Poll of the Day > Three teen burglars shot and killed by homeowner's son.

(+) Yeah! (+)

America, where property matters more than people. You guys are aware that burglary isn't considered a violent crime, right?

Let's be real here, if the kids that got shot were white and the homeowner wasn't this wouldn't be a case of self defence. Additionally, how the hell is it possibly self defence when you shot three people? The other two teenage boys kept coming after seeing shots fired? Pretty doubtful. The kid probably waited for the burglars to get in so he could get the drop on them. I will not be surprised if it turns out that one of the kids was shot in the back.

wew lad

imagine defending the robbers

Oh and for the record

The man, who authorities say also lives at the address with his father, opened fire on the teens after they had a "short exchange of words".

Sounds to me like he tried to stop them without shooting first.
---

Hey if someone breaks into your house, you don't know what they are there for. They could be a robber or a sex predator, kidnapper or murderer. I think punishing people for defending themselves and/or their loved ones when someone breaks in is ludicrous.

Kudos to the guy.
---

Rasmoh posted...

Mead posted...

I couldn't disagree more.

Gotta back up Mead on this one. Violent criminals getting shot is some of the best news anyone can hope for.

we don't know if they're violent, though.

the weapons could have been used as intimidation only if they were caught and they had no intentions of using then as weapons.

without knowing that, you cannot say they were violent.
---

helIy posted...

Rasmoh posted...

Mead posted...

I couldn't disagree more.

Gotta back up Mead on this one. Violent criminals getting shot is some of the best news anyone can hope for.

we don't know if they're violent, though.

the weapons could have been used as intimidation only if they were caught and they had no intentions of using then as weapons.

without knowing that, you cannot say they were violent.

using weapons to intimidate someone you're robbing is violent

robbing someone is violent
---

helIy posted...

Rasmoh posted...

Mead posted...

I couldn't disagree more.

Gotta back up Mead on this one. Violent criminals getting shot is some of the best news anyone can hope for.

we don't know if they're violent, though.

the weapons could have been used as intimidation only if they were caught and they had no intentions of using then as weapons.

without knowing that, you cannot say they were violent.

If someone has a weapon you assume they are gonna use it. SO hwat you want to wait tell they stabbed the shit out of him before hand? He tried saying something to them and they proceded to rob or something and then he shot them. He didn't pop up and shoot them by surprise, words were exchanged.
---

to be fair the words were probably like "what are you doing in my house?" they probably flashed their weapons and then he probably popped them
---

yutterh posted...

If someone has a weapon you assume they are gonna use it.

no

i dont

a typical burglar is absolutely not going to try and fucking kill you just so he can sell your TV.
---

You would have to be a complete idiot to break into a private home in the US (especially in a place like Oklahoma). We're packing heat people.
---

helIy posted...

yutterh posted...

If someone has a weapon you assume they are gonna use it.

no

i dont

a typical burglar is absolutely not going to try and fucking kill you just so he can sell your TV.

Don't break into my home. I will shoot you.
---

helIy posted...

yutterh posted...

If someone has a weapon you assume they are gonna use it.

no

i dont

a typical burglar is absolutely not going to try and fucking kill you just so he can sell your TV.

You would really take that chance? The chance that they could hurt you or whoever else is in your home is not one you want to put into a strangers hands. Especially teenagers who think they are badasses. But your right, the typical burglar would rather not hurt you, but they would if they had too. So if someone broke into your home and had brass knuckles and a knife what would you do? just let them take your shit? Tie you up?

TreGooda posted...

Don't break into my home. I will shoot you.

---

if someone is breaking into my home with a knife and brass knuckles i assume they are going to use them

if someone has like a pocket knife walking down the street i don't assume they are going to is it
---

helIy posted...

a typical burglar is absolutely not going to try and f***ing kill you just so he can sell your TV.

I'd imagine most common thieves do not intend to kill anyone but there's no guaranteed some fight won't happen either. You can't expect everyone willing to take that chance with a home intruder. That said intruders are ONLY there to steal something.

Maybe the father and son gave the buglers a verbal warning, maybe they gave a warning shot, or maybe they open fire without anything said. All we have are the words of the father and son at this point.

If the buglers still didn't take the threat of the guns seriously what do you expect the father and son to do then? Just let them take their belongings and walk out? Should they, the father and son, risk injuries in an attempt to incapacitate the buglers instead of shooting them?
---

yutterh posted...

You would really take that chance? The chance that they could hurt you or whoever else is in your home is not one you want to put into a strangers hands. Especially teenagers who think they are badasses. But your right, the typical burglar would rather not hurt you, but they would if they had too. So if someone broke into your home and had brass knuckles and a knife what would you do? just let them take your shit? Tie you up?

i mean, if they run away from me after I say "stop, I'll shoot" then why would I shoot them as they're actively trying to escape

if they make it clear they don't care and want to fuck my shit up then of course I'm going to shoot
---

helIy posted...

yutterh posted...

You would really take that chance? The chance that they could hurt you or whoever else is in your home is not one you want to put into a strangers hands. Especially teenagers who think they are badasses. But your right, the typical burglar would rather not hurt you, but they would if they had too. So if someone broke into your home and had brass knuckles and a knife what would you do? just let them take your shit? Tie you up?

i mean, if they run away from me after I say "stop, I'll shoot" then why would I shoot them as they're actively trying to escape

if they make it clear they don't care and want to fuck my shit up then of course I'm going to shoot

Too many variables in that scenario.

When this happens we all benefit from the positive externality.
---

helIy posted...

yutterh posted...

You would really take that chance? The chance that they could hurt you or whoever else is in your home is not one you want to put into a strangers hands. Especially teenagers who think they are badasses. But your right, the typical burglar would rather not hurt you, but they would if they had too. So if someone broke into your home and had brass knuckles and a knife what would you do? just let them take your shit? Tie you up?

i mean, if they run away from me after I say "stop, I'll shoot" then why would I shoot them as they're actively trying to escape

if they make it clear they don't care and want to fuck my shit up then of course I'm going to shoot

Which happened to that guy. I agree, if they run no need to shoot. He made his presence known. Going by his testimony that i read, this is probably what happened

Jen0125 posted...

to be fair the words were probably like "what are you doing in my house?" they probably flashed their weapons and then he probably popped them

---

not really, considering that that's what you're supposed to do.

you don't just go in guns a blazing, ask questions later

that's stupid and probably would only work as an excuse in Oklahoma
---

I don't feel sorry for the deceased, but damn that sucks for the getaway driver but oh well. The part where it said they exchanged words had it looking a bit suspicious to me, but if they threatened him or showed they were armed, I can't really argue with his actions.
---

helIy posted...

i mean, if they run away from me after I say "stop, I'll shoot" then why would I shoot them as they're actively trying to escape

if they make it clear they don't care and want to fuck my shit up then of course I'm going to shoot

you're talking about a scenario that didn't happen though. there's no evidence so far that shows he shot the teens while they were trying to escape

helIy posted...

not really, considering that that's what you're supposed to do.

you don't just go in guns a blazing, ask questions later

that's stupid and probably would only work as an excuse in Oklahoma

again that's not what we have evidence for

you're making up a scenario that didn't happen
---

helIy posted...

not really, considering that that's what you're supposed to do.

you don't just go in guns a blazing, ask questions later

that's stupid and probably would only work as an excuse in Oklahoma

But you're trying to create a standard that's hard to adhere to in the heat of the moment and creates a high burden of proof during a court case.

I mean, is it really that bad to just say to would-be burglars/robbers "Hey dude, you break into a house then you might be shot. You probably shouldn't break into houses."

They're the ones making the decision, not this guy. He's reacting to them - he's not trying to search them out and murder some dudes.

Like, just stay out of peoples houses and don't get shot.
---

Mfw people are defending the burglars
---

-Komaiko54- posted...

Mfw people are defending the burglars

It's amazing, isn't it?

I can picture the people doing it being the kind of people that have to be right all the time, and even when they hear good, valid arguments as to why they're wrong, they just stick their fingers in their ears going "lalalalalala I can't hear youuuu!"
---

rexcrk posted...

-Komaiko54- posted...

Mfw people are defending the burglars

It's amazing, isn't it?

I can picture the people doing it being the kind of people that have to be right all the time, and even when they hear good, valid arguments as to why they're wrong, they just stick their fingers in their ears going "lalalalalala I can't hear youuuu!"

that describes helly pretty well for the most part tbh
---

helIy posted...

a typical burglar is absolutely not going to try and fucking kill you just so he can sell your TV.

Not everyone breaking into your home is a burglar, though. Some people breaking into your home--especially if you are home--aren't after your TV. They're after you. You don't know why they're there, and there's no realistic way to know their motive before defending yourself.
---

I hope the son's hearing isn't too messed up, AR's are loud as shit outside, much more so indoors.

As for the burglars, play stupid games, win stupid prizes
---

Golden Road posted...

Either way, this isn't something to celebrate. It's not wrong that he shot them, but it's not like "yay, they totes deserved to die!" It's unfortunate, but who knows how it might have ended if this guy didn't shoot them.

Pretty much my opinion verbatim. I'm not celebrating their deaths - I don't think any death should ever be celebrated, even those of criminals (and especially when those criminals were teenagers) - but I don't think the homeowner's son did anything wrong, nor do I think he should have done anything differently.

Roxborough4Ever posted...

anti trump posters want him to go to jail so badly

Which ones? Most of the posters I see in this topic who usually sound off against Trump aren't objecting to what happened.

adjl posted...

If somebody dies as a consequence of criminal activity, all involved parties in that criminal activity are on the hook for those deaths, which are typically considered murder in such cases. You see similar charges laid if a pair tries robbing a store: if one of them is killed by the owner in self-defense, the other can be charged with their murder. Those other people are dead because she drove them there, thus she is responsible for their deaths.

It's a bit of a logical stretch, yes, but it's not one I really object to.

I don't like this aspect of what happened, because it's implying that someone who commits a lesser crime that goes wrong and results in the death of one of the criminals carries the same moral culpability and punishment (complete with taxpayer expense) as a planned out murder. A criminal who is a low-level, potentially non-violent offender is much easier to rehabilitate than a cold-blooded murderer and should be treated accordingly.
---

Good

helIy posted...

yutterh posted...

If someone has a weapon you assume they are gonna use it.

no

i dont

a typical burglar is absolutely not going to try and fucking kill you just so he can sell your TV.

your naivety will get you killed.
---

JTekashiro posted...

America, where property matters more than people. You guys are aware that burglary isn't considered a violent crime, right?

Let's be real here, if the kids that got shot were white and the homeowner wasn't this wouldn't be a case of self defence. Additionally, how the hell is it possibly self defence when you shot three people? The other two teenage boys kept coming after seeing shots fired? Pretty doubtful. The kid probably waited for the burglars to get in so he could get the drop on them. I will not be surprised if it turns out that one of the kids was shot in the back.

It was a group of armed men with deadly weapons invading his home who he first tried to threaten. It was almost certainly intended to be a violent crime rather than a simple robbery, so your usual gutter-tier trolling is debunked.
---

how in fucks name is the getaway driver facing murder charges

that's the dumbest shit i've ever heard of

Zeus posted...

It was a group of armed men with deadly weapons invading his home who he first tried to threaten. It was almost certainly intended to be a violent crime rather than a simple robbery, so your usual gutter-tier trolling is debunked.

Disagree. The weapons may have been brought for intimidation and/or to use if they were attacked by the homeowner rather than for the express purpose of violence; it's impossible to know without asking the now-dead perpetrators.

It also makes little difference. Even if they were unarmed, there were three of them; the son would still have been justified in his use of force regardless.
---

adjl posted...

Those other people are dead because she drove them there, thus she is responsible for their deaths.

Oh that's how it works? We better start rounding up the Sandy Hook parents and charging them.

darkknight109 posted...

Zeus posted...

It was a group of armed men with deadly weapons invading his home who he first tried to threaten. It was almost certainly intended to be a violent crime rather than a simple robbery, so your usual gutter-tier trolling is debunked.

Disagree. The weapons may have been brought for intimidation and/or to use if they were attacked by the homeowner rather than for the express purpose of violence; it's impossible to know without asking the now-dead perpetrators.

It also makes little difference. Even if they were unarmed, there were three of them; the son would still have been justified in his use of force regardless.

In isolation, the bringing of weapons might seem less menacing if not for the fact that they first realized that somebody was at home -- which would cause a normal thief to flee -- and then were threatened with a weapon yet still didn't flee. That strongly implies something more sinister.
---

Fair, next
---

Robbers that try to rob someone's home do deserve to be shot and killed.


Serves them right

vicedungwinsgam posted...

adjl posted...

Those other people are dead because she drove them there, thus she is responsible for their deaths.

Oh that's how it works? We better start rounding up the Sandy Hook parents and charging them.

Definitely the same thing. Good work buddy. You showed him.
---

People panic and do stupid shit when they get caught breaking the law. It's not uncommon to see someone flee in a vehicle on cops and get a bunch of charges for what would've initially just been minor traffic violations. There's no way I'm taking the chance that some asshole/s I don't know, that are in my house when they're not supposed to be, are going to behave rationally when confronted. Second, assuming they're just burglars and not trying to murder me is also not a chance I'm willing to take. It's pretty damn simple, don't break into my house and you don't get shot.
---

vicedungwinsgam posted...

how in fucks name is the getaway driver facing murder charges

that's the dumbest shit i've ever heard of

Why is that the dumbest shit you've ever heard of

darkknight109 posted...

I don't like this aspect of what happened, because it's implying that someone who commits a lesser crime that goes wrong and results in the death of one of the criminals carries the same moral culpability and punishment (complete with taxpayer expense) as a planned out murder. A criminal who is a low-level, potentially non-violent offender is much easier to rehabilitate than a cold-blooded murderer and should be treated accordingly.

Don't become a criminal and then you don't have to face these charges. I disagree and am glad she is charged with their murder. I be pissed if she wasn't. Don't hang with a group of hoodlums, then you won't have to worry about being charged for their fuck ups. Those teens would not have died if the driver didn't drive them there in the first place.
---

fair, next

Zeus posted...

In isolation, the bringing of weapons might seem less menacing if not for the fact that they first realized that somebody was at home -- which would cause a normal thief to flee -- and then were threatened with a weapon yet still didn't flee. That strongly implies something more sinister.

Possible, I suppose. Either way, it's difficult to say with certainty that they intended violence.

Cacciato posted...

Why is that the dumbest shit you've ever heard of

Because it equates being a driver for a robbery - a non-violent, relatively low-level offence that probably would not have netted her more than five years in prison had the robbery been successful - with being a serial mass-murderer, something that's has the potential to leave her in prison (and taxpayers paying for her) for the rest of her life which, given her age, could be 70+ years. That's patently ridiculous.

The driver didn't intend for anyone to get killed and had no way of reasonably anticipating that a killing would take place; her moral culpability is low and there's nothing suggesting she would be difficult to rehabilitate. Even if you wanted to suggest she bears some blame for the deaths, I fail to see how this is first degree murder (which requires malice aforethought) as opposed to negligent homicide/involuntary manslaughter (a charge that's more typically laid when death occurs in a situation where the killer didn't intend for it to happen but bore responsibility for it). Suggesting she should go to prison for the rest of her life for being a getaway driver is an extreme overreaction and a waste of both her life and taxpayer dollars.
---

yutterh posted...

Don't become a criminal and then you don't have to face these charges. I disagree and am glad she is charged with their murder. I be pissed if she wasn't. Don't hang with a group of hoodlums, then you won't have to worry about being charged for their fuck ups. Those teens would not have died if the driver didn't drive them there in the first place.

OK, forget about her specifically for a second and whether or not she "deserved" this; look at this from your own perspective.

Do you really want to spend your tax dollars on this woman's room and board, potentially for the rest of YOUR life? Because three first-degree murder charges, in most jurisdictions, would carry an absolute minimum of 75 years in prison with no possibility of parole and she's young enough that she could feasibly serve the entirety of that sentence.

And for what? For being a driver? Again, you're suggesting that this woman is equally as bad as someone that plans out and executes the murder of an entire family. Of the four people that were involved in this crime, she's the least responsible and least involved of the group. Yes, she deserves prison time, but 75+ years worth? Give me a break. I expect more prudent spending of public money than locking someone up for the rest of their natural life over what was, really, a low-level crime.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Zeus posted...

In isolation, the bringing of weapons might seem less menacing if not for the fact that they first realized that somebody was at home -- which would cause a normal thief to flee -- and then were threatened with a weapon yet still didn't flee. That strongly implies something more sinister.

Possible, I suppose. Either way, it's difficult to say with certainty that they intended violence.

Cacciato posted...

Why is that the dumbest shit you've ever heard of

Because it equates being a driver for a robbery - a non-violent, relatively low-level offence that probably would not have netted her more than five years in prison had the robbery been successful - with being a serial mass-murderer, something that's has the potential to leave her in prison (and taxpayers paying for her) for the rest of her life which, given her age, could be 70+ years. That's patently ridiculous.

The driver didn't intend for anyone to get killed (does NOT matter)

and had no way of reasonably anticipating that a killing would take place (they brought knives, clearly something could have been anticipated)

; her moral culpability is low and there's nothing suggesting she would be difficult to rehabilitate. Even if you wanted to suggest she bears some blame for the deaths, I fail to see how this is first degree murder (which requires malice aforethought) as opposed to negligent homicide/involuntary manslaughter (a charge that's more typically laid when death occurs in a situation where the killer didn't intend for it to happen but bore responsibility for it). Suggesting she should go to prison for the rest of her life for being a getaway driver is an extreme overreaction and a waste of both her life and taxpayer dollars.

---

Oh dear, what a pity, never mind, good riddance.
---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

does NOT matter

It absolutely matters. Malice aforethought is literally the difference between murder and manslaughter. If you don't intend for someone to die then, by the legal definition, it is impossible for you to have committed murder.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

they brought knives, clearly something could have been anticipated

Knives which were never used by people who didn't kill anyone.

The fact the invaders were armed changes nothing; even if they were unarmed the son would have been fully justified in using lethal force to defend himself, and the resultant murder charges on the surviving robber would be just as ridiculous.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Krazy_Kirby posted...

does NOT matter

It absolutely matters. Malice aforethought is literally the difference between murder and manslaughter. If you don't intend for someone to die then, by the legal definition, it is impossible for you to have committed murder.

That legal definition varies state to state. Manslaughter while in the commission of a crime is legally treated as murder in several areas, apparently.
---

deoxxys posted...

Gun used as intended

success

This. Only a fool would allow themselves to be victimized for literally zero reason whatsoever. It's not likely they were ever going to amount to anything more than three mouths to feed in prison on the taxpayer's dollar.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Because it equates being a driver for a robbery - a non-violent, relatively low-level offence that probably would not have netted her more than five years in prison had the robbery been successful - with being a serial mass-murderer, something that's has the potential to leave her in prison (and taxpayers paying for her) for the rest of her life which, given her age, could be 70+ years. That's patently ridiculous.

I agree it is a long time and doesn't really help anyone by sending her away for life, but I also don't see another option I agree with. If you go after her for a murder she will plea bargain down to manslaughter, which carries a minimum of 4 years without a chance for parole until 3.4 years. So about 12 years minimum. Which I think is pretty fair considering her actions helped bring about the death of 3 teenagers and the psychological scarring of an innocent individual.

But if you go after the manslaughter charges to begin with, she could plea down to a slap on the wrist and she would be on the streets thinking she can get away with murder after a year or two. Possibly no time at all depending on what it drops to.

darkknight109 posted...

The driver didn't intend for anyone to get killed and had no way of reasonably anticipating that a killing would take place; her moral culpability is low and there's nothing suggesting she would be difficult to rehabilitate

She may not have intended for anyone to get killed, but someone did get killed in a criminal act she freely participated in. And I disagree that she had no reasonable way to anticipate a death may happen. 42% of homes in Oklahoma have guns. It is not unreasonable to expect someone to have one. But even ignoring that, they brought a knife into someone else's home that they were trying to rob. Even if they were not intending to use it, a reasonable person could conclude that there is a chance something might get out of hand and the weapon is used.

darkknight109 posted...

Even if you wanted to suggest she bears some blame for the deaths, I fail to see how this is first degree murder (which requires malice aforethought) as opposed to negligent homicide/involuntary manslaughter (a charge that's more typically laid when death occurs in a situation where the killer didn't intend for it to happen but bore responsibility for it). Suggesting she should go to prison for the rest of her life for being a getaway driver is an extreme overreaction and a waste of both her life and taxpayer dollars.

They planned to maliciously deprive a person of their rightful property by force or intimidation if neccesary, anything that happens after that happened because of malicious forethought. Waste of money depends o how likely she is to do it again, and that is more likely if she gets off with a slap on the wrist.
---

vicedungwinsgam posted...

adjl posted...

Those other people are dead because she drove them there, thus she is responsible for their deaths.

Oh that's how it works? We better start rounding up the Sandy Hook parents and charging them.

I nominate this for dumbest post in the topic
---

Mead posted...

vicedungwinsgam posted...

adjl posted...

Those other people are dead because she drove them there, thus she is responsible for their deaths.

Oh that's how it works? We better start rounding up the Sandy Hook parents and charging them.

I nominate this for dumbest post in the topic

I second it. Motion passes.