Man who shot and killed 3 teens who broke into his house, not charged.

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.