Source (http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/04/justice/oklahoma-intruder-shooting/index.html)
QuoteHome alone with her 3-month-old son, Sarah Dawn McKinley of Blanchard, Oklahoma, said she decided to make a stand when two men tried to break into her home on New Year's Eve.
McKinley, who had been widowed less than a week before, placed a couch in front of one door and went to the bedroom and put a bottle in her baby's mouth before calling 911, she said on HLN's "Dr. Drew" on Wednesday.
A 911 operator calmly spoke with McKinley, who asked if it was permissible to shoot an intruder, officials said.
"I've got two guns in my hand. Is it OK to shoot him if he comes in this door?" asked McKinley, 18.
"Well, you have to do whatever you can do to protect yourself," dispatcher Diane Graham responded. "I can't tell you that you can do that, but you do what you have to do to protect your baby."
In the end, McKinley fired a 12-gauge shotgun and killed Justin Shane Martin after he entered her residence, according to a Blanchard Police Department affidavit filed in court Wednesday. Martin was armed with a knife, authorities said.
"You have to make a choice, you or him. I chose my son over him," McKinley told CNN Oklahoma City affiliate KWTV.
First Assistant District Attorney James Walters told CNN that McKinley will not be charged because she acted in self-defense.
"A person has the right to protect themselves, their family and their property," Walters said.
As for the 911 operator's guidance?
"I would agree with that advice," the prosecutor said.
Graham was the first of two 911 operators to speak with McKinley.
The dispatcher told HLN's Jane Velez-Mitchell on Wednesday she learned in training that she could not tell a caller to shoot someone, "(but) as a mother, I wanted her to protect her baby."
"She did a very good job in keeping her (McKinley) calm," Grady County Sheriff Art Kell said of Graham. "Her job is to make sure the person on the phone is comfortable ... to give them support."
McKinley was on the phone with a second dispatcher when she pulled the trigger.
McKinley's husband died Christmas Day of cancer, Walters said. Evidence indicates Martin and Dustin Louis Stewart, 29, may have been looking for painkillers or other drugs taken by McKinley's ill husband, Walters said. Investigator found no such drugs, he told CNN.
McKinley said she believes the men were coming after her, rather than intending to commit a robbery.
According to the affidavit, the men approached McKinley's mobile home Saturday afternoon. Martin had devised a plan to burglarize the residence, police said.
Stewart told investigators he and Martin ingested hydrocodone about 30 minutes before reaching the rural home, the affidavit states.
Martin "aggressively" knocked on the doors of the home and gained entry by hitting one of them with his shoulder, police said. Stewart said "he heard a gunshot after Martin entered the residence," and Stewart then "fled on foot."
McKinley said she had pushed the couch against the door to deter entry.
"When he busted in the door I saw something shimmering in his hand," the mother told HLN. "I thought it was a pistol at first, but it was a 12-inch hunting knife. I didn't know (that) until after I shot and killed him."
Martin, 24, was found between the door and a couch with a knife clutched in his gloved left hand, police said.
Stewart was charged with first-degree felony murder, Walters said. If during the commission of certain offenses, such as burglary, a death results, an individual can be charged in the death, the prosecutor said.
Kell said Stewart is in jail, with a bond hearing scheduled for Thursday in Chickasha.
CNN's calls to police in Blanchard, about 25 miles south of downtown Oklahoma City, were not immediately returned Wednesday.
Stewart's attorney, Stephen Buzin, told CNN he will seek bond.
Buzin would not comment on specifics of the case against his client. "We will let the facts come out at trial and feel comfortable with his innocence," the attorney said.
Martin recently had approached McKinley's home, saying he wanted to introduce himself, Walters said. The man said he worked for the owner of the property on which McKinley lived, she told HLN.
McKinley, also armed with a pistol, was on the phone with authorities for 21 minutes, Walters said.
"She remained as calm as one could under the circumstances and had the forethought and called 911, as everyone should," he said.
McKinley was asked on "Dr. Drew" whether she regretted shooting Martin.
"No. We could have been in a whole different situation if I hadn't done it," she replied.
I know that had this happened in Connecticut, she would have been charged for first degree murder and her child would have been taken from her.
In Connecticut, if someone breaks into your home, you can only shoot them and claim self defense if they also have a gun and are about to shoot you with it.
Quote from: D on January 05, 2012, 08:33:01 AM
Source (http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/04/justice/oklahoma-intruder-shooting/index.html)
I know that had this happened in Connecticut, she would have been charged for first degree murder and her child would have been taken from her.
In Connecticut, if someone breaks into your home, you can only shoot them and claim self defense if they also have a gun and are about to shoot you with it.
That's messed up, google Tueller's drill to see that ta close range a gun vs. knife isn't as decisive as most people think. Even trained Police and Soldiers don't try to pull their gun if the assailant is too close. She already had her gun out, but if she hesitated in pulling the trigger she could have been the one dead.
Quote from: D on January 05, 2012, 08:33:01 AM
Source (http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/04/justice/oklahoma-intruder-shooting/index.html)
I know that had this happened in Connecticut, she would have been charged for first degree murder and her child would have been taken from her.
In Connecticut, if someone breaks into your home, you can only shoot them and claim self defense if they also have a gun and are about to shoot you with it.
Unless your legislature has gone unusually insane, that's because you have systematically bad prosecutors. Sane prosecutors wouldn't try to ignore the basic principles of self-defense like that.
Quote from: evensgrey on January 05, 2012, 01:32:42 PM
Unless your legislature has gone unusually insane, that's because you have systematically bad prosecutors. Sane prosecutors wouldn't try to ignore the basic principles of self-defense like that.
Here (http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-r-0052.htm) is what the state of Connecticut says on self defense:
QuoteCONNECTICUT LAW
Under Connecticut law, a person may use physical force (self defense): to protect himself or a third person, his home or office, or his property; to make an arrest or prevent an escape; or to perform certain duties (for example, a corrections officer may use force to maintain order and discipline, a teacher to protect a minor, and a parent to discipline a child). A person cannot use physical force to resist arrest by a reasonably identifiable peace officer, whether the arrest is legal or not (CGS § 53a-23).
Self defense or justification is a defense in any prosecution (CGS § 53a-16). The person claiming justification has the initial burden of producing sufficient evidence to assert self-defense. When raised as a defense at a trial, the state has the burden of disproving self defense beyond a reasonable doubt (CGS § 53a-12).
Physical Force in Defense of Person
A person is justified in using reasonable physical force on another person to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force. The defender may use the degree of force he reasonably believes is necessary to defend himself or a third person. But deadly physical force cannot be used unless the actor reasonably believes that the attacker is using or about to use deadly physical force or inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm.
Additionally, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force if he knows he can avoid doing so with complete safety by:
1. retreating, except from his home or office in cases where he was not the initial aggressor or except in cases where he a peace officer, special policeman, or a private individual assisting a peace officer or special policeman at the officer's directions regarding an arrest or preventing an escape;
2. surrendering possession to property the aggressor claims to own; or
3. obeying a demand that he not take an action he is not otherwise required to take.
Lastly, a person is not justified in using physical force when (1) with intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he provokes the person to use physical force, (2) use of such force was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law, or (3) he is the initial aggressor (unless he withdraws from the encounter, effectively communicates this intent to the other person, and the other person continues to or threatens to use physical force) (CGS § 53a-19).
Physical Force in Defense of Premises
A person who possesses or controls property or has a license or privilege to be in or on it is justified in using reasonable physical force when and to the extent he reasonably believes it to be necessary to stop another from trespassing or attempting to trespass in or upon it. The owner can use deadly physical force only (1) to defend a person as described above, (2) when he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent the trespasser from attempting to commit arson or any violent crime, or (3) to the extent he reasonably believes it is necessary to stop someone from forcibly entering his home or workplace (and for the sole purpose of stopping the intruder) (CGS § 53a-20).
Physical Force in Defense of Property
A person is justified in using reasonable physical force when and to the extent he reasonably believes it necessary to (1) prevent attempted larceny or criminal mischief involving property or (2) regain property that he reasonably believes was stolen shortly before.
When defending property, deadly force may be used only when it is necessary to defend a person from the use or imminent use of deadly physical force or infliction or imminent infliction of great bodily harm as described above (CGS § 53a-21).
Supreme Court Decision on Self Defense
In 1984, the Connecticut Supreme Court articulated the test for determining the degree of force warranted in a given case. Whether or not a person was justified in using force to protect his person or property is a question of fact that focuses on what the person asserting the defense reasonably believed under the circumstances (State v. DeJesus, 194 Conn. 376, 389 (1984)). The test for the degree of force in self-defense is a subjective-objective one. The jury must view the situation from the defendant's perspective; this is the subjective component. The jury must then decide whether the defendant's belief was reasonable (DeJesus at 389 n.13).
CR:dw
Quote from: Stupid Law2. surrendering possession to property the aggressor claims to own; or
Wait, did I read that right? You're not allowed to defend yourself against an attacker if the attacker CLAIMS you have something of his???
Quote from: Idiot State3. obeying a demand that he not take an action he is not otherwise required to take.
Well, I guess a woman isn't REQUIRED to take the action of defending herself against a rapist, so she just has to lie there and take it, right? Note that this is under the section Physical Force in Defense of PERSON, not property!
Quote from: MrBogosity on January 05, 2012, 03:43:49 PM
Wait, did I read that right? You're not allowed to defend yourself against an attacker if the attacker CLAIMS you have something of his???
Well, I guess a woman isn't REQUIRED to take the action of defending herself against a rapist, so she just has to lie there and take it, right? Note that this is under the section Physical Force in Defense of PERSON, not property!
Yeah, how about this one:
QuoteA person cannot use physical force to resist arrest by a reasonably identifiable peace officer, whether the arrest is legal or not
The minute you resist, even if the arrest isn't a legal one, it becomes legal.
Quote from: MrBogosity on January 05, 2012, 03:43:49 PM
Wait, did I read that right? You're not allowed to defend yourself against an attacker if the attacker CLAIMS you have something of his???
Well, I guess a woman isn't REQUIRED to take the action of defending herself against a rapist, so she just has to lie there and take it, right? Note that this is under the section Physical Force in Defense of PERSON, not property!
Also since the guy had a knife, how was she supposed to know if he planned on killing her or her children before it is too late.
Quote from: Goaticus on January 05, 2012, 08:42:40 PM
Also since the guy had a knife, how was she supposed to know if he planned on killing her or her children before it is too late.
The misunderstood man was obviously trying to carve a turkey for dinner for the poor family. You're such a misanthrope!