the evidence is they were shot as a group, rather than (only positing here) say one by one the shooter will be OK - but if the evidence suggests the third man was shot whilst outside the building and after the other two?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ninja'd!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I read that two died inside the property, and one expired outside.

For understanding of the technicality of this law, where would the shooter stand on the third one, that died outside, if the entry wounds were to his back, perhaps suggestive that person had tried to leave the property?

Again - no aspersions cast. Just trying to understand the letter of the law.

Case law suggests thats its important in the timeline when the bullets were fired. BG's spinning will get hit in different areas even the back.

On the other hand this is Oklahoma. If the victim wacked them, walked outside and shot up the car/reloaded/ shot again, got some coffee and shot some more it would have been alright and self defense affirmed. Oklahomans are soft on crime in comparison to Texas, but they are more conservative than those liberal strongholds like Singapore.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
If the perp was shot while in the house, the shooter is likely going to be okay, even if shot placement was in the back.


Lesson learned for the day, don't bring brass knuckles to a rifle fight.

What would happen if one of the robbers was outside the property, say, fleeing the scene, and got shot?

Would the home owner be liable?

In your hypothetical situation, is the home owner the one doing the shooting? When you say 'outside the property' do you really mean 'outside of the structure/house' or do you mean off the actual property? How are you judging 'fleeing' and how would the shooter know? (I ask because retreating to a better position to continue the attack is not really 'fleeing') Depending on how you want to frame your hypothetical, the home owner may or may not be liable...

But none of it matters to the situation from the article anyway.

Seems a bit strong for the getaway driver to be charged with murder of her conspirators.

I initially thought that they had killed someone in an earlier home invasion.

Cheers

Andrew

 Frazzled wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I read that two died inside the property, and one expired outside.

For understanding of the technicality of this law, where would the shooter stand on the third one, that died outside, if the entry wounds were to his back, perhaps suggestive that person had tried to leave the property?

Again - no aspersions cast. Just trying to understand the letter of the law.

Case law suggests thats its important in the timeline when the bullets were fired. BG's spinning will get hit in different areas even the back.

Bingo, a person engaging in a close attack may present different aspects, to include his back, in a very short period of time, while attempting to move to a position of advantage.

 AndrewC wrote:
Seems a bit strong for the getaway driver to be charged with murder of her conspirators.

I initially thought that they had killed someone in an earlier home invasion.

Cheers

Andrew

It's joint enterprise whatever way you look at it.

 AndrewC wrote:
Seems a bit strong for the getaway driver to be charged with murder of her conspirators.

I initially thought that they had killed someone in an earlier home invasion.

Cheers

Andrew

Charging the perp for any deaths occurring in the committing of a felony is pretty normal. It is meant to discourage participation in violent felonies. Three folks died in a felony she allegedly participated in. Sucks to be her, but I suspect she'll plea out to lesser charges.

 CptJake wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
If the perp was shot while in the house, the shooter is likely going to be okay, even if shot placement was in the back.


Lesson learned for the day, don't bring brass knuckles to a rifle fight.

What would happen if one of the robbers was outside the property, say, fleeing the scene, and got shot?

Would the home owner be liable?

In your hypothetical situation, is the home owner the one doing the shooting? When you say 'outside the property' do you really mean 'outside of the structure/house' or do you mean off the actual property? How are you judging 'fleeing' and how would the shooter know? (I ask because retreating to a better position to continue the attack is not really 'fleeing') Depending on how you want to frame your hypothetical, the home owner may or may not be liable...

But none of it matters to the situation from the article anyway.

Just making the point that these situations are extremely complex, and I'm glad I've never been on a jury that's had to deal with something like this.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
If the perp was shot while in the house, the shooter is likely going to be okay, even if shot placement was in the back.


Lesson learned for the day, don't bring brass knuckles to a rifle fight.

What would happen if one of the robbers was outside the property, say, fleeing the scene, and got shot?

Would the home owner be liable?

In your hypothetical situation, is the home owner the one doing the shooting? When you say 'outside the property' do you really mean 'outside of the structure/house' or do you mean off the actual property? How are you judging 'fleeing' and how would the shooter know? (I ask because retreating to a better position to continue the attack is not really 'fleeing') Depending on how you want to frame your hypothetical, the home owner may or may not be liable...

But none of it matters to the situation from the article anyway.

Just making the point that these situations are extremely complex, and I'm glad I've never been on a jury that's had to deal with something like this.

They are not always complex. In this case it appears the perp was shot in the house, made it out before bleeding out. Simple.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
Seems a bit strong for the getaway driver to be charged with murder of her conspirators.

I initially thought that they had killed someone in an earlier home invasion.

Cheers

Andrew

It's joint enterprise whatever way you look at it.

I can understand the implications except the murder charge. I thought that in order to prove murder you had to show motive and planning. Neither of which is present in the deaths. Manslaughter would be a more appropriate charge I would have thought. She didn't set out to kill them.

Cheers

Andrew

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
If the perp was shot while in the house, the shooter is likely going to be okay, even if shot placement was in the back.


Lesson learned for the day, don't bring brass knuckles to a rifle fight.

You say likely?

Is that based on the law itself, or the chances of a favourable Jury?

I ask because we had something similar here in the UK. Oiks broke into a farm. Farmer fights back with his (legally held) shotgun. One gets jobbed in the house, but the other was shot in the back some distance away - which suggested he was fleeing the scene. Farmer was OK on the first, but if memory serves did time for the second.

I guess if the evidence is they were shot as a group, rather than (only positing here) say one by one the shooter will be OK - but if the evidence suggests the third man was shot whilst outside the building and after the other two?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ninja'd!

I'm pretty sure part of the problem was that in that case Tony Martin had an illegally held shotgun which he claimed had been left in his car by an anonymous well wisher after he'd been burgled previously. IIRC He gave no warning and shot them in the back as they tried to flee.