Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Here's the summary of what happened:


3 teens (with a girl in a getaway car who dropped them off) broke into a Tulsa home at night near midnight. Young man grabbed his AR-15 (he was sleeping but heard them, freak out, grabbed his gun) and there was an altercation when he confronted them. So he fired on them killing two in the kitchen and the third died from his gunshot wounds, in the driveway.



No charges will be pressed and the DA said it was an easy decision.


Why did the man not get charged with anything for killing 3 teens by shooting them? Because Oklahoma has a "stand your ground" which has a similar interpretation of the Castle Doctrine.




Was he wrong? Was he right? Do you agree with the Oklahoma law and the DA's decision?




http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/crimewatch/sheriff-consider-your-choices-shooter-won-t-face-charges-in/article_4cde9574-7156-5dbe-857e-b7e537b59d9f.html

They broke into his house, it was self defense.

Originally posted by Silent Master
They broke into his house, it was self defense.


Whether or not it was self-defense is the "debate-able" point.

But, damn, I'm thankful for things like the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground.

It is very sad that three young men died, though. Wish they would have just run instead of arguing with a young man with an AR15.

It's not debatable, they broke into his house and they had weapons, ergo it was self-defense.

Originally posted by Silent Master
It's not debatable, they broke into his house and they had weapons, ergo it was self-defense.

But many do think it is debate-able. So much so that this case and cases like it in states like Oklahoma and Texas gets people angry and upset that someone died over property.

Why would this same set of actions have ended up with the young man in prison in my states and many countries (disregard that guns are illegal in some of those countries) if this is not debate-able? Do you see why I call this "debate-able"?

The very article you linked to said that it was investigated and it was found that he was justified in his actions. Debate over

Originally posted by Silent Master
The very article you linked to said that it was investigated and it was found that he was justified in his actions. Debate over

Okay, the Stand Your Ground law, which they used to justify the dismissal of the case, does not exist in 22 states.

So, yes, it is quite debatable. Why do you think cases like these are controversial and make news headlines if it wasn't debatable?



This is not a debate bout the legality of what took place. That's a different thread. Not this one. I covered the legalities of this case, already, in the OP.


If you'd like to debate the legalities of this case with someone, start another thread but I am sure you'd have a hard time getting any decent lawyer to disagree with you.

That he was defending himself is not the debatable point, the debatable point is whether or not he should have been allowed to defend himself. My stance is everyone has a right to self-defense. If you disagree feel free to make your case.

Originally posted by Silent Master
That he was defending himself is not the debatable point, the debatable point is whether or not he should have been allowed to defend himself. My stance is everyone has a right to self-defense. If you disagree feel free to make your case.

It wasn't self defense as it is defined in other states and countries.

In...other states...he'd be in jail with prison sentencing being debated.

He got off because of Oklahoma's (and other states) controversial Stand Your Ground law. It says it right there in the article. It is self defense under the Stand Your Ground law that Oklahoma has.



He may have changed his story in a non-SYG state, however, and then it becomes self-defense in all states.

Explain how what he did wasn't self defense. be specific.

I think if you are going to break into someones house then all bets are off. From the article there is this:

"The group actually targeted the property earlier that day, the first time breaking into the unattached garage and stealing liquor and some electronic equipment."

So they had a somewhat successful robbery earlier and decided to come back and hit the same place again.

Then you have another link where all the friends seem to be in disbelief over this, as is usually always the case:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/crimewatch/friends-in-disbelief-over-deaths-of-three-teens-during-home/article_d5cab1a8-bbe2-5732-aef9-4ad58408e7a0.html

This probably wasn't the first time the little thugs tried to break in somewhere either.

1. Castle doctrine is separate from stand your ground laws. The former exists in most states and gives the homeowner the right to defend their home without a duty to retreat. Stand your ground is less common and gives the same right but in a public setting.

The man was rightful in doing what he did. The kids were career burglars and deserved to die. They could never contribute to society so who gives a shit?

There is a case right now in Washington state where a dude killed a guy in his shower but's facing murder charges. The reason being it wasn't self-defense. He confronted the guy verbally, left, came back with a gun and killed him.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Explain how what he did wasn't self defense. be specific.

They never attacked him physically, they were not wielding the weapons found on their bodies, and at no point under common uses of "Justified Homicide: Self Defense" outside of "Stand Your Ground Laws" would the killings be legally justified.


Ignore the fact that the Stand Your Ground law exists in Oklahoma and there exists no self defense case. Unless he changes his story which would be very easy after talking to a lawyer before giving the account of the story.



Pretend "Stand Your Ground" law does not exist: it is not self-defense (legally, not your definition, the legal definition: we both agree on your definition) based on his story. In that scenario, he would be in jail currently, and he is awaiting sentencing or a jury trial to make a Self Defense with justifiable homicide (Jury Trial if he gets indicted) case. Much different scenario than what happened because this situation occurred in Oklahoma.

Originally posted by dadudemon
They never attacked him physically, they were not wielding the weapons found on their bodies, and at no point under common uses of "Justified Homicide: Self Defense" outside of "Stand Your Ground Laws" would the killings be legally justified.


Ignore the fact that the Stand Your Ground law exists in Oklahoma and there exists no self defense case. Unless he changes his story which would be very easy after talking to a lawyer before giving the account of the story.



Pretend "Stand Your Ground" law does not exist: it is not self-defense (legally, not your definition, the legal definition: we both agree on your definition) based on his story. In that scenario, he would be in jail currently, and he is awaiting sentencing or a jury trial to make a Self Defense with justifiable homicide (Jury Trial if he gets indicted) case. Much different scenario than what happened because this situation occurred in Oklahoma.

Where in the article does it say that they never attacked, tried/threaten to attack him or wield the weapons they brought?

With DDM on this overall. Execution isn't the punishment for thievery; at least it shouldn't be. They were 18, 18 and 16, no reason to believe they couldn't have turned their lives around and become contributions to society.

It's unfortunate that they decided to be thieves and it's unfortunate that the shooter opted to execute all three of them instead of firing a few warning shots to scare the piss out of them. Hopefully that person learns from this and if they're ever in a similar situation they won't shoot first and ask questions later.

I like my things; I like my things a lot, but I would rather have someone steal my goods over me killing them, as goods can be replaced. Killing someone should only be an option in defending your well being/life or that of another innocent.

Might have missed it, but why is the female driver being charged with murder? Are OK laws really that twisted? Charge her for being an accomplice to thievery, sure.

I believe you mean that it's unfortunate that the young man decided to defend himself from multiple armed intruders.

I believe I mean exactly what I said as I said it since I said it.

Then by all means post the source that stated that the armed intruders made zero threats or threatening moves before the young mad shot them.

I see. You should probably read the story and understand what's going on first.

Post the part of the story that states the intruders made zero threatening moves before being shot.

Originally posted by Kurk


There is a case right now in Washington state where a dude killed a guy in his shower but's facing murder charges. The reason being it wasn't self-defense. He confronted the guy verbally, left, came back with a gun and killed him.


Maybe you misworded, but that sounds like murder and not self-defense. If you leave, come back with a gun and shoot someone after a verbal disagreement?

Edit: Nevermind, "his shower", yeah, would have to know more exact details

How about feeling sorry for the kid that had to shoot, he was woke up came face to face with people WEARING Masks, not young kids, he would not have known.

Originally posted by Surtur
I think if you are going to break into someones house then all bets are off. From the article there is this:

"The group actually targeted the property earlier that day, the first time breaking into the unattached garage and stealing liquor and some electronic equipment."

So they had a somewhat successful robbery earlier and decided to come back and hit the same place again.

Then you have another link where all the friends seem to be in disbelief over this, as is usually always the case:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/crimewatch/friends-in-disbelief-over-deaths-of-three-teens-during-home/article_d5cab1a8-bbe2-5732-aef9-4ad58408e7a0.html

This probably wasn't the first time the little thugs tried to break in somewhere either. I find it disgusting that the news network only collected photo's of slain when they were kids. They looked so much older in other places that I read. lol

http://i68.tinypic.com/11wg3eg.jpg

Originally posted by Silent Master
Then by all means post the source that stated that the armed intruders made zero threats or threatening moves before the young mad shot them.

Yeah, the article says there was an altercation in the kitchen and they got shot. It would be one thing if the thieves announced they gave up and put their hands up and were clearly unarmed and then the guy shot them anyways. But that doesn't seem to be what happened.

If you're stupid enough to physically attack someone with a gun then you brought your death upon yourself. It is possible indeed these people could have turned their lives around in the future, but the guy is not a mind reader. He had no idea what they were capable of, he had no idea if they had any weapons at all on them.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Where in the article does it say that they never attacked, tried/threaten to attack him or wield the weapons they brought?

Oh, this game?


Do you even know what happened? They attempted to break in and he opened fire on them. haha


You'll have to do better than to try and play these games with me. I don't give a **** about the pissing matches you like to play. It doesn't matter in this thread.


Participate in the thread or don't.



Here is the topic of debate:

Should you be able to shoot home invaders dead if they are not attempting to harm you?




Here is the audio so you can pretend like you can argue against this thread. But you're missing the point if you want to make a case about "self defense." Good luck arguing with someone else: I will not argue that point.


http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/30/listen-heres-the-911-call-after-the-oklahoma-man-blew-away-robbers-with-ar-15/

Originally posted by Surtur
Yeah, the article says there was an altercation in the kitchen and they got shot. It would be one thing if the thieves announced they gave up and put their hands up and were clearly unarmed and then the guy shot them anyways. But that doesn't seem to be what happened.

If you're stupid enough to physically attack someone with a gun then you brought your death upon yourself. It is possible indeed these people could have turned their lives around in the future, but the guy is not a mind reader. He had no idea what they were capable of, he had no idea if they had any weapons at all on them.

It says confrontation, does that mean they actually threatened with violence or tarnished weapons? Confrontation could also be they cussed at the shooter.

I find it odd that the story wouldn't specifically cite that if that were the case, instead it focuses on the 'they broke in; therefore they could be killed' law.

You even go on to note that the shooter was unaware they had a knife and brass knuckles on their person at the time of shooting.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh, this game?


Do you even know what happened? They attempted to break in and he opened fire on them. haha


He tried that same time-waster-troll tactic on me as well, I advised he read the story as it seems he didn't.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh, this game?


Do you even know what happened? They attempted to break in and he opened fire on them. haha


You'll have to do better than to try and play these games with me. I don't give a **** about the pissing matches you like to play. It doesn't matter in this thread.


Participate in the thread or don't.



Here is the topic of debate:

Should you be able to shoot home invaders dead if they are not attempting to harm you?




Here is the audio so you can pretend like you can argue against this thread. But you're missing the point if you want to make a case about "self defense." Good luck arguing with someone else: I will not argue that point.


http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/30/listen-heres-the-911-call-after-the-oklahoma-man-blew-away-robbers-with-ar-15/

At no point in that audio does he state that the intruders didn't try and attack or threaten him before he shot. so what proof do you have that it wasn't self-defense?

Originally posted by Robtard
With DDM on this overall. Execution isn't the punishment for thievery; at least it shouldn't be. They were 18, 18 and 16, no reason to believe they couldn't have turned their lives around and become contributions to society.

It's unfortunate that they decided to be thieves and it's unfortunate that the shooter opted to execute all three of them instead of firing a few warning shots to scare the piss out of them. Hopefully that person learns from this and if they're ever in a similar situation they won't shoot first and ask questions later.

I like my things; I like my things a lot, but I would rather have someone steal my goods over me killing them, as goods can be replaced. Killing someone should only be an option in defending your well being/life or that of another innocent.

Might have missed it, but why is the female driver being charged with murder? Are OK laws really that twisted? Charge her for being an accomplice to thievery, sure. Maybe we should chop off hands then; Sharia law isn't all that bad. These "kids" were hardened criminals. The driver was interviewed and she said herself that they burglarized homes before. I mean statistically speaking about 82% of property offenders are rearrested for crime within 5 years.
"The report also found that recidivism was highest among males, blacks and young adults."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/once-a-criminal-always-a-criminal/

In retrospect the shooter could've taken another route, sure. I would have in his shoes too, but we can't know for sure. Once they're in the house and armed, it's fair game.

Many things can be replaced, but I would legally kill someone if they were trying to steal/vandalize say, a 1 of 2 built 1971 Hemi Cuda.
https://www.mecum.com/lots/WA0614-185434/1971-plymouth-hemi-cuda-convertible/
Protecting a piece of history is far more important to me than some peasant's life.

Your idealism isn't welcome here.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Here is the topic of debate:

Should you be able to shoot home invaders dead if they are not attempting to harm you?

Well wait man this is an entirely different question than what you originally asked, don't you agree? Like I said, I agree that if you clearly know people do not mean you any harm it is wrong.

It was not clear in the article that this man was aware they were making no attempt to harm them or that they posed no danger.



How did they break in? The articles do not seem to say. I ask because there is a comment from the dailycaller article that says this:

"The original reports were that these guys broke into the house, via a glass door, with brass knuckles and a knife. How is it NOT self defense. And I can tell you, I would not disarm until the police were actually outside my room and have the house cleared."

If they smashed through a glass door to get in..I can understand why the guy freaked out and shot without allowing them to get close enough to potentially do him harm.

Originally posted by Robtard
It says confrontation, does that mean they actually threatened with violence or tarnished weapons? Confrontation could also be they cussed at the shooter.

I find it odd that the story wouldn't specifically cite that if that were the case, instead it focuses on the 'they broke in; therefore they could be killed' law.

This is true it is vague as to what specifically went down. Having now listened to the 911 call, he goes on to say he didn't even get a good look at them, so it sounds like they broke into his house and he panicked and shot at them. I guess the question would then be if he should have risked his own life by waiting, since if it turned out they were armed or something that could have given them time to use their weapons.

Originally posted by Robtard
Maybe you misworded, but that sounds like murder and not self-defense. If you leave, come back with a gun and shoot someone after a verbal disagreement?

Edit: Nevermind, "his shower", yeah, would have to know more exact details My intent was to show the contrast between what is and isn't self-defense. Perhaps you thought I was pushing some sort of agenda?

Originally posted by Kurk
Maybe we should chop off hands then; Sharia law isn't all that bad. These "kids" were hardened criminals. The driver was interviewed and she said herself that they burglarized homes before. I mean statistically speaking about 82% of property offenders are rearrested for crime within 5 years.
"The report also found that recidivism was highest among males, blacks and young adults."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/once-a-criminal-always-a-criminal/

In retrospect the shooter could've taken another route, sure. I would have in his shoes too, but we can't know for sure. Once they're in the house and armed, it's fair game.

Many things can be replaced, but I would legally kill someone if they were trying to steal/vandalize say, a 1 of 2 built 1971 Hemi Cuda.
https://www.mecum.com/lots/WA0614-185434/1971-plymouth-hemi-cuda-convertible/
Protecting a piece of history is far more important to me than some peasant's life.

Your idealism isn't welcome here.

No, mutilating people isn't good either. No, they were not "hardened criminals". They would have had to been caught, released and gone back to crime several times over for that.

As I said, I hope the shooter learns from this and in the future doesn't take the shoot first and ask questions later approach.

While that's a lovely car, if you actually think that's worth killing someone over, then you really need to grow up.

Not killing people over goods isn't "idealism", it's common sense.

I hope that he and everyone in the area learns that it's ok to defend yourself against armed intruders.

I feel like how would this guy know how dangerous these people truly were and why should he risk his own life to find out?

Originally posted by Surtur
I feel like how would this guy know how dangerous these people truly were and why should he risk his own life to find out?

Didn't you read the part of the story where it stated the man was a mind-reader and thus knew with 100% certainty that he was in zero danger?

Can't believe I am saying this but THANK GOD for places like OKLAHOMA!

Man now I just feel dirty.

Sorry to know that these 3 potential Leftist Progressive Voters are now only re contributing to their Mother Earth.

Feed the Worms Boys. Feed the Worms.

Rob's right he should've complied with the 3 robbers, potentially let them stab him (with the knife they had/bludgeon him with knuckles) after pilfering his valuables, and pray on circumstance that they didn't use the AR15 he had because they "would've" eventually become producing members of society.

Its not like he should defend himself or anything, based off of legal precedent in the state or was in his rights.

It is always easy for others to stand up and defend their principles when it isn't their necks that are on the block.

Originally posted by carthage
Rob's right he should've complied with the 3 robbers, potentially let them stab him (with the knife they had/bludgeon him with knuckles) after pilfering his valuables, and pray on circumstance that they didn't use the AR15 he had because they "would've" eventually become producing members of society.

Its not like he should defend himself or anything, based off of legal precedent in the state or was in his rights.

Well that's not what I said, but I understand that's what you need to push.

Originally posted by Robtard
No, mutilating people isn't good either. No, they were not "hardened criminals". They would have had to been caught, released and gone back to crime several times over for that.

As I said, I hope the shooter learns from this and in the future doesn't take the shoot first and ask questions later approach.

While that's a lovely car, if you actually think that's worth killing someone over, then you really need to grow up.

Not killing people over goods isn't "idealism", it's common sense. And I hope he's not someone who values the life of some stranger breaking into his house with malicious intent over his own safety.

Originally posted by Kurk
Maybe we should chop off hands then; Sharia law isn't all that bad. These "kids" were hardened criminals. The driver was interviewed and she said herself that they burglarized homes before. I mean statistically speaking about 82% of property offenders are rearrested for crime within 5 years.
"The report also found that recidivism was highest among males, blacks and young adults."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/once-a-criminal-always-a-criminal/

In retrospect the shooter could've taken another route, sure. I would have in his shoes too, but we can't know for sure. Once they're in the house and armed, it's fair game.

Many things can be replaced, but I would legally kill someone if they were trying to steal/vandalize say, a 1 of 2 built 1971 Hemi Cuda.
https://www.mecum.com/lots/WA0614-185434/1971-plymouth-hemi-cuda-convertible/
Protecting a piece of history is far more important to me than some peasant's life.

Your idealism isn't welcome here. Don't be a nerd. The car itself doesn't matter, why care if it's a piece of history? All that matters is that they would deprive you of what is rightfully yours, so you must stop them, lethally if need be.

Originally posted by Robtard
No, mutilating people isn't good either. No, they were not "hardened criminals". They would have had to been caught, released and gone back to crime several times over for that.

As I said, I hope the shooter learns from this and in the future doesn't take the shoot first and ask questions later approach.

While that's a lovely car, if you actually think that's worth killing someone over, then you really need to grow up.

Not killing people over goods isn't "idealism", it's common sense. The point is, all semantics aside Robby, that they were repeat offenders.

While I consider myself gifted with an ability remain calm-headed and rational in stressful situations, that can't be said for everyone; especially with the flight-or-fight response. Hey we share that idealism, but we need to both accept reality of human nature.

That car is not a good. It cannot be reproduced. Maybe this will help you understand the type of person I am: ISIS destroying ancient historical sites pisses me off a lot more than when they murder innocent people. This is not to say that I am a psychopath but rather that I value items which have meaningful significance and can provide value to many generations of people.

The way I see it is: would the mass majority of people be pissed if a petty criminal died or if an extremely rare and valuable piece of art was destroyed?

LMAO this is hilarious. This is fair enough though, for all this fella knew they were here to rape or kill him.

Originally posted by NemeBro
And I hope he's not someone who values the life of some stranger breaking into his house with malicious intent over his own safety.

I think the issue here was there malicious intent towards the shooter or people in his house.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Don't be a nerd. The car itself doesn't matter, why care if it's a piece of history? All that matters is that they would deprive you of what is rightfully yours, so you must stop them, lethally if need be. nah. I'd rather let them steal my toyota corolla and file a police report later than risk dealing with court fees, lawyers, possibly a tarnished reputation, unwanted attention, etc. Depending on my state's laws I might hold them at gunpoint, but I would be very hesitant to open fire. This is why everyone needs a taser

Would of shot in the air

Originally posted by Kurk
The point is, all semantics aside Robby, that they were repeat offenders.

While I consider myself gifted with an ability remain calm-headed and rational in stressful situations, that can't be said for everyone; especially with the flight-or-fight response. Hey we share that idealism, but we need to both accept reality of human nature.

That car is not a good. It cannot be reproduced. Maybe this will help you understand the type of person I am: ISIS destroying ancient historical sites pisses me off a lot more than when they murder innocent people. This is not to say that I am a psychopath but rather that I value items which have meaningful significance and can provide value to many generations of people.

The way I see it is: would the mass majority of people be pissed if a petty criminal died or if an extremely rare and valuable piece of art was destroyed?

Yes, thievery. Not murder, rape or assault,

Fair enough, I fully acknowledge that's it's easy to talk when you weren't in said situation. As you'll notice not once have I said the shooter needs to be punished for executing three people.

ISIS' destruction of historical artifacts is indeed a massive loss. But you really need to grow up.

Originally posted by TethAdamTheRock
Would of shot in the air

When the bullet came back down and hit a 3 year old, what would you have done then?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Here is the topic of debate:

Should you be able to shoot home invaders dead if they are not attempting to harm you?

Absolutely. If an intruder illegally enters my home, then I will use deadly force to protect myself and my family. I don't know the intentions of said intruder, and I will assume a worst case scenario that grievous harm is imminent and will not hesitate to shoot to kill.

Originally posted by Robtard
I think the issue here was there malicious intent towards the shooter or people in his house. Or property, and yes I am saying I value my property over the lives of people I don't know, particularly if they have broken into my house.

Originally posted by Kurk
nah. I'd rather let them steal my toyota corolla and file a police report later than risk dealing with court fees, lawyers, possibly a tarnished reputation, unwanted attention, etc. Depending on my state's laws I might hold them at gunpoint, but I would be very hesitant to open fire. This is why everyone needs a taser If you have a taser then yeah use that.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Or property, and yes I am saying I value my property over the lives of people I don't know, particularly if they have broken into my house.

Fair enough. I've held similar views when younger.

.

Originally posted by TethAdamTheRock
.

????

Originally posted by Robtard
Fair enough. I've held similar views when younger.

Good for you robbie.

Originally posted by Robtard
Fair enough. I've held similar views when younger. Robbie you should become an EMT and serve the ghetto communities of Los Angeles. Get back to us soon with what you find.

Robbie you remind me of Brian from family guy tbh

Originally posted by Kurk
Robbie you remind me of Brian from family guy tbh

Because he thinks criminals lives are more important than regular people, or because he doesn't realize that bullets can kill people even after traveling through walls, so firing warning shots in a neighborhood can be extremely dangerous?

The amount of posturing and eBadassery in here is kind of epic.

Tell us more about how this was an execution rather than self-defense.

My eBadassery translates to irlBadassery a billionfold.

Originally posted by Robtard
I think the issue here was there malicious intent towards the shooter or people in his house.

How does he go about finding out whether there is malicious intent without putting his life at risk if it turns out they do indeed have malicious intent?

The issue is that all the person who lived there knew was that some strangers had busted into his house. You refer to them as thieves, but we've had people in this country commit murder over a cell phone. You never know how far people are willing to go.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Tell us more about how this was an execution rather than self-defense.

I see what triggered you now, it was my use of the word "execution". You should know that the word doesn't imply wrongdoing, eg certain states can execute people legally.

Originally posted by Robtard
I see what triggered you now, it was my use of the word "execution". You should know that the word doesn't imply wrongdoing, eg certain states can execute people legally.

This is true, but self defense isn't an example of execution.

Originally posted by NemeBro
My eBadassery translates to irlBadassery a billionfold.

The two people here who I think actually would act if someone invaded their home are Imp with his military training and guns and you, likely via bludgeoning until unconcious and then sexual molestation.

eWarriors like Silent would lock themselves inside their bathrooms, shitting himself; ready to offer his rectum at a moment's notice in exchange for not being harmed.

Kurk would just run to his parent's room, some urine may or may not escape during his journey.

Originally posted by Surtur
This is true, but self defense isn't an example of execution.

Execution can also mean "putting to death", which is what happened here. Please tell me your feelz didn't get damaged as well over my use of the word.

Originally posted by Robtard
The two people here who I think actually would act if someone invaded their home are Imp with his military training and guns and you, likely via bludgeoning until unconcious and then sexual molestation.

eWarriors like Silent would lock themselves inside their bathrooms, shiiting himself; ready to offer his rectum at a moment's notice in exchange for not being harmed.

Kurk would just run to his parent's room, some urine may or may not escape during his journey.

So what would you do?

Originally posted by Robtard
Execution can also mean "putting to death", which is what happened here. Please tell me your feelz didn't did damaged as well over my use of the word.

My feelings weren't damaged, I was simply telling you calling it an execution really does not sound right in this context. During the St. Valentine's Day massacre they lined up the people against a wall and then opened fire on them. That is more like an execution than shooting someone in self defense.

Originally posted by Robtard
The two people here who I think actually would act if someone invaded their home are Imp with his military training and guns and you, likely via bludgeoning until unconcious and then sexual molestation.

eWarriors like Silent would lock themselves inside their bathrooms, shiiting himself; ready to offer his rectum at a moment's notice in exchange for not being harmed.

Kurk would just run to his parent's room, some urine may or may not escape during his journey. I possess no firearms, and while I do have skill in martial-arts, it's a last resort for if I was cornered.

If time allowed it, I'd just call 911 and jump out a window.

See, I practice duty to retreat, but support castle-doctrine/stand-your-ground.

Roundhouse them all.

Well, words can have more than one meaning and usage.

Rob would just let them sleep with his wife in exchange for his well-being. That or he'd drop to his knees if you know what I mean.

Seriously, wtf is up with you Trumpers and your "cuck" thing fascination? So odd.

Originally posted by Robtard
I see what triggered you now, it was my use of the word "execution". You should know that the word doesn't imply wrongdoing, eg certain states can execute people legally.

Accusing me a being triggered, how original.

Originally posted by Robtard
Roundhouse them all.

Well, words can have more than one meaning and usage.

If I owned a gun I'd do the same thing this person did.

Originally posted by Robtard
The two people here who I think actually would act if someone invaded their home are Imp with his military training and guns and you, likely via bludgeoning until unconcious and then sexual molestation.

eWarriors like Silent would lock themselves inside their bathrooms, shitting himself; ready to offer his rectum at a moment's notice in exchange for not being harmed.

Kurk would just run to his parent's room, some urine may or may not escape during his journey.

LOL!!!

Originally posted by Surtur
If I owned a gun I'd do the same thing this person did.

Cool story bro?

Originally posted by Robtard
Cool story bro?

A story about taking a life in self defense is cool to you? Interesting.

Originally posted by Surtur
A story about taking a life in self defense is cool to you? Interesting.

Would you rather he insulted you or claimed you're triggered. those do seem to be his favorite tactics of late.

I've created another pairing. <3

#madskillz

Originally posted by Robtard
Seriously, wtf is up with you Trumpers and your "cuck" thing fascination? So odd. You are a cuckold by definition Rob. Embrace it.

The search history on your browser is probably hilarious

Originally posted by Silent Master
At no point in that audio does he state that the intruders didn't try and attack or threaten him before he shot. so what proof do you have that it wasn't self-defense?


Very beginning, 911 dispatcher confirms back (because recording had not yet started) that they were trying to break into the house and he open fire on them.

Also, it says right there in the video description that the weapons were found on their bodies, not before.




Look....I just beat you at your own game. You're not even talking about the topic.

Originally posted by Robtard
He tried that same time-waster-troll tactic on me as well, I advised he read the story as it seems he didn't.


It's so weird...I do not understand why he wants to argue with me. We agree on his point. I think we should be able to make Swiss cheese out of home invaders. Many people do not.

Originally posted by Surtur
Well wait man this is an entirely different question than what you originally asked, don't you agree? Like I said, I agree that if you clearly know people do not mean you any harm it is wrong.

I disagree. That's exactly my question: can you kill home invaders when you're not being physically threatened? Some states, you can. Some states, you can't.

Originally posted by Surtur
It was not clear in the article that this man was aware they were making no attempt to harm them or that they posed no danger.

We cannot use the "well, I was ignorant of this one particular case" argument. This case was national news and has made the internet rounds. Anyone can alleviate their ignorance on this case but looking up anything related to it.

Regardless, there is still the question I posed in the OP: is it okay to kill intruders? Was the man right or wrong to kill them?

Obviously, I want people to explain their reasoning.



Originally posted by Surtur
How did they break in? The articles do not seem to say. I ask because there is a comment from the dailycaller article that says this:

"The original reports were that these guys broke into the house, via a glass door, with brass knuckles and a knife. How is it NOT self defense. And I can tell you, I would not disarm until the police were actually outside my room and have the house cleared."

If they smashed through a glass door to get in..I can understand why the guy freaked out and shot without allowing them to get close enough to potentially do him harm.

And another place also indicates that those weapons were found on them, not armed with them, meaning, they put them away and the shooter had no way to know they had them.

Unless the shooter isn't stating that they threatened, verbally? It just so happens that he never made that claim: I cannot find that anywhere.



Originally posted by Surtur
This is true it is vague as to what specifically went down. Having now listened to the 911 call, he goes on to say he didn't even get a good look at them, so it sounds like they broke into his house and he panicked and shot at them.

Yes, that's exactly what happened and his own words state that (he didn't say panicked). There are several news stories on this and other than an off the record threat of violent from them, nothing happened that we know of from the reports and 911 call OTHER THAN he heard them break in, he got his gun, and shot them immediately after he saw them.

Originally posted by Surtur
I guess the question would then be if he should have risked his own life by waiting, since if it turned out they were armed or something that could have given them time to use their weapons.

See, this is where you and I agree. I don't know the answer. Still sad to see loss of any human life...

But they were breaking in and so they knew the risks, especially in Oklahoma, that they might get shot. It is something all people from around here know: trespass, get shot. Break in, get shot.


They wanted a quick buck. I knew kids who would do this stuff when I was in high school. They use it for weed, drugs, and beer.

Originally posted by Impediment
Absolutely. If an intruder illegally enters my home, then I will use deadly force to protect myself and my family. I don't know the intentions of said intruder, and I will assume a worst case scenario that grievous harm is imminent and will not hesitate to shoot to kill.

This sums it up. Even in the dark, like this, you don't know their intentions.

Originally posted by Robtard
The two people here who I think actually would act if someone invaded their home are Imp with his military training and guns and you, likely via bludgeoning until unconcious and then sexual molestation.

eWarriors like Silent would lock themselves inside their bathrooms, shitting himself; ready to offer his rectum at a moment's notice in exchange for not being harmed.

Kurk would just run to his parent's room, some urine may or may not escape during his journey.

Do me, do me...


How would I react?

Originally posted by Flyattractor

Sorry to know that these 3 potential Leftist Progressive Voters are now only re contributing to their Mother Earth.

Feed the Worms Boys. Feed the Worms.

Make the world a better place. Kill yourself.

--

This was self-defense. Three against one? What else was he going to do?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Very beginning, 911 dispatcher confirms back (because recording had not yet started) that they were trying to break into the house and he open fire on them.

Also, it says right there in the video description that the weapons were found on their bodies, not before.




Look....I just beat you at your own game. You're not even talking about the topic.

You're just making assumptions at this point.

Just to confirm I listened to the 911 call again and at no point does he actually say he shot them before they made a threatening move

Originally posted by Robtard
I've created another pairing. <3

#madskillz

It's okay man, after all the times you've whined about others not using words properly I'd wanna cover up your silliness with the word execution too.

But just to reiterate: this was not an execution.

Originally posted by Robtard
The search history on your browser is probably hilarious I don't disagree lol

Originally posted by dadudemon
This sums it up. Even in the dark, like this, you don't know their intentions.

I suppose one could argue the guy with the gun should have verbally alerted the intruders that he was armed, but even then..first off doing so could have alerted them to his position and if they had guns it could endanger his life..but on top of that f you're panicking unfortunately you don't always make rational decisions, and these intruders instigated this panic-ridden situation where someone was forced into thinking they were in a position where they needed to make snap life or death decisions.

Also location probably matters. I don't know how dangerous Tulsa is, but living in Chicago I absolutely would not be hesitating to open fire if I had a gun lol. People have been murdered here over cell phones.

You kill one guy and said "you next?", if the guy doesn't turn tail at that moment, you just shoot and say "kidding".

Originally posted by Bentley
You kill one guy and said "you next?", if the guy doesn't turn tail at that moment, you just shoot and say "kidding".

If the guy is armed though..stopping to say "you next" opens you up to being shot in the face.

I personally would not risk my life for some thugs.

People need to stop playing stupid games if they are so opposed to receiving stupid prizes.

Originally posted by Surtur
If the guy is armed though..stopping to say "you next" opens you up to being shot in the face.

I personally would not risk my life for some thugs.

People need to stop playing stupid games if they are so opposed to receiving stupid prizes.

Well, you live in America so people are probably carrying grenade launchers in their pocket.

This is still a very contextual situation. I'd feel justified to shot a kid if I believed he was likely to be a suicide bomber, but how likely that is depends in a number of things. The same thing here. Not my fault you expect every "thug" to be armed to their teeth.

Originally posted by Bentley
Well, you live in America so people are probably carrying grenade launchers in their pocket.

I live in Chicago on top of that, I don't expect grenade launchers, but I would expect to be shot in the face for no reason. Or set on fire and then shot in the face(Yep, happened recently near me).



Not sure why you need to go straight to suicide bomber. It could just be a thief willing to kill if necessary. Or maybe someone who isn't planning to kill, but is still capable of it.

I don't expect every thug to be armed to the teeth, but I also don't expect to be able to tell what these people are thinking and my life is more important than theirs lol. So I wouldn't risk it.

Originally posted by Surtur
my life is more important than theirsdebatable. mmm

Originally posted by Beniboybling
debatable. mmm

No, me>>>criminal thugs breaking into houses.

And me>>>>>>>>>criminal thugs dumb enough to hit the same house twice in the same day lol.

Darwin award nominee's, though still they don't beat the pregnant model killed during a shoot on the train tracks.

Originally posted by Surtur
No, me>>>criminal thugs breaking into houses.

And me>>>>>>>>>criminal thugs dumb enough to hit the same house twice in the same day lol. debatable.

At least they are out trying to make a living.

I would try to preserve life if possible, but a lot depends on reactions/context, physical situation and overall risk. I certainly won't censor people who want to protect themselves, who could actually hold that against you?

The actual risk with starting by shooting is that things quickly escalate from there. If instead of stupid kids robbing the same place twice you had a more professional group of criminals and you misjudge their numbers and shoot, it's unlikely you walk away at all. I'll give it to you that most robbers are stupid though, so you play it safe by the odds.

Originally posted by Beniboybling


At least they are out trying to make a living.

You mean they *were* out trying to make a living.

Originally posted by Surtur
You mean they *were* out trying to make a living.

Snap.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It's so weird...I do not understand why he wants to argue with me. We agree on his point. I think we should be able to make Swiss cheese out of home invaders. Many people do not.


Yup, feel the same, no one here has said the shooter needs to be punished or that he was in the wrong. Some people just like to force arguments where they don't exist.

Originally posted by Surtur
You mean they *were* out trying to make a living. Don't let that deter you.

Originally posted by Surtur
It's okay man, after all the times you've whined about others not using words properly I'd wanna cover up your silliness with the word execution too.

But just to reiterate: this was not an execution.

For someone who said he wasn't upset over my correct use of the word 'execution', as words can and do have more than one meaning and usage, you sure do keep bitching and moaning about it.

Originally posted by Robtard
For someone who said he wasn't upset over my correct use of the word 'execution', you sure do keep bitching and moaning about it.

What I was saying is that you were upset over being called out on not using it properly.

Also, by your logic this would mean whenever you have said similar things about the usage of words it would mean you were upset by those. I look forward to which excuse you'll use for why it is different lol.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yup, feel the same, no one here has said the shooter needs to be punished or that he was in the wrong.

He wasn't in the wrong because he made it out alive though. If he had gotten himself and all his family murdered because he tried to gun down invaders, it'd be more of an argument.

I know there is some sensible macho people who get hurt by this kind of logic, but as a general rule, the best way to avoid danger is to flee when confronted with unknown odds. No general would willingly jump into a battle where he has no idea what he's going to face. Of course, if you have your wife and children in the bedrooms and you estimate that fleeing without being noticed is not happening, you weight your odds, but if you have the chance to flee it should be high on your list of priorities.

The essence of safety is avoiding potential damage.

Look at you still bitching and moaning, Surt. Lolz.

Originally posted by Bentley
He wasn't in the wrong because he made it out alive though. If he had gotten himself and all his family murdered because he tried to gun down invaders, it'd be more of an argument.

I know there is some sensible macho people who get hurt by this kind of logic, but as a general rule, the best way to avoid danger is to flee when confronted with unknown odds. No general would willingly jump into a battle where he has no idea what he's going to face. Of course, if you have your wife and children in the bedrooms and you estimate that fleeing without being noticed is not happening, you weight your odds, but if you have the chance to flee it should be high on your list of priorities.

The essence of safety is avoiding potential damage.

Sure, as noted, it's unfortunate he decided to execute three invaders, as it's unfortunate those three people decided to invade. But the shooter wasn't in the wrong, even if in hindsight he should have chosen a different path. Like calling 911 and yelling into the house that the cops are on the way and that he has an assault rifle, which likely would have made these three kids flee.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yup, feel the same, no one here has said the shooter needs to be punished or that he was in the wrong. Some people just like to force arguments where they don't exist.

For me this became a different discussion halfway through the thread. In the OP this was asked:

"Was he wrong? Was he right? Do you agree with the Oklahoma law and the DA's decision?".

This was about this specific situation and also if people agreed with the law and the decision. A discussion about if it is wrong to kill people you know mean you no harm is different IMO. That also would seem like something with an obvious answer that doesn't need a debate: of course it's wrong to kill for no good reason.

Originally posted by Robtard
Look at you still bitching and moaning, Surt. Lolz.

Lmao, I pointed out how you exhibit the same behavior, as have your other pals here.

I feel sorry for the kid that was forced to kill the armed intruders in self-defense.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I feel sorry for the kid that was forced to kill the armed intruders in self-defense.

Yep, he has to live with this for the rest of his life. He also potentially is going to have to deal with the families of those who perpetrated this crime.

I know he was cleared of charges, but I have heard of similar cases where the person was cleared of killing an intruder, but the family of the criminals were still able to try to sue them at a later point. Which even if they do not win that lawsuit..that still consumes time and money from the guy they tried to rob.

Yea, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that their families were greedy opportunists.

It's also possible the families genuinely had no clue these teens were capable of this. Which if that is the case I feel bad for them as well, they will spend the rest of their lives wondering why they didn't see the signs and wondering if they did something wrong in raising them.

The civil lawsuits are a pain in the ass as is the sheer publicity you get to follow you around forever. As an aspiring business person, I can't afford to soil my image. This why I'd recommend for myself and anyone else in this situation to seek other options if possible

Originally posted by Kurk
The civil lawsuits are a pain in the ass as is the sheer publicity you get to follow you around forever. As an aspiring business person, I can't afford to soil my image. This why I'd recommend for myself and anyone else in this situation to seek other options if possible

Yes, and even for people who don't need to worry about publicity..it is still expensive to defend yourself.

This is why I feel we really need a law that says that anyone who brings a frivolous lawsuit against someone has to pay all of that persons legal expenses if they lose.

Originally posted by Surtur
It's also possible the families genuinely had no clue these teens were capable of this. Which if that is the case I feel bad for them as well, they will spend the rest of their lives wondering why they didn't see the signs and wondering if they did something wrong in raising them.

Hopefully they will turn out to be good people and not try and cash in on their relatives crimminal activity.

Originally posted by Lucius
Make the world a better place. Kill yourself.

--

This was self-defense. Three against one? What else was he going to do?

If I do I am gonna take a few people with me.

Pretty much gets it right...

WX80P9fRdlY

Originally posted by Flyattractor
If I do I am gonna take a few people with me.



Since when did you join the nation of Islam?

Originally posted by Surtur
Since when did you join the nation of Islam?

Only group I have ever been a member of is the old A.L.D.S.....

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Only group I have ever been a member of is the old A.L.D.S.....

Not cool:

A-Allah
I-Is
D-Definitely
S-Super

Originally posted by Surtur
Yes, and even for people who don't need to worry about publicity..it is still expensive to defend yourself.

This is why I feel we really need a law that says that anyone who brings a frivolous lawsuit against someone has to pay all of that persons legal expenses if they lose. Some states like North Dakota have passed such laws allowing motorists to be immune from both civil suits and criminal charges if they "accidentally" run-over a protester blocking a high-way. Great strike against the BLM idiots.

Originally posted by Surtur
Not cool:

A-Allah
I-Is
D-Definitely
S-Super


Close but not quite.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Just to confirm I listened to the 911 call again and at no point does he actually say he shot them before they made a threatening move

At no point does he say he shot them after they made a threatening move.

Didja forget about the most important part that you're ignoring on purpose?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Very beginning, 911 dispatcher confirms back (because recording had not yet started) that they were trying to break into the house and he open fire on them.

Originally posted by Surtur
Not cool:

A-Allah
I-Is
D-Definitely
S-Super

They opened a left-wing chapter called AIDT!!!


Allah
Is
Definitely
Thuper!!!

He also doesn't say that they didn't make a threatening move before shooting them. So what proof do you have that they didn't make any kind of threatening move?

Originally posted by Silent Master
He also doesn't say that they didn't make a threatening move before shooting them.

Wait a minute...


Is that how this works?


You've gotta present evidence, mang. You have a position. I cannot prove your position about negatives.



Here are the facts:

It was dark. Weapons were found on the bodies, they weren't armed with them.

He shot them when they were breaking in, not after.

At no point did he make a claim that he argued with them or that they threatened him with violence.




If you want to add anything to that, you've gotta prove it.




I cannot prove what they did not do. I can only point you in the direction of the facts we do have.



I will requote this post over and over, going forward, for you.

Show me a police report that backs up your argument, or a legal opinion that backs up your interpretation of the 911 call.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Show me a police report that backs up your argument, or a legal opinion that backs up your interpretation of the 911 call. But you haven't actually proven your claim that it was self-defense.

Originally posted by NemeBro
But you haven't actually proven your claim that it was self-defense.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/27/us/oklahoma-three-dead-home-burglary/

When you use CNN as a serious news source, you've already lost ^

Originally posted by Silent Master
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/27/us/oklahoma-three-dead-home-burglary/ Ah let me rephrase my bad, you haven't proven that it was self-defense other than in the sense that it falls under Oklahoma's Stand Your Ground law, which does not exist in the majority of US states, which was dadudemon's point. He was trying to start a dialogue on whether or not these laws are justifiable, not whether or not they existed. Did that go over your head my son?

I have a comment from the police investigating that it looks like self-defense. that is far more than the other side has.

We haven't seen the actual police report yet, so we don't have enough information to comment if it would meet the self-defense requirements in other states.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I have a comment from the police investigating that it looks like self-defense. that is far more than the other side has. All right, so not only did you apparently not understand the purpose of this thread, you still don't, nor do you realize that dadudemon and I actually do believe this shooting was justifiable, or at least necessary, judging by your opinion that he is on the "other side". You're arguing against a point no one made. Are you trolling, or just extremely stupid my friend?

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/crim...e537b59d9f.html

Originally posted by Silent Master
Show me a police report that backs up your argument, or a legal opinion that backs up your interpretation of the 911 call.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Wait a minute...


Is that how this works?


You've gotta present evidence, mang. You have a position. I cannot prove your position about negatives.



Here are the facts:

It was dark. Weapons were found on the bodies, they weren't armed with them.

He shot them when they were breaking in, not after.

At no point did he make a claim that he argued with them or that they threatened him with violence.




If you want to add anything to that, you've gotta prove it.




I cannot prove what they did not do. I can only point you in the direction of the facts we do have.



I will requote this post over and over, going forward, for you.


Originally posted by Silent Master
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/27/us/oklahoma-three-dead-home-burglary/

Yes, please see my post for why this counts as "Self-Defense" under Oklahoma's Stand Your Ground law. It was defense of his home, not his person. Read the content in the link in the opening post before you make yourself look worse.

Originally posted by NemeBro
All right, so not only did you apparently not understand the purpose of this thread, you still don't, nor do you realize that dadudemon and I actually do believe this shooting was justifiable, or at least necessary, judging by your opinion that he is on the "other side". You're arguing against a point no one made. Are you trolling, or just extremely stupid my friend?


Originally posted by NemeBro
Ah let me rephrase my bad, you haven't proven that it was self-defense other than in the sense that it falls under Oklahoma's Stand Your Ground law, which does not exist in the majority of US states, which was dadudemon's point. He was trying to start a dialogue on whether or not these laws are justifiable, not whether or not they existed. Did that go over your head my son?


Uhhh...yes...this...this is exactly it. I think my point was very easy to understand. I think what happened here is he didn't read the article all the way and he posted in ignorance, exceeded the 15 minutes to edit, and now he's backed himself into a corner...which is not defensible even how he is trying to spin it.

And if it wasn't debatable then people wouldn't be debating it and being up in arms (pun intended) over cases like these.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Uhhh...yes...this...this is exactly it. I think my point was very easy to understand. I think what happened here is he didn't read the article all the way and he posted in ignorance, exceeded the 15 minutes to edit, and now he's backed himself into a corner...which is not defensible even how he is trying to spin it.

And if it wasn't debatable then people wouldn't be debating it and being up in arms (pun intended) over cases like these.


Some people still debate whether the Earth is flat or not.

Originally posted by NemeBro
He was trying to start a dialogue on whether or not these laws are justifiable, not whether or not they existed.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Uhhh...yes...this...this is exactly it.

I guess my question would be..why wouldn't it be justifiable? I don't understand. Why wouldn't a person be justified in using a firearm in a situation like this?

I don't think anyone feels this would have been justified if the shooter knew there was no danger from these people or if he was able to disarm them and then just shot them anyways for no reason. But then I don't think the law says you can gun them down for no reason.

The law itself, saying you can use deadly force in situations like this, is entirely justified. In fact I find it downright stupid that every single state does not have similar laws.

But I'm still curious as to how someone who feels the law isn't justifiable..I'm curious as to how that is and what logic they are using(I realize you specifically think it was justified). I can't see a rational person thinking a person shouldn't have the right to do this if they legit feel their life is in danger and have NO way of knowing for sure if that isn't the case. A person shooting someone who wasn't a threat is a separate issue. But a person is outright irrational IMO if they feel a person is not justified in protecting themselves in a situation like where they truly feel in danger.

Strangers who just busted into your house *do not* deserve the benefit of the doubt, and that more or less would be what anyone against this law would be saying. That you indeed should risk your life for criminal strangers. Which is insane.

Because you shouldn't be able to defend yourself from threats and such. It means you are not totally dependent on the Leftist Government to PROTECT you.

They would rather you die then be able to use your 2nd Amendment Rights.

Originally posted by Surtur
I guess my question would be..why wouldn't it be justifiable? I don't understand. Why wouldn't a person be justified in using a firearm in a situation like this?

I don't think anyone feels this would have been justified if the shooter knew there was no danger from these people or if he was able to disarm them and then just shot them anyways for no reason. But then I don't think the law says you can gun them down for no reason.

The law itself, saying you can use deadly force in situations like this, is entirely justified. In fact I find it downright stupid that every single state does not have similar laws.

But I'm still curious as to how someone who feels the law isn't justifiable..I'm curious as to how that is and what logic they are using(I realize you specifically think it was justified). I can't see a rational person thinking a person shouldn't have the right to do this if they legit feel their life is in danger and have NO way of knowing for sure if that isn't the case. A person shooting someone who wasn't a threat is a separate issue. But a person is outright irrational IMO if they feel a person is not justified in protecting themselves in a situation like where they truly feel in danger.

Strangers who just busted into your house *do not* deserve the benefit of the doubt, and that more or less would be what anyone against this law would be saying. That you indeed should risk your life for criminal strangers. Which is insane.


Well...under this law, as it applies to Oklahoma (and Texas), you can literally use deadly force IMMEDIATELY without question as soon as someone breaks into your home or property.

Instant.


This is also why many farmers have posted on their property, "trespassers will be shot" in Oklahoma. Many times, on these larger farms where cattle is tended, people will steal the cattle. So for a very long time, to literally combat these burglars, they shoot on sight. Burglarizing cattle still happens.

Anyway, that is part of why these laws exist. Also...culture is a little bit different here.


Look at this county by county voting map representation of the 2016 election to get an idea:

http://i.imgur.com/OINNTEI.jpg




Anyway, yeah...


I do like these laws but I do not like the idea of people killing each other. I really do not want to see that or read about it. I don't want humans killing each other. I don't want people stealing stuff or harming them, as well. As others have put it, given a choice between being robbed and a robber dying, I'd choose the robber dying. I even mean on the streets. If you try to rob someone on the street, you should understand that your life is forfeit if you try to rob the wrong person who is prepared to kill you.

God Bless Oklahoma!!!!

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well...under this law, as it applies to Oklahoma (and Texas), you can literally use deadly force IMMEDIATELY without question as soon as someone breaks into your home or property.

Instant.


This is also why many farmers have posted on their property, "trespassers will be shot" in Oklahoma. Many times, on these larger farms where cattle is tended, people will steal the cattle. So for a very long time, to literally combat these burglars, they shoot on sight. Burglarizing cattle still happens.

Anyway, that is part of why these laws exist. Also...culture is a little bit different here.


Look at this county by county voting map representation of the 2016 election to get an idea:

http://i.imgur.com/OINNTEI.jpg




Anyway, yeah...


I do like these laws but I do not like the idea of people killing each other. I really do not want to see that or read about it. I don't want humans killing each other. I don't want people stealing stuff or harming them, as well. As others have put it, given a choice between being robbed and a robber dying, I'd choose the robber dying. I even mean on the streets. If you try to rob someone on the street, you should understand that your life is forfeit if you try to rob the wrong person who is prepared to kill you.

So you can attack in an instant. Well, all it takes is a split second for someone to pull the trigger and kill you.

Still not seeing why criminals busting into a house deserve the benefit of the doubt.

In case anyone was curious about the other story mentioned in this topic:

Man Charged in Fatal Shooting of Intruder He Found in Shower