Lady in OK shot intruder while on w/ dispatch

[Leanwolf]

STRAIGHT SHOOTER - "Am I the only one who is stunned that her son (the cop) asked her if she had any coffee made?"

It might just be that the (son) police officer, knowing full well the mental trauma his mother would be suffering at that moment, was giving her a normal "task," to do. Something to divert her mind from every thought of what she'd had to do.

Just guessing.

L.W.

 

[sheepdog]

+1, Leanwolf...

...that's the way we did it 30 years ago, anyways...

 

[Snakum]

It's weird, what goes thru your mind when you are in a possible kill or be killed situation. Some people may be the most unlikely hero type yet be cool as a cucumber, like this lady.

I used to think I was John Wayne incarnate, and yet my first firefight I almost pooped my panties. LOL! The second one, I literally thought I was going to die but I made myself lift my head and return fire. I was actually shaking all the way thru, but didn't want someone to tell my dad I died in the dirt without getting a shot off. It got easier but I never became John Wayne.

The lady in the tape was about as courageous as anyone I've ever seen or heard of. I hope it all goes well for her.

 

[Straight Shooter]

Quote:
It might just be that the (son) police officer, knowing full well the mental trauma his mother would be suffering at that moment, was giving her a normal "task," to do. Something to divert her mind from every thought of what she'd had to do.

Perhaps, I see your and Sheepdogs point. But I'm not sure I buy it. He asked: "Mom, do you have any coffee made?". Not: Mom, why don't you make a pot of coffee.

Anyway, it just seemed very odd to me.

...I'd want to get there, too, but when we remember that the Supreme Court has said that police have no duty to protect us...rather that their duty is to enforce the laws and statutes of the jurisdiction that they serve, if they'd left a burglary scene before concluding the investigation, and the perp walked, or whatever else they were doing...and gone to help her...they would, and their department would be liable civilly for not doing their job and the cry would have been "favoritism because she's a cop's Mom"...and if someone'd been harmed because they didn't properly finish what they were already on...they would have been negligent...it's not right morally, but it's the way it is legally....

If it was my mother (or wife) I'd be on my way. Job be damned.

I'm not commenting on how he acted as an LEO but as a son.

 

[Mike J]

As far as I can tell he did fine as a son. The calvary was already arriving. He did more good calming her than he would have flying accross the county trying to get there. Everything was already over with then anyway.
I think she done good. She defended herself & her home. I felt bad for her after she shot, you could tell her emotions were really torn up.
I agree the son was just trying to calm her by asking about the coffee. Sometimes it's better to do something to keep yourself from thinking too much.

 

[Six]

I hope I do half as well as her should I ever need to call 911 in a similar situation.

 

[Big Russ]

The sheriff for my county recently recommended all citizens to go out and purchase a hand gun and get trained to use it if a case like this were to happen. I'm amazed this lady was as calm as she was, God only knows what could've happened if she didn't stop that guy...

 

[TheProf]

1. The woman did the right thing. Good for her.

2. 99.999% of police officers want to do the right thing....and are highly motivated to respond to a life and death distress call as quick as possible. To those officers, we salute you and thank you for your service. We know that your job is difficult and often unappreciated. We also know that sometimes, reality (such as being undermanned) prevents you from doing your job effectively. That is why it is the duty of every... rational, law abiding, able-bodied citizen to properly arm and train himself with the ability to defend himself and his family.

 

[jdub3]

That 911 call gave me chills. I feel for the poor woman, but she did the right thing.

 

[SSN Vet]

Mature character!

She didn't want to kill the bum, but she wasn't going to let him hurt her.

Her plan worked....

a. arm self
b. call for help
c. lay in wait
d. know where the threat is
e. draw a mental line in the sand
f. start shooting when the line is crossed

16 ga. shotgun..... bless her heart!

The state of Nebraska should tally up the cost of trying this bum and encarcerating him for a very long time and then pay this outstanding citizen a 5% commission for all the money she saved the state.

 

[Wile E Coyote]

Wow, I hope this poor woman can ease her heart quickly. She made me proud and I don't even know her.

 

[eight433]

Mature character!

She didn't want to kill the bum, but she wasn't going to let him hurt her.

Her plan worked....

a. arm self
b. call for help
c. lay in wait
d. know where the threat is
e. draw a mental line in the sand
f. start shooting when the line is crossed

16 ga. shotgun..... bless her heart!

The state of Nebraska should tally up the cost of trying this bum and encarcerating him for a very long time and then pay this outstanding citizen a 5% commission for all the money she saved the state.

that is what I found to be so interesting about the story. She told herself (as well as dispatch) "if he breaks the window and makes it in the house, I'm gonna have to shoot him" several times. He broke the window and entered the house, and she shot him. She never doubted or second guessed herself. She knew what she had to do, and she took care of business. I could only ever possibly dream of being so cool and level headed in such a situation. She handled it extremely well and her husband and son should be very proud of her.

 

[Yosemite Sam]

She knew better than to lock herself into a "little bathroom with a big shotgun" -her words.

Is there something wrong with the strategy of barricading oneself in a safe room (like the master bedroom) with long gun pointed toward the door while on the phone with 911?

Her plan worked....

a. arm self
b. call for help

Good job. Except she called for help first THEN armed herself. I'd have done the opposite.

 

[Ryder]

Is there something wrong with the strategy of barricading oneself in a safe room (like the master bedroom) with long gun pointed toward the door while on the phone with 911?

Depends on how small the bathroom is and its configuration. I've seen some that there would not enough room to lay on the floor. Theoretically when the door is broken open it could knock a long gun aside if already aimed at the door, that would give the attacker an opportunity to get control of the weapon. Or if the door crashed down off the hinges from above in such a position you would end up underneath of it and unable to defend yourself.

I consider the whole inside of my home a safe room. Apparently some states agree and they have enacted stand your ground laws.

 

[oldman1946]

When locked in a small room, a perp can shoot through the door and possibly strike those inside. The smaller the room, the more potential for a hit coming through the door. A bathroom may be the best place to be in a storm but is about the worst place to be during an invasion. There is no way out and in 90% of the bathrooms, a couple of shots through the door will strike whomever is inside.

The intruder broke into the house. He could break in the bathroom or a bedroom a lot easier. The doors are hollow core and very flimsy. The locks are cheaply made interior type and many can be unlocked with a nail or coathanger tip.

A person outside the bathroom can open the lock from a kneeling position at the side of the doorway and shooting at the perp may result in you running out of ammo. However the perp can open the door, shoot into the door and either way has a great chance of hitting those inside.

While allowing the fight to come to you is much preferred over taking the fight to them, getting into a position of no retreat and limited movement is a bad idea. It is better to pick a spot of concealment and wait for the perp to cross that line.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Donna did an outstanding job!!! Very very well done.

Kudos to the dispatcher.

Boo to whomever released the recording without bleeping out the address and contact information.

 

[Yosemite Sam]

I wasn't speaking about hiding in a tiny bathroom. Just saying if you're in bed and hear an obvious door or window crashing that you should stay put instead of clearing the house yourself.

Donna's situation is different since she was able to see the intruder before he broke in, so retreating is silly.

 

[Snakum]

Why did the Mods remove the funny posts? What rule, pray tell, did that violate?

We're off to play the grand piano, are we?

 

[alsaqr]

...how those who don't even live in a state will make statements about what's going to happen next...no civil suit will be honored...

Excellent post.

Do not equate a righteous self defense case in OK with a similar case anywhere else in the USA. In OK the prosecutor is not required to take a good shoot to the grand jury. Our prosecutor declined to take three righteous self defense shooting cases to the grand jury within a two year period.

4. Now her headaches begin. Her homeowners insurance will be sued by the family of the perp. Depending on the insurance company, they may cancel her coverage for firearm ownership or wrongful use.

Not so. In OK the family of the late perp is prevented from filing a civil suit in righteous shooting cases.

Some posters are surprised that it took the police 23 minutes to get to the lady's home. Our county, Comanche, is bigger than the state of RI. At nights and on the weekends there are two deputies patrolling this county, one in the east and another in the west. It will take awhile for them to get there.

 

[oldman1946]

Not so

I have ties to law enforcement in OK, even in Lincoln County but mostly in Mcloud.

1. A civil suit can be filed against anyone for anything. It has nothing to do with being a righteous shooting or not. Many people in OK has collected damages in intentional as well as accidental shootings. Many people have successfully sued police agencies as well. Granted, certain crimes will exclude any recovery but a suit can still be filed. While I do not agree with such suits, they still happen.

2. No District Attorney is bound to present a case to the Grand Jury but they can. In this case, I seriously doubt the case will go to a Grand Jury but it could for a couple of legal reasons. The main one I see right now would be her ties to law enforcement. The DA may want to remove the perception of favoritism on the part of law enforcement and keep the department from being sued for slow response.

Laws vary from place to place but Federal laws can and often override local law. A friend in OK with 28 yrs with a major dept was forced to fatally shoot a perp. They were off work for TWO years waiting to be cleared by the DOJ and the FBI for civil rights violations.

Oklahoma police are now seeing a major rise in law suits over officers shooting pet dogs. Just google it and see the towns currently under suit. When people sue over the death of a menacing animal, they certainly will sue over the death of a family member.

Law is a two edge sword. It protects one from unjust actions while allowing interested parties to seek damages as well.

A local man several years ago was fleeing from police. He was only tackled and hit the pavement with his head. The injury led to his death a few weeks later. His fault he committed the crime. His fault he ran. His fault he resisted. No wrong doing on the part of the officers giving chase. Yet the City was out a million dollars to the family of the perp with warrants out for him. Judge ruled the chase was not needed due to they could have apprenhended him at a later time without causing him harm.

 

[alsaqr]

Many people in OK has collected damages in intentional as well as accidental shootings.

Since the OK law was passed in 1987 no one has won a civil case against a person who was involved in a righteous shoot.

 

[sheepdog]

Civil suits because of Self Defense Shooting...

...it's clearly spelled out in Oklahoma Statutes cited in link that the person who had to shoot in self defense is immune from prosecution or civil suit...once again...the laws of the state in which it happened trump our opinions, no matter how many cops we know...having been one...cops are the best source of misinformation about the law I know...these new "Castle Doctrine" type laws have been passed just for the reason of stopping suits by perps and their families...and they work quite well...
...federal law has no jurisdiction in this case...in police shootings, they almost always have jurisdiction if the perp or family squeals civil rights violation...we, as private citizens have many rights that LEOs have "given up" to serve us...they are under much more scrutiny than we would ever be...
...once the investigation, coroner's inquest, or Grand Jury has decided officially she has done the right thing...legally and civilly it's over...the statute cited applies to her and she's completely protected...a good thing...

...frivolous and unfounded and unrational suits against police officers and departments are not protected against under this law...only private citizens who must act in self defense ...I don't know of a state where officers have this good a level of protection...

 

[oldman1946]

Look at it this way.

As per the taped 911 call, she had about 20 minutes to flee the scene. Yes, her home would have been invaded and possibly more but she would have been clear of danger and out of harm's way. In short, she had the last clear chance to avoid confrontation.

HEY, I am on her side here. However I spend my days working in these situations. The company I own is a consulting company. It is hired by courts, police agencies, insurance companies and attorneys to invesitgate, reconstruct and, if need be, testify in court as to my findings and proper procedure. One large law firm I do work for represents 57 police agencies in the US. I get a lot of travel time in OK, LA, TX, AR and a few other states looking at these type cases. Insurance companies hire my firm to investigate and reconstruct shootings, dog bites and other things in order to determine if there is any exposure to them legally.

I have been in court in OK a few times where suits were won against the homeowner for shootings. There is a case pending in central OK where a business shooting took place. It was justified but the shooter has been charged.

I have not been involved in a case where judgement was rendered against any OK department in a shooting.

Do I think this lady acted properly? Yes. Do I feel she made a wise decision? Yes. Do I feel she is guilty of negligence in any way? Not that I see from arms length. Do I see litigation in the future? No way of knowing but there could be a basis for such, depending on perps family, the atty they may or may not retain and his character.

 

[Kleanbore]

...once the investigation, coroner's inquest, or Grand Jury has decided officially she has done the right thing...legally and civilly it's over...the statute cited applies to her and she's completely protected...a good thing...

Unless, of course, a later grand jury thinks differently...but my question is, does the coroner or grand jury actually issue an opinion, or do the simply decline to charges, as is the case in many states?

Edit--this answers that question:

If the grand jury decides to indict, it returns what is called a "true bill." If not, the grand jury returns a "no-bill." But even if the grand jury returns a no-bill, the prosecutor may eventually file charges against a suspect. Prosecutors can return to the same grand jury with more evidence, present the same evidence to a second grand jury, or (in jurisdictions that give prosecutors a choice) bypass the grand jury altogether and file a criminal complaint.

...is there anything in case law that makes said opinion determinative in civil court?

Later in the statute, it is said that the plaintiff must pay expenses..."if the court decides...".

..frivolous and unfounded and unrational suits against police officers and departments are not protected against under this law...only private citizens who must act in self defense ...I don't know of a state where officers have this good a level of protection...

However, police officers are indemnified, while civilians are not.

The law may sound good to the lawman, but I'm not sure I would want to rely on protection against civil claims under tort law by a provision in a criminal code that may not have been tested for constitutionality by the higher state courts.

 

[Straight Shooter]

Here in PA we are trying to pass a castle doctrine law (HB40). I think it's a good bill but one thing struck me when I read it. It says:

Attorney fees and costs.--If the actor who satisfies the requirements of subsection (a) prevails in a civil action initiated by or on behalf of a perpetrator against the actor, the court shall award reasonable expenses to the actor. Reasonable expenses shall include, but not be limited to, attorney fees, expert witness fees, court costs and compensation for loss of income.

I just did a quick search and the same applies to the OK castle doctrine:

H. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection F of this section.

Here is a link

It seems to me "Immune" does not mean you can not be sued but that IF you win you can recover your expenses.

Here's my question, recover from whom? The perps family? What if they are broke? You are still out potentially tens of thousands of dollars.

IANAL, but that how it reads to me.