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 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.
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/
"Preliminary investigation looks like it's self-defense," said Wagoner County Sheriff's Deputy Nick Mahoney,
Originally posted by Silent MasterAh 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?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/27/us/oklahoma-three-dead-home-burglary/
Originally posted by Silent MasterAll 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?
I have a comment from the police investigating that it looks like self-defense. that is far more than the other side has.
After a weeklong investigation into the shooting, Thorp said his office determined Peters acted justifiably “when he used deadly force to defend his home” against Maxwell Cook, 18; Jacob Redfearn, 18; and Jaykob Woodruff, 16.“Upon my review of (Peters’ interview with investigators), it appears that he was in fear for his life as he perceived the intruders and discharged his weapon at the intruders,” Thorp wrote in a letter to the sheriff.
The letter cites Oklahoma’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which protects defensive-force users if their target unlawfully and forcibly entered their home. Thorp said declining to press charges against Peters was not a difficult decision.
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.
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:
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.