Elizabeth Marie Rodriguez, 21, is facing an extraordinary set of charges of three counts of first-degree murder and first-degree burglary. The men killed were actually her accomplices in an attempted burglary. None of the them had a gun but one had a knife and one has brass knuckles. The homeowner’s son however did have a gun and shot and killed all three men. Prosecutors then charged Rodriguez with the deaths even though she was only the getaway driver.
Two of the men broke through a glass door in the back of the house. The homeowner’s son confronted them and, after a brief exchange, shot them with what is believed to be an AR-15.
There might be a question of whether two men armed with a knife and brass knuckles justifies such a response. However, a knife is a lethal weapon and the victim is allowed to respond under the common law with commensurate force. Moreover, Oklahoma is a Castle Doctrine state and provides that :
PHYSICAL OR DEADLY FORCE AGAINST INTRUDER
A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes or places of business.
B. A person or an owner, manager or employee of a business is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
1. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or a place of business, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against the will of that person from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or place of business; and
2. The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
In the meantime, Rodriguez will be charged with the deaths of her alleged cohorts as three counts of first-degree murder in addition to the three counts of first-degree burglary.
“There might be a question of whether two men armed with a knife and brass knuckles justifies such a response.”
Well, why were 3 burglers armed with a knife and brass knuckles, breaking in loudly by smashing a glass door when someone was home, if they did not intend to do grievous harm in the process of their theft?
What could 3 men do with a vulnerable, tied up, human body with their fists, a knife, and brass knuckles? Should he have merely surrendered to them, told them to do their worst, because they did not have guns?
No. If anyone breaks into your home, you are not required to allow them to physically harm you, and hope that you will not be killed, maimed, blinded, or suffer other severe injuries, hoping for the best.
I do not know the specifics of the case, so I have no idea if the men ran screaming and were shot in the back, attacked the homeowner, or what. All I know if you are allowed to defend your home.
That said, I disagree with these types of charges against surviving thieves. She was the getaway driver, so should be charged for taking that part in the crime.
I agree with the murder charge because her role was essential to the crime. She was 21; they were between 16 and 18. Maybe they didn’t have a car or driver’s licenses. Perhaps it wouldn’t have happened if they didn’t have someone to drive them there. In which case the three teens would be alive today. What if one of these boys were your kid? How would you feel about a 21 y/o woman driving him to a burglary where he gets shot to death? Which is quite likely to happen if you break into a home in any of the western states!
Great that you “agree” with the murder charge. Fortunately, charging decision are determined by referencing the controlling statutory authority, not popular vote.
What a country we’ve become:
“Hoke County Schools Said Caitlin Violated the Policy on Assault, Threats & Harassment”
http://heavy.com/news/2017/03/cailtin-miller-gun-stick-school-suspension-north-carolina-age-school-kindergarten-video/
She’s five.
The homeowner was lucky he wasn’t charged. Pretty soon defending your home or person will be made illegal. Already conceal & carry classes are teaching, if the DA thinks you had a means of escape, you could be charged for using a gun in self-defense. As for the idiot driving the car, it’s an overreach, but we must keep the prisons filled, congress depends on their prison industry company’s dividend checks.
https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/death_at_your_door_knock_and_talk_police_tactics_rip_a_hole_in_the_constitu
This is why people need “assault rifles.” A pistol is fine if there is one intruder, but there isn’t much room for error when you have a 5 shot 38, and 3 intruders, for example. That is why I like my AK-47 with the 30 round clip! From Jackie Brown:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z2ucmARq-k
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
PS: For purists, who want the whole scene:
I can’t watch the video with my lack of bandwidth, but Jackie Brown is my absolute favorite Quentin Tarantino movie. Very groovy, perfectly cast, witty dialogue and great soundtrack.
True. It has been a few years since I watched it. BTW, the new season of Fargo is coming out in a week or so. There is some fun violence there, too.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Looks like that liberal bug-a-boo, the AR-15 semi, to the rescue. Good shooting by a scared 23-year-old who has some training since he “took up a position.” No question that the response was “justified” — masked invaderS in the house at night with a forced entry. Play stupid games; win stupid prizes.
Over/under of 2 as to number of illegals involved.
I’m taking the “over.”
The important thing here is that she is clearly NOT smiling in her mug shot. I don’t know why you are all talking about all that other stuff.
She will have to live with this on her soul. Not a light load. But she didn’t pull the trigger. That should give her some solace. Not much though. She’s not even shaped a personality yet. Sometimes I think there’s a time between adolescence and adulthood. Most girls achieve real adulthood at 26 or 27, men a few years later.
She should be charged with “fat woman bearing a firearm”.
The “accomplice to murder” law is necessary to deter ringleaders from delegating out all the risk of legal consequences for carrying out a murder. The facts of the case will determine what role this woman played in the planning of the home invasion. If she was ringleader or a willing collaborator in the planning, she should be facing the 3 counts of murder. If she has proof that she was duped or manipulated into her role as getaway driver, she might be able to get the charges reduced. It will come down to what a jury believes she knew about the home invasion robbery plan, when, and whether she had opportunity to extricate herself from the plot. Young druggies do foolish things like taking selfies that glamorize their illegal behavior and then post them on FB, so don’t be surprised if this woman helps convict herself.
It’s also relevant that she is 21 and the dead burglars are between 16 and 18. Why was she driving teenagers to a home invasion, when she should have been trying to talk them out of it, or at least refused to assist them.
To me it’s an over reaching charge. The FMR is in place to protect victims and to enhance prosecution of the defendants when murder happens as a result in the commission of a felony or misdemeanor. Breaking into an occupied dwelling certainly fits a felony. The driver may or may not know what was happening. We do not know her side, maybe she was a victim as well. Not everyone or everything is always as it seems.
Got to run to a committee.
The relevant question here is the charge against the getaway driver; all the chatter about the homeowner or federal jurisdiction is mere jibber-jabber more suitable for reddit. Section 701.7 of the Oklahoma Statutes states in pertinent part:
A. A person commits murder in the first degree when that person unlawfully and with malice aforethought causes the death of another human being ….
B. A person also commits the crime of murder in the first degree, regardless of malice, when that person or any other person takes the life of a human being during, or if the death of a human being results from commission or attempted commission of …. first degree burglary ….
All the elements appear to be present for the First Degree Murder charge. The getaway driver was also charged with First Degree Burglary. I’m betting on a plea bargain to a lesser-included charge.
This sounds like one of those things law professors dream up to get a discussion going in their criminal law class. Having said that, I think they have the right to charge it, but shouldn’t.
I pretty much agree with Paul. I’m outside my area of expertise. I wonder if she’s being overcharged in an attempt to get a plea to a lesser charge. I would also wonder what the history of the prosecutor’s office is in their record of charging defendants. Is she being treated the same as a white swimmer or a black male or a Muslim? I have no problem with the shooting of the three accomplices. It’s an occupational risk of the career.
It appears that they are charging her with what the law allows, and not giving her a break for being a young white female. I’m fine with that. She helped facilitate an exceptionally dangerous activity – breaking into an occupied residence – and deserves to suffer the consequences.
I didn’t have the impression she was a young white female. I wonder if the charge would be the same if that were the case?
She looks Caucasian to me, but her last name is Latino, so she likely is a Latina.
I’ve heard of these charges being applied before to Caucasians, but I don’t have any data on whether they are applied equally. They do need to ensure that sentences only take into account past criminal history and the current crime, and are applied equally regardless of race.
She has a Spanish last name. Spain is a country in Europe. Assuming she has some Hispanic blood, she is still white. Hispanic (a mixture of European and “Native”) is considered by the U.S. government to be white. Hispanic is an ethnicity, not a race. Some Hispanics are completely white, most are mixed to some degree or another, and some appear to be Asian (they were originally from Mongolia, crossed the ice bridge into the Americas, and mixed with the Spaniards and the French, who occupied Mexico for hundreds of years. But racially, they’re all deemed white. And then, of course, Rodriguez might not even be her birth name; she could have adopted it through marriage, step-father, etc.
She’s 21, which is young. Take a look at her photo; she’s obviously white and female.
Look at her name as well. Not so obvious to me.
So if you adopt a German last name, that makes you white? Who knew?
But then there are American blacks adopting Arab names, so maybe they really do think that a name change will turn them white, hahaha.
I only said it wasn’t so obvious that she was white. You apparently can see white people to the exclusion of all other possibilities so you have me at a disadvantage.
The newspaper reports say she is the mother of three young children, is originally from Modesto, CA, and some legal records identify her last name as Kohler. In any event, I’m not obsessed with race and don’t go looking for it. If someone appears white, she is white. If someone appears black or Asian, that’s good enough for me. I don’t request a DNA analysis or family tree looking for some possible non-white ancestor. But I suppose if people can be trans-gender then why not trans-racial? Today she’s Koehler, a white chick; tomorrow she’s Rodriguez, a non-white, at least according to you. How fun!
I don’t know what she is or how she is seen by others without your gift. I’ve seen other photos which suggest she’s something other than white. I only said it’s not”obvious.”
Apparently when you see a light-skinned person charged with a crime you see Hispanic, whereas I see white.
She is whatever she is despite what you see. You do not get to determine for someone else what they are. Although America once held fast to a “One-Drop Rule” regarding black people.There’s a whole phenomenon called “passing” where white looking black people tried to live out their lives as white to avoid discrimination. Without regard to how they looked, those found out were outcast.
She looks like one of those little chunky-type, cereal-box shaped Hispanic females. Although IMHO, I don’t see much difference between white people and many Hispanics. Blacks and Asians are pretty distinct types, and Eskimos and purer blood type Indians, too. Indians from India, and Persian types however pretty much fit into “white.”
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
So then it’s a perfect, multi-cultural crime. A Hispanic female, two white male teens, and a black male teen. Case closed.
The Caucasus Region borders Turkey and Iran. Cauc-Asians have historically been described as the peoples of Europe, Russia, Central Asia and the Middle East. My only objection is when people try to refine the “white” race as those originating in a small segment of North West Europe, when in truth “whites” can be anything from Scandinavians to French, Italians, Spaniards, Greeks, Turks, Arabs, etc.
enigma:
Do you always amalgamate outlier cases from different jurisdictions decided by different judges using different statutes to prove or support some tortured argument of pandemic racial discrimination? I’ve been in courts for over 30 years and not once have I seen any evidence that race played any role in a judge’s decision. Did the judge treat every offender the same? No, of course not, but I see very race neutral reasons why some offenders are treated more harshly than others and it usually involves previous felony convictions or the heinous circumstances of gratuitous violence surrounding the crime itself. Cases rise or fall on their own merit and the use of general statistics to extrapolate motive is an abuse of statistics as any statistician will tell you. You might as well conclude that all African-Americans are murderers because their 16% of the population are overrepresented by 32 percentage points as convicted perpetrators of murder. That’s lies, damned lies and statistics for you. It’s a slander and likely a form of racism to suggest that judges (many of whom are ethnic or racially diverse though usually — but not here — you imply they are caucasian) are treating offenders differently based on amateurish, incomplete accounts of unusual cases that the press uses to incite segmented populations with and hence sell more newspapers and ad time. Get off the “They’re bad, I’m good” bandwagon. It’s a miserable way to travel life.
I didn’t conclude anything, I said I would want to know what the record of that prosecutor was. That you’ve ” never seen” disparate treatment in 30 years is more likely that you don’t recognize it, not that it doesn’t exist.
Or that it exists only in your mind.
Or that because it’s something you never experience, you’re totally blind to it.
Here is a differing opinion about the Courts in Richmond, VA. I’m not sure that your experience is in this jurisdiction but you may be familiar with the courts there. http://www.vsb.org/docs/valawyermagazine/dec00dunnaville.pdf
Clarence’s article, written 16 years ago, was long on statistics and his conclusions derived therefrom and short on any examples of racial discrimination by judges in Virginia which was, of course, my point. You have yet to cite me any example in modern Virginia legal history where any judge was accused and proven to have let race play any role in his/her decision making. It’s surmise from statistics that could have many causes which are race neutral. You’re just promoting your agenda which is fine by me so long as you admit you have not one actual case where what you say is proven to have happened.
Your bar of “proof” seems to accept nothing less than a formal admission of guilt. I submit that if one were to try to determine whether or not a thing were occurring, it would be by examining empirical data and extrapolating results. Maybe another approach would be to start with the premise; If disparate sentencing or other discrimination existed, what kinds of evidence would I expect to see and did I find it? I imagine during your years in the court you saw the effects of the differences in sentencing for crack cocaine vs. powder. The sentencing differential was at one time 100:1 with blacks and minorities getting the longer sentences. Judges imposing the sentences may have been simply following the law but the disparity was racist in effect just the same. Now the disparity is “just” 18:1 which is apparently deemed acceptable because it still exists. In following the law the judges are playing their part in perpetuating racism.
As far as my personal experience, I had the opportunity to serve on a grand jury for 6-months in Orlando. We handled all cases where the D.A. sought a first degree murder indictment and those with possible political malfeasance. As you probably know, I can’t talk specifically about what happened in the Grand Jury but I saw then Asst. D.A. Jeff Ashton of Casey Anthony fame demonstrate his willingness to indict a 14-year-old black boy for first degree murder when he was known not to be a shooter, thought to be a witness but charged that way in an attempt to get him to flip on those he may or may not have seen. I was the Asst. Foreman during that term and on that day the Foreman was gone. We voted for a “No True Bill” after which we were harangued by Jeff Ashton who reminded us, “We can indict him for second-degree-murder without you!” I’ll assume that’s what he did because we didn’t change our mind. Throughout that six-months I saw how discretion was applied and do feel race was a factor. When you’ve walked a mile in the shoes of those who experience racism, perhaps you’ll be a little slower to dismiss it.
General statistics without proof of causation demonstrate nothing except disparity. Your own prejudices and biases supply the conclusion you want to believe. Without specific examples of prejudice all you have is surmise. And spare me the old “if you haven’t experienced it, you don’t understand” bull crap. Were that true you could never receive advice in a capital case from a lawyer who wasn’t on death row or about cancer from a physician who didn’t have the disease. You refuse to accept your own confirmation bias in service to your agenda. The bottom line is that racism as an institutional problem exists only in the minds of those who can profit from railing against it. Certainly individuals of various races are prejudiced in their individual dealings but this country has done more to fight institutional racism than any one in history. You cannot regulate people’s feelings nor should you.
Quite a circular logic. Let’s assume I have a confirmation bias based on let’s say… confirmation. Your suggestion that institutional racism does not exist and statistics are an unacceptable form of proof makes it virtually impossible for you to accept. You are trying to superimpose “my agenda” as a rationale to dismiss my views. I challenge you to look harder for the causation and specific statistics that document it. This is a study I think no one can conduct for you, you’ll have to see it for yourself. I can suggest a topic where much of the work has been done for you. Voter suppression laws, most of which have nothing to do with Voter ID have a very racist impact which is documented yet ignored. Examine the reality of battling almost non-existent in-person voter fraud vs the more real desire to disenfranchise certain people to change election results. The law is replete with examples. Plessey vs Ferguson, Dred Scott, even the heralded Brown Vs Board of Education also gave us “with all deliberate speed” granting permission to continue discrimination for decades. You ignored the current 18:1 discrepancy in cocaine sentencing which is admittedly is better than 100:1 but still institutional racism. You seem to believe I see racism everywhere (which I don’t) and walk around victimized as a rationale to explain all things desired but not achieved. You also apparently deny the existence of institutional racism seeing it nowhere. While you do allow for the rare unenlightened “individual” that’s an outlier going the way of the dinosaur. That doesn’t reflect the rise in right wing hate groups, new popularity of supremacist groups and more. I submit America is little different now than before, just a little smoother around the edges.
Though mostly face saving mumbo-jumbo you do raise the issue of cocaine sentencing which does merit a reply. It was black politicians who first insisted on the harsher sentences to stop the crack epidemic in their jurisdictions. When it worked, black activists called it racism. As for the rest of your reply, browse through a logic book to learn about circular reasoning. I didn’t employ it. As to confirmation bias, you’ve amply proven in your comment that you suffer from it. Keep pitching.
“It was black politicians who first insisted on the harsher sentences” would be a rewriting of history. Please provide the existence of any law ever that exists because black politicians rammed it through. I’ll leave you to your belief that institutional and systemic racism does not exist. Any attempt to prove to you otherwise will be time I’ll never get back. Take care!
http://www.wnyc.org/story/312823-black-leaders-once-championed-strict-drug-laws-they-now-seek-dismantle/
I don’t mean to imply that black politicians did not participate and in some cases were willing participants in what turner out to result in hyper mass incarceration. I’ll even grant that Barack Obama as part of his stimulus package when he first came into office included things like sending military equipment to cities and paying local governments to incarcerate drug users. To say it was initially their idea and not part of the overall “War on Crime” which had a biased component of it’s own is not correct.
Here’s your problem with relying on statistics to prove character. If you say judges are disproportionately likely to sentence A-As to more severe sentences because they are racist as shown by the numbers you have to also conclude that A-A are more likely to commit crime based purely on the FBI numbers. Neither proposition is that simple and ignores idiosyncratic factors always present in the individual judges’ decisions and the individual criminal cases. About all you really can say is that we have a problem in America with crime and punishment.
I’m not trying to prove character at all. I’m describing effect. Now it’s true that courts in North Carolina and Texas have found the discrimination in their voter suppression laws to be intentional but whether it is or not hardly matters. You keep ascribing motives and an “agenda” that aren’t there.
enigma – you have an example in this century? You might as well reference the American Revolution (where blacks fought btw).
Please be specific and I’ll be happy to comply. Institutional racism? Bias in the courts? The conversation has been rather wide-ranging and I want to answer the question you’re asking.
enigma – I was responding to your bias in the courts. You listed a series of cases from the 19th century. None of them have to do with the subject matter.
The recent gutting of the enforcement of the Voter Rights Act is a bit tricky because there is a case that certain states shouldn’t be singled out for the restrictions that existed. I tend to agree somewhat in thinking that radical change in voting laws should have been pre-approved nationwide. This might have prevented the Gerrymandering and redistricting that exists in the way it does. I will point to the immediate aftermath of the decision where within days Texas, Alabama, Louisiana and others began implementing restrictions which have been repeatedly found to be unconstitutional and racist. I won’t look up the language Judges used to throw out North Carolina’s laws which were found to be surgically pinpointed, based on the research they did in advance to determine how they could best suppress minority votes. I could go deep into the racist impact of Citizens United (which affects many more than minorities) in giving more power to Corporations than people. I’ll stop here because introducing multiple subjects tends to dilute the conversation but I have many more recent cases. I’m limiting myself to Supreme Court decisions at this point. The more you reach down into State and local laws the more likely you are to find bias in the courts.
If you break out the stats into black males and females, the numbers are even more shocking. Black males are about 6% of the American population.
That’s a fact I never see mentioned by those in the race baiting industry.
enigma, “It’s an occupational risk” is spot on! Great insight.
I agree entirely. These were kids. If anyone was wrong, it was the shooter who should have called the police and left the house. This young man will have to live with these murders for the rest of his life. What is sad is that the shooter even thought a burglary was worth two lives. He could have simply fired the gun and the would-be thieves would have either fainted or ran. Both if those kids had hundreds of people who will miss them. They will never learn that what they were doing was wrong. Their parents and siblings will be forever pained by what they did or didn’t do. I hate thieves but this is ‘OVERKILL”. The parents of this young man failed to teach their child any respect for life in their zeal for blood. Maybe they didn’t know they were doing it, they failed this child and he will pay every single day of his life. It will be up and down. Cycles of depression that never seem to end. The price is too high. He’d have done better to run. Unless you have held a life in your hand, you will not understand what I am saying. I had the time to think about it when presented with the option and I decided against having death on my hands. The shooter will need a lifetime of therapy and prayer.
There was a similar case in Long Beach where the defendent, Gus Adams, was charged with murder when Andrea Miller, his accomplice, was shot and killed by the homeowner in the course of a home invasion/ robbery.
He was recently acquitted on the murder charge, but got a 12 year sentence for the robbery, and for assaulting the 80 year old victim who shot his accomplice.
It’d be interesting to see the outcome of other similar cases.
Big difference between CA and Oklahoma. The CA guy got a light sentence for home invasion/robbery/murder and assaulting an 80 y/o. I can’t imagine such a relative slap-on-the-wrist in OK.
“There might be a question of whether two men armed with a knife and brass knuckles justifies such a response”
~+~
Many civilians with no military or police experience, especially ones who already have their minds made up, greatly underestimate the lethality of knives, or in this case metal knuckles. Especially among those who do not accept that a person should be able to defend themselves with a firearm–often clouded by a predisposition to hate guns–there is this misconception that a victim may only match the level of force used against them by a suspect. There is no doctrine that mandates that fights be equal. On the contrary,the doctrine is the amount of force reasonably necessary to OVERCOME resistance or assault. This doctrine applies to both law enforcement officers and civilians.
Coupled with pragmatic sense, matching weapon for weapon means that although the weapons might be identical, one combatant will certainly have advantage over the other for numerous reasons. This has the effect of negating the matching resistance. To prevent this from happening, from a legal perspective, doctrine permits force to overcome resistance. To require a matching of force on equal terms from a self-defense perspective puts the victim’s life and heath in jeopardy in order to test the fortitude and resolve of a person attacking them. This is intrinsically contrary to the historic permission of the right to self-defense. Simply put, the victim should not need to die to mitigate damage to an assassin.
Remembering the recent mass-murderer of police officers who was blown to pieces by police who emplaced a bomb on a robot and drove it to kill the barricaded suspect, the bomb arguably presented greater lethality than a handgun. Though the use of a bomb is rather novel in modern American policing, there is no common law or statutory precedent that I am aware that directs which kind of weapon may be used to cause the death of an attacker when such use of deadly force is excused. Despite any outcry due to its novelty, from a self-defense perspective if killing the attacker is justified, the means to cause it is immaterial.
There also exists the presumption of intent with regard to residential burglary and being armed with a deadly weapon.
Many states codified a presumption of intention to use the deadly weapon on the occupants of the house, therefore it heightens the deference for the use of deadly force in self-defense of the occupant. Logic also dictates that if a person arms themselves with a weapon in the furtherance of a felony, it is not logical to assume that the weapon would be retained for something other than use against another person, or else why would it have been wielded to begin with.
In application many people believe that if a person is to attack another with a knife, that they will only use one or two slashes with the knife, causing wounding and that therefore it is unreasonable to use a firearm to counter the knife attack. As strange as this seems, this is what many untrained, political, or inexperienced people believe. it is a foolish assumption to make when being attacked by a knife wielding attacker.
Individuals who have been to prison or received training in knife combat know, at least through informal training as is the case with prison environments, that if attacking another with a knife the strategy is to inflict as many grievous body injuries in the most rapid manner possible. One only needs to read case reports of shank attacks by prisoners to understand how horrific such attacks are. It is not uncommon for slashes or stabbings to number 40 plus deep incisions or lacerations within less than a minute. Such wounds are rarely survivable. Another consideration is that a revolver typically holds six cartridges and can only at most cause six wounds. But a knife is theoretically unlimited in the number of wounds potentially inflicted against a victim because it does not need to be reloaded.
And finally there is the situation where one needs to put themselves in the role of a potential victim. Would you risk your life to save that of the person that is trying to kill you? I am not willing to grant that level of altruism to someone. And should someone when faced with an attacker wielding a deadly weapon need to worry that they should face the choice between imprisonment or death?
That makes the question of concern of the above significant enough to case greater risk to a victim. We had a police officer die because his partner did not take lethal action against an attacker. He hesitated and as a direct result the first officer was murdered. When interviewed in the investigation the hesitant officer was asked why he had done this. Despite no legal jeopardy, he responded that he was worried about being sued. That cost a police officer his life. And this is not the only incident where this occurred. But it was a factor of the times where their was an over-hyped misconception in the media about police getting sued or imprisoned for using any high level of force and it burdened officers enough to inhibit their training.
It’s pretty easy to armchair quarterback someone trying to defend themselves. Think about that when you get up from your recliner to get another beer during the commercial.
I always enjoy your analysis of criminal cases.
I would like to add from my perspective, as a woman, that a risk inherent to hesitating when you have a firearm, faced with armed intruders, is that they can cross the space between you in a fraction of a second. There is a very limited time for your decision tree. And if they reach you, and put their hands on you, a woman is now faced with an intruder twice her size, that she now has to physically grapple with.
So in a hypothetical scenario, let’s say 3 men loudly smash through a glass patio door in a woman’s house, and charge inside. If she would be required to assess what weapons they may have on their body, what their intent may be, are they here for the change in the couch cushions and the TV or something else, meanwhile they are advancing rapidly, then it’s all over. Society should not require or expect a homeowner to either physically overpower intruders, submit to them and hope they survive, or hold them by the ankles and shake out their weapons to compare their level with their own.
If someone breaks in and does not bolt the moment they see you, but advances, then they are a threat and you can defend yourself. And unless you have a black belt and training dealing with multiple attackers, pretty much the only way a woman can defend herself is with a firearm. Even a taser is not going to help if there are 3 of them, unless they are polite enough to patiently wait their turn to be electrocuted.
He wasn’t trapped in the house. They didn’t know he was there. He chose to kill because that is all he’d been taught or all he knew. Unless you are defending a life, yours or someone else, you don’t kill to defend objects. His parents failed to teach him the most important thing, is it worth a life? The aftermath of killing someone on purpose will haunt him his whole life. I hope they get him the mental healthcare he needs. It’s not his fault. His parents gave him skill and a weapon but failed to teach him WHEN to use deadly force. Police are another discussion. God bless our law enforcement.
Why do you believe the burglars did not know he was home? Doesn’t smashing a glass patio door seem like a rather loud way to break in while people are home if you are trying to avoid violence?
What possible use could the knife and brass knuckles be for? You don’t use brass knuckles to break a window unless you want glass shards in your hand. So why did they bring it?
Can you imagine walking into a room and 3 men armed with a knife and brass knuckles just smashed down your door, only feet from you. How are you going to make it to the front door, unlock it, and turn the handle with them right behind you?
Let’s hope that you don’t face a similar situation because it is apparent you have not.
“He wasn’t trapped in the house. They didn’t know he was there. He chose to kill because that is all he’d been taught or all he knew. ”
I do question the presumption in the law that mere illegal entry justifies ‘fear of imminent grave bodily harm’.
However I saw nothing in the article that described the actual situation confronted by the shooter.
The claim that the shooter could have safely retreated and exited the house is pure speculation. While we are speculating, there is nothing that prevents us from supposing that the burglars would not have discovered the shooters retreat and followed him to eliminate a witness. Actually I don’t think speculation is useful to understanding this situation.
One of the most interesting aspects of this case concerns what we should count as reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm. Is mere illegal presence sufficient as this law allows? Or should we require more for justifiable homicide and the use of lethal force?
“He wasn’t trapped in the house.”
How do you know? I saw no layout – he could have been at the end of a hall with no way out but through high windows, with a getaway driver outside too.
“He chose to kill because that is all he’d been taught or all he knew.”
Again, I see no indication of that either, just superb marksmanship (I assume, since he hit all 3).
“His parents failed to teach him the most important thing, is it worth a life?”
Was it worth his life to gamble in the other direction and NOT shoot them? I also say that the burglars parents failed to teach them that lesson… You take your life into your own hands when breaking into someones home.
“The aftermath of killing someone on purpose will haunt him his whole life.”
True. I hope he is able to get quality counseling.
“His parents gave him skill and a weapon but failed to teach him WHEN to use deadly force.”
Again, you assume here. I say that if they talked about the topic at all, they DID teach him when to use it correctly, because I say he used it correctly. I’d have done the same.
And Darren, I agree with your points as well – your description of pitfalls with respect to inhibitors on officers training (hesitation due to outside factors) and the lethality of knives with the added factor of multiple assailants. I say that a home defense gun is a great equalizer in that situation, and a life saver for someone in a bad situation such as this one.
Not to mention that “He wasn’t trapped in the house” had 0, zero legal standing here.
The exact wording in nearly all including Oklahoma’s castle doctrine is “No Duty To Retreat” it is NOT your legal obligation to retreat even if you can.
Anyone who doubts what a knife can do should see this animation of OJ Simpson’s infamous, heinous double murder: https://www.cnet.com/news/cnet-vault-oj-simpson-murder-computer-simulation/.
I believe the burglars were masked. That is a menace factor in the shooting. Seems like a righteous shooting w/ the info provided so far. The shooter’s lucky this didn’t happen in the northeast or California. I don’t like felony murder charges in most cases. I need more info on this woman’s record and more info on the incident.
“There might be a question of whether two men armed with a knife and brass knuckles justifies such a response.”
It seems to me the key is “reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another”
I am not sure I agree with the presumption in this law. However ‘reasonable fear of imminent peril’ could arise from the presence of even one, unarmed parson, depending on that person’s demeanor, body language, physical actions, statements and other actions.
Three advancing men, armed or not, could certainly raise ‘reasonable fear of imminent peril’.
They provide a chance for the prosecutor to get three LWOP sentences, what’s not to like about that.
This is way out of proportion of the Intent of the Felony Murder Rule.
First of all it was the perpetrators that were shot. I can see the felony burglary of an occupied dwelling, how the FMR can be extrapolated to the Defendant having caused the murder is beyond my understanding.
I went to the Oklahoma State Court Statutes, particularly the Criminal Jury Instructions and saw no tie that the jury can be charged to consider this. Did she know the deaths were going to happen, probably not so intent is viscerated and compounding this is the deaths were lawfully caused by the son of the Home owner.
under the law of parties she is culpable for the deaths -stupidity has consequences
That reads right for most of the jurisdictions I’ve examined. It’s a state issue to set the laws for the state. Federal doesn’t get involved except in certain circumstances primarily civil rights oriented. The exception is if a charge of suspicion of supporting terrorism or an act of terrorism is involved and a few other such as the Libby Law.
As it reads in the narrative the driver IS an accomplice and it was situation leading to three deaths. Having or not having a firearm OR any other weapon is incidental to the crime itself From the information provided and without a. access to the investigation or the actual law in the State of Oklahoma it looks like a righteous bust and the rest will be argued with facts in evidence presented in a court of law.
Surviving appelate procedures and if their law calls for it that means up to and including the death penalty.
On it’s face, as presented, Good To Go and it’s better to do it this way and let the ‘deal makers’ make changes than to try it in the reverse direction of slap on the wrist etc. proceeding to the death penalty.