Do gun owners need to get permission to defend ourselves?

After reading this story I can't believe that this mother felt she needed permission to protect her baby from the attacker. Are gun owners so scared of being brought up on charges ourselves that we would risk our own lives and our loved ones?

Okla. Woman Shoots, Kills Intruder: 911 Operators Say It's Okay to Shoot

A young Oklahoma mother shot and killed an intruder to protect her 3-month-old baby on New Year's Eve, less than a week after the baby's father died of cancer.

Sarah McKinley says that a week earlier a man named Justin Martin dropped by on the day of her husband's funeral, claiming that he was a neighbor who wanted to say hello. The 18-year-old Oklahoma City area woman did not let him into her home that day.

On New Year's Eve Martin returned with another man, Dustin Stewart, and this time was armed with a 12-inch hunting knife. The two soon began trying to break into McKinley's home.

As one of the men was going from door to door outside her home trying to gain entry, McKinley called 911 and grabbed her 12-gauge shotgun.

McKinley told ABC News Oklahoma City affiliate KOCO that she quickly got her 12 gauge, went into her bedroom and got a pistol, put the bottle in the baby's mouth and called 911.

"I've got two guns in my hand -- is it okay to shoot him if he comes in this door?" the young mother asked the 911 dispatcher. "I'm here by myself with my infant baby, can I please get a dispatcher out here immediately?"
The 911 dispatcher confirmed with McKinley that the doors to her home were locked as she asked again if it was okay to shoot the intruder if he were to come through her door.

"I can't tell you that you can do that but you do what you have to do to protect your baby," the dispatcher told her. McKinley was on the phone with 911 for a total of 21 minutes.

When Martin kicked in the door and came after her with the knife, the teen mom shot and killed the 24-year-old. Police are calling the shooting justified.

"You're allowed to shoot an unauthorized person that is in your home. The law provides you the remedy, and sanctions the use of deadly force," Det. Dan Huff of the Blanchard police said.
Stewart soon turned himself in to police.
McKinley said that she was at home alone with her newborn that night because her husband just died of cancer on Christmas Day.

"I wouldn't have done it, but it was my son," McKinley told ABC News Oklahoma City affiliate KOCO. "It's not an easy decision to make, but it was either going to be him or my son. And it wasn't going to be my son. There's nothing more dangerous than a woman with a child."

source

Well I'm glad that the 911 operator told her to "...do what you have to..." score one for the good guys -er- girls!

Gee finally one person at 911 with a brain.

Good on everyone involved.

Legal gun-owning citizen - 1
Deranged crazy with a hunting knife - 0

And people still want firearms outlawed?

I would hate to know what would have occurred if this happened in say, Chicago...

I'm going to be honest... I didn't read the OP, or any responses...

I just wanted to give my input...

Somewhere back in time, I saw something that explained how if someone is breaking in or attacking,
you are to call 911, and while on the phone with them, audibly warn would be attacker.

Something like "I have a gun, I know you are here to hurt me, and i will defend myself."

Honestly, I don't know if I would have the time to get my gun, load it, find a phone, call 911,and position myself where the attacker can hear me but not hurt me, before NEEDING to fire in self defense.

Apparently, if you do not do these things, you may be prosecuted for something.

I'm not saying this is true. Just something I heard a while back.

Carry on!

reply to post by YouAreLiedTo

I would hate to know what would have occurred if this happened in say, Chicago...

Castle doctrine for Illinois :

Illinois

(720 ILCS 5/) Criminal Code of 1961

Section 7. Justifiable use of force. Use of deadly force justified if the person reasonably believes they are in danger of death or great physical harm. Use of deadly force justified if the unlawful entry is violent, or the person believes the attacker will commit a felony upon gaining entry.

Section 7-2(b). Prevents the aggressor from filing any claim against the defender unless the use of force involved "willful or wanton misconduct".

Illinois has no requirement of retreat. (People v. Bush, 111 N.E.2d 326 Ill. 1953).

Most states have a castle doctrine in place for this very reason. A few states are even working towards the assailants family not being able to sue in civil court if the shooting was justified. Glad she chose to defend her son and herself instead of just giving up. The strong will survive, and it sends a message to other would be attackers of the force they will be met with.

Yes deny or denyability. I didn't tell her to shoot. They are instructed to say do what you feel is neccessary or something to that affect.

God bless you lady for protecting yourself. I would have blasted after I said I had a gun and they stood around and I could see them still trying to get in.

But in my case I would have gladly said oh really you want to come in.

After my poocies were done I would call 911 to have a parametic save them. I'm not that cruel.

Gotta love pets.

I think its time for a new avatar of one of my babies.

Originally posted by HardyWhite
I'm going to be honest... I didn't read the OP, or any responses...

I just wanted to give my input...

Somewhere back in time, I saw something that explained how if someone is breaking in or attacking,
you are to call 911, and while on the phone with them, audibly warn would be attacker.

Something like "I have a gun, I know you are here to hurt me, and i will defend myself."

Honestly, I don't know if I would have the time to get my gun, load it, find a phone, call 911,and position myself where the attacker can hear me but not hurt me, before NEEDING to fire in self defense.

Apparently, if you do not do these things, you may be prosecuted for something.

I'm not saying this is true. Just something I heard a while back.

Carry on!

Completely incorrect...

Depending on the state, you are allowed to use deadly force in any event someone forcefully enters your home. It doesn't matter if they threaten you, or if you warn them... if they break in and you feel threatened... you aim for top center mass.

Depending on the situation, and the wording you use with the police, they don't even have to have a weapon.

reply to post by RedParrotHead


Great story, Great Mother!!

But, I had to take notice, "21 minutes" on the phone with 911? Where the hell were the police? It says "Oklahoma City Area," so surely they have police that can respond in less than 21 minutes? And apparently the men outside were not the least bit concerned about police, they were taking their time, stalking the house, trying different methods of entry, so they had to know the police had been called, and they just didn't care?

Good thing she did have the guns, the police were pretty worthless. At least the police had the courtesy to call it "justified."

reply to post by YouAreLiedTo

Depending on the state, you are allowed to use deadly force in any event someone forcefully enters your home. It doesn't matter if they threaten you, or if you warn them... if they break in and you feel threatened... you aim for top center mass.

I have a cousin that just spent 2 months in jail, in Oklahoma, for shooting a man in his home. The man had threatened the family for months, had a restraining order, showed up at the door, and hit my cousin in the head with a hammer. As my cousin was slipping in and out of consciousness, he grabbed a shotgun from behind the door and fired. When police showed up, my cousin was unconscious, with a serious headwound lying inside his front door. The other man was lying on the front sidewalk, bleeding, and also unconscious. Apparently the door had swung shut as my cousin fired, and the attacker was hit in the back. It looked like a shot in the back through a closed door, so my cousin was arrested, and he stayed in jail for 2 months while they sorted it out and eventually dropped the charges.

You would think, if someone had a restraining order, and was at their own home, and they were wounded with a hammer, it would be pretty obvious self-defense, but not so.

Nothing like a happy ending.
Shame there is such scum in the world but there is in larger numbers and it`s only getting worse with so many looking for work.

The one thing that I was told by police a long time ago was if you do have to shoot someone breaking into your home you shoot to kill. If you only shoot them in the knee you are open for lawsuits and supporting the scum afterwards.

And it is wise to try getting the police there and wanting them to get there before you have to act. Protect yourself yes but call for help if you can.

I live in the UK with probably the toughest gun laws in the world. My problem with our laws is I no longer have the ability to protect myself from criminals.

According to our laws I have the god given right to protect myself using reasonable force, what bloody good is that if my house is burgled by some criminal with a gun?

It should be my right to carry a firearm in my own house for protection against gun toting criminals, only criminals have guns in our country.

It's important to use the correct wording in a situation.

You tell the police, after the fact, that you were in fear of your life.

In the case described, I do believe that the young mother was in fear for herself and/or her child. The force was justified.

Hell in Canada a few years ago, 2 cops entered a house during the night without any warrant to get someone without announcing themselves, the guy just took them out as he thought they were robbers and he was cleared of all charges... which was a huge victory for the people...

So no, people don't need permission.

Do animals need permission to defend themselves from predators? No they don't. Same thing here.

Guns, the great equalizer, where a 100 pound woman can take out a 250 lbs robber.

Natural law....

reply to post by TheMindWar


reasonable force is probably the same here in the UK as in alot of places aka you dont blow their toes off then their knee caps followed by their elbows etc as probably even in america you'd get hauled up for doing that

from what i remember about our uk law is that its alright to do whatever is requires to safeguard yourself/family etc but not to go over the top, so if you have a runner you shoot to disable them (in the leg etc) but in a life or death situation everythings ok

I dont think she was seeking permission.

She probably just wanted reassurance or to stall the inevitable since no healthy/sane human being wants to take the life of another.

And, yes, people will hesitate to defend themselves out of fear of legal action or charges.
Depending on where you live that fear may vary. The system has no qualms about screwing an individual over to prove a point and the point most often sought approval by the system is that you need it and independence is wrong.

Originally posted by HardyWhite
I'm going to be honest... I didn't read the OP, or any responses...

I just wanted to give my input...

Somewhere back in time, I saw something that explained how if someone is breaking in or attacking,
you are to call 911, and while on the phone with them, audibly warn would be attacker.

Something like "I have a gun, I know you are here to hurt me, and i will defend myself."

Honestly, I don't know if I would have the time to get my gun, load it, find a phone, call 911,and position myself where the attacker can hear me but not hurt me, before NEEDING to fire in self defense.

Apparently, if you do not do these things, you may be prosecuted for something.

I'm not saying this is true. Just something I heard a while back.

Carry on!

Whoever told you that was ignorant as hell.

Use of deadly force is generally acceptable after you have exhausted any means of egress from your attacker (or there is none to begin with) and the attacker states their intent to inflict great bodily harm or death, and possesses the means to do so. This is the criteria used by most LE agencies in determining whether the use of deadly force is acceptable. Except by cops, of course. For them, they only have to misidentify any object or body part as a 'gun' and they are justified, but I digress...

'Stating intent' could be verbal or could be an action by the attacker, such as breaking into your house with a big knife. One can assume the intent to cause bodily harm or death by the possession of the big knife. Actually this woman would have been justified in shooting him even if he did not have a knife because as a male he is assumed to have the means to overpower her and inflict harm.

Also, you can only use enough force to "stop the attack", whatever that is supposed to mean.

Unfortunately while your friend is blowing smoke up your butt about calling 911, there is a set of criteria that must be met for a shooting to be justified that you need to keep in mind.

Oh, and one more thing, if you ever find yourself in a situation where you need to use this kind of force to defend yourself, keep this in mind: Dead men can't lie.

Originally posted by Wildbob77
It's important to use the correct wording in a situation.

You tell the police, after the fact, that you were in fear of your life.

Amen to that.

The single most important advice for after the fact. Ive heard it from beat cops to state attorneys.

You "feared for your life" no matter what and the fewer details the better. You're going to be so messed up from adrenaline and fear and the overwhelming reality of what just occurred so shut your mouth of all details and stories. You feared for your life and that's that.

How you articulate your situation is very important because the prosecutor will latch onto anything that makes you look like you were begging for a fight. From a loaded gun on the nightstand to an NRA sticker on your truck. If the state thinks it can screw you it will.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by Wildbob77
It's important to use the correct wording in a situation.

You tell the police, after the fact, that you were in fear of your life.

Amen to that.

The single most important advice for after the fact. Ive heard it from beat cops to state attorneys.

You "feared for your life" no matter what and the fewer details the better. You're going to be so messed up from adrenaline and fear and the overwhelming reality of what just occurred so shut your mouth of all details and stories. You feared for your life and that's that.

How you articulate your situation is very important because the prosecutor will latch onto anything that makes you look like you were begging for a fight. From a loaded gun on the nightstand to an NRA sticker on your truck. If the state thinks it can screw you it will.

Exactly, and that's ALL you say to the cops. You tell them that you were in fear for your life, and that you understand the gravity of the situation and will cooperate fully, but that you need to speak with your attorney and say NOTHING else. Let your lawyer handle it from there.

Originally posted by TheMindWar
I live in the UK with probably the toughest gun laws in the world. My problem with our laws is I no longer have the ability to protect myself from criminals.

According to our laws I have the god given right to protect myself using reasonable force, what bloody good is that if my house is burgled by some criminal with a gun?

It should be my right to carry a firearm in my own house for protection against gun toting criminals, only criminals have guns in our country.

And why did you give up your guns? You allowed it, no?