Lady in OK shot intruder while on w/ dispatch

[Werewolf]

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.

There is no duty to retreat in OK even if able. Since NOV of last year that has been codified into law to include anywhere a person has a legal right to be. "Stand Your Ground" is the name of the law and I imagine that's exactly what it means. Not only do you not have a duty to retreat but you can stand your ground and defend your self anywhere you have a legal right to be. Since the OK SDA was passed there has been no duty to retreat if someone illegaly enters your home. The law goes so far as to codify that the person illegally entering your home is there to cause you severe or lethal harm. That immunity to criminal and civil liability was extended to the stand your ground law.

...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.

Wrong. Not justified. You're talking the case against the pharmacist in OKC. He shot a 16 year old kid who had a gun. He shot the kid and the kid went down, incapacitated. The shoot was legal and justified right up to that point. Then the idiot went behind the counter, retrieved another gun and proceeded to shoot the kid in the abdomen multiple times. All caught on videor. Bad shoot.

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.

The OK SDA precludes any legal liability - civil or criminal - that could arise from a shoot resulting in the death of a criminal that falls under the perview of the SDA.

You are correct that anyone can sue anyone else for anything. But it's difficult to find an attorney that will take a case like the above on contingency when the odds of winning are slim to none.

 

[john81276]

A "homocide", by definition, is the UNjustified taking of a human life.

Homicide (Latin homicidium, homo human being + caedere to cut, kill) refers to the act of a human killing a human being. It doesn not refer to justified or unjustified, hence the term "justifiable homicide."

 

[Straight Shooter]

Most of this is cleared up by looking at the referenced subsections

I'm not convinced. I read the subsections in the OK law and the PA bill before I posted my last post. And I have reread them since. I don't see where it says that someone is prevented from filing a civil suit.

My question here is can someone be prevented from filing a civil suit? If not, you are going to court. Then the subsections you referenced are what the civil court judge will reference during your trial and IMO there is a very high probability that you will win.

To go to court, however, you will need an attorney and depending on the judge he/she may throw it out right away or make you work for it causing you to incur more costs. This brings section H: into play where you are now entitled to recoup these fees once you win.

Why would there be a section H: if you could not possibly go to court?

This is what disturbs me. The court may rule in your favor but you may not be able to collect. You are still out whatever it cost you to defend yourself.

 

[Kleanbore]

This is what disturbs me. The court may rule in your favor but you may not be able to collect. You are still out whatever it cost you to defend yourself.

I think the real protection lies in the provision of the law that makes justified use of deadly force a defense against civil suits. The plaintiff's lawyer will not have as much incentive to take the case as he had in the old days. Less chance of winning.

Nothing is air tight but I'd rather have the law in place than not have it. The case cited by alsaqr makes the need clear.

How it might play out in practice (predominance of the evidence vs. reasonable doubt; civil case possibly proceeding in the absence of an acquittal in criminal court; and so on) may not be clear until someone else has walked that trail and will vary by state, but you should be a heck of a lot better off with a jury having been instructed under the law we have been discussing, should it come to that, than before.

The dang thing about it is that had common sense been in effect, the amended law would have been unnecessary.

 

[bratch]

Why would there be a section H: if you could not possibly go to court?

One reason I could see is if the investigation into the shoot took an extended period of time and the civil suit was filed before it was ruled a good shoot. Section H would make it possible to recover legal bills once it was criminally cleared.


The way I am reading the law is that if you are charged with a crime even if declared not guilty you lose the civil immunity.

 

[Straight Shooter]

I think the real protection lies in the provision of the law that makes justified use of deadly force a defense against civil suits. The plaintiff's lawyer will not have as much incentive to take the case as he had in the old days. Less chance of winning.

Nothing is air tight but I'd rather have the law in place than not have it. The case cited by alsaqr makes the need clear.

I agree, that's why I'm pushing for HB40 to pass in PA.

 

[Kleanbore]

The way I am reading the law is that if you are charged with a crime even if declared not guilty you lose the civil immunity.

I sure don't read it that way, and I seriously doubt that that was the intent.

If you are charged, tried and acquitted in criminal court, that is a fact that can be cited; the actual ultimate effect in terms of civil action may or may not be clear to everyone, but at least the intent of the legislature is fairly clear, any civil jury would be instructed accordingly, and your assailant would likely have some difficulty finding an attorney who would want to proceed with a lawsuit.

The question is, if you are not charged, what is the basis for civil immunity? If you are not charged--I'm not sure that you could get very far at all by saying "I have not been charged, so I was justified." (You can be charged until you have acquitted or pardoned, or are deceased--there's no statute of limitations if the guy dies from your actions).

If these things have been run through the courts, or if there has been an OK AG opinion on the subject, perhaps someone can share.

The former is probably unlikely--these things just don't happen very often, and when they do, the likelihood that an invader has had any reasonable basis for even attempting a civil suit is so low that it's just not likely that the process has been tested.

It has not been tested where I live, and the antis are still crowing that murder is legal here.

 

[bratch]

I sure don't read it that way, and I seriously doubt that that was the intent.

This is the reason I read it that way:

F. A person who uses force, as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsections B and D of this section, is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes charging or prosecuting the defendant.

If the DA decides to charge they believe that the use of force wasn't permitted by the statue. Since it removed the immunity from criminal prosecution it would follow logic to remove the immunity from civil liability as well.

This is my reading of it; I'll have to speak with some of the local SD lawyers and get their views.

 

[McCall911]

I was a 911 dispatcher for a number of years and I received a similar call several years ago. This occurred in a small town in central Alabama. The call came shortly after the one policeman on duty had gone out for lunch.

It was broad daylight, about 12 noon. The lady called on 911, frantically stating that someone was trying to break in through her front door. The caller then disconnected, so I called back. Meanwhile police were dispatched to the scene with the information I gave. Finally she answered and told me that she had just fired a shot and didn't know whether anyone was hit or not, but she recognized the intruder as being her ex husband, who was under a restraining order. She refused to put the gun down and I told her that was fine but MAKE SURE she put the gun down when she saw the officer.
We updated the officer with the information and had backup (county deputies and police from nearby towns) on the way.

Long story short, I think it ended well. Because no one had been injured. The ex was stopped by a deputy and taken into custody pending investigation. (I think he was charged. I just don't remember.) And, to top it off, the woman wasn't charged with anything.

To my mind, this just goes to illustrate what quite a few here correctly insist upon: That when seconds count, police are minutes away.

 

[Werewolf]

re: OK civil/criminal immunity.

You guys are way over thinking this. I've lived in OK since '85 and have followed the evolution of the immunity statutes closely.

The intent of the legislature is and always has been that if one is involved in a good shoot, in other words, justified as defined in law that one is immune from civil and criminal liability whether charged or not.

Some snake lawyer might try what y'all are trying and figure out some funky loophole to that but I'd wager not a few dollars he'd play hell getting his civil suit heard in court. As for criminal charges there'd have to be grand jury level evidence that the facts of the situation did not meet the criteria of the OK SDA or the new Stand your Ground law to warrant charges being filed. In short if a determination is made by competent authority that you fall under the protection of either the SDA or Stand your ground law you just aren't going to get charged. It is the perview of the DA's and Grand Jury to determine if you meet the requirements.

 

[Kleanbore]

In short if a determination is made by competent authority that you fall under the protection of either the SDA or Stand your ground law you just aren't going to get charged.

For the time being, perhaps , unless said "competent authority" is a trial (petit) jury. Only a trial jury can decide that without being second guessed later. If you kill someone you can always be charged until and unless you are tried and acquitted, pardoned, or die.

It is the perview of the DA's and Grand Jury to determine if you meet the requirements.

Oh yeah? Which DA? Which grand jury? Any DA or grand jury can make his or its determination, but a later DA or grand jury can decide differently in the future.

So, one question that has not been answered is, if one is not tried in criminal court and acquitted, can a civil suit go to civil court? If not, what is the official and permanent judgement that prevents that from happening?

Normally, if a plaintiff makes it to civil court, he must prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence.

The next question is, if a prosecutor fails to convince a jury that the defendant is guilty (was not justified in using deadly force) beyond a reasonable doubt, does that increase the burden on a plaintiff in a civil case to something beyond a preponderance of the evidence?

Did the legislature think that through? Are there other laws that contradict the apparent wording? Which will take precedence in civil court? Has the AG issued an opinion?

 

[model of 1905]

The woman did absolutely fantastic and I wish her peace. It's downright shameful but also a fact of life that it took the cops 23 minutes to get there.
It all turned out great, the creep is dead and the woman is alright.

If this was my house that BG would have been dead ten minutes earlier and I would not lose a minutes sleep over it.

 

[Cactus Jack Arizona]

God bless her.

Did anyone pay attention to the other video news? They had a home invasion in OKC where three guys with masks punched a 60+ year old woman, tied her and her crippled son up, and then set her son on fire.

 

[jenrob]

home invasion in OKC where three guys with masks punched a 60+ year old woman

This could have been her. Had she not had a firearm.

 

[Old Guy]

Oldman1946 #10

Well thought out reply. I can not see where this Lady had any other course of action open to her.

She made her decision to survive this unlawful entry into her home, and did.

 

[alsaqr]

The DA gave her a pass:

CHANDLER — A woman’s shotgun blast that felled an intruder in Lincoln County was a justified act, and just as an emergency dispatcher told the woman before she squeezed the trigger, firing was her best option under the circumstances, the district attorney said Tuesday.

The intruder’s motivations for breaking into her house may remain unclear, but the action taken to stop him was a clear exercise of a homeowner’s rights, District Attorney Richard Smothermon said.

Smothermon issued a ruling Tuesday that Donna Jackson had the legal authority to shoot and kill Billy Dean Riley about 12:40 a.m. Friday. Smothermon said he has declined to file any criminal charge against her.

Read more: http://newsok.com/law-allows-fatal-shot-lincoln-county-official-says/article/3423575#ixzz0ZC8Ja2gY

The DA's letter:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.newsok.com/documents/d8shooting.pdf

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I can not see where this Lady had any other course of action open to her.

No, she had other options, only most of them were garbage in comparison. She exercised her first near-crisis option by calling 911 and requesting help. That obviously was not panning out. She could have fled, but the guy very likely could have caught her. She could have tried defending herself with all sorts of implements or even open-handed after the intrusion was made, but that doesn't seem like it would have worked out as well for her as being in contact distance means being able to be contacted. She could have just tried to hide in the house, but the guy probably would have torn it apart and found her.

No, she did have many other options available to her, but the results probably would not be good.

 

[Kleanbore]

The DA gave her a pass:

Is anyone at all surprised, given the information in the OP?

The DA letter should prove helpful as protection against any other actions against her (lay opinion).

I've never seen that done before. Is that SOP in OK?

 

[alsaqr]

I've never seen that done before. Is that SOP in OK?

Yes, it is: Most OK prosecuors do not desire to drag things out after a good shoot is made. We had three righteous shoots in this county within a 18 month period and this is what our prosecutor did in all three cases.

Prosecutors in OK are elected, judges are appointed.

 

[skwab]

Wow - I don't understand the logic of leaving the home - first off IT'S HER HOME - why should she leave. Second, during the first ten minutes of that 911 tape her home had yet to be breached - she was locked secure in her home - she opens up a door she is now out in the open, and her home is open for this guy to grab whatever he can to use as a weapon, including other firearms that might be in the house. She had no idea if this guy was alone or not, but we now know that he was - still the playing field is changed at the point her door swings open, and so are the rules of engagement.

Locking herself in a room? Unless it is a purpose built saferoom this is a bad idea IMO. If this guy is able and willing to break through an exterior door to gain entrance into the home, then a flimsy interior door will be nothing. From where she was she was able to observe the BG and monitor his actions - she was in charge of the situation the entire time - it was her choice when things needed to be escalated based upon the BG's actions and she timed it perfectly. In a locked bedroom, you no longer have the ability to observe the BG - you have no idea who is standing on the other side of that door if they try to gain entrance, you have no idea if he is armed, it could be the police you called, it could be the BG posing as the police - no idea - the ball is in the BG's court, and you're faced with fewer options.

She did the right thing, she handled it the right way, she applied deadly force at the appropriate time. I feel sorry for her because she obviously did not want to take a life, and this will forever change her. But she handled the situation perfectly given the circumstances, in my piddly opinion anyway!

 

[Deanimator]

Those jurisidictions that mandate retreat require you to do so only when it can be done safely.

And usually not just "safely", but in "PERFECT" safety", which I believe the retreat requirement reads in Ohio... and that's ONLY for outside of the home and auto.

Most places don't require you to endanger yourself in order to protect somebody endangering you.

 

[Deanimator]

Locking herself in a room? Unless it is a purpose built saferoom this is a bad idea IMO.

I live in an apartment. There isn't a door in this place that would even slow down a five year old... and those are the ones that lock.

 

[longbeard48]

Some of you Monday morning quarterbacks must be brainwashed by liberals. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is all about just this sort of incident. If this citizen didn't have the right to shoot a perp, why arm ones self?

 

[Old Guy]

In reading something, years ago, a study of inmates, in jail for violent crimes.

Each and every one stated "I ain't going in a home when they are home"

"Cops try to arrest you" Lady at home at 2AM, she is going to shoot you.

Some of our posters might have second thoughts about shooting a home invader, but the convicted felons do not seem to think so.

 

[Crusader103]

Yet when on a call, the officer cannot sign out to take another and then return to complete the initial call.

Why not? I did it all the time. If I was on a cold call and a hot one came out I would politely say, "Sir, I'm sorry but there is an emergency. I will be back as soon as possible." Most the time the person I was speaking to would say, in an excited voice, "Yea, you bet. Go get 'em."

Before I get the additional responses, yes, that depends on the type of call. Not all calls can be interrupted, even for one in progress. I had to keep driving away from a bank robbery in progress, towards the jail, because I had an arrestee in the back seat. I was less than a block from the robbery.

....edited.... sorry. I just saw the thread was over a month old. I guess I was a day late and a dollar short in my response.