Oklahoma Man Who Killed Three Burglars Gets A Pass

Status
Not open for further replies.
alsaqr

alsaqr

Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
4,985
Location
South Western, OK
Since the last thread went far off kilter and was mercifully closed, i'll open a new one.

The Wagoner county, OK prosecutor declined to prosecute:

"Wagoner County Assistant District Attorney Jack Thorp said Monday that Zach Peters “acted justifiably” March 27 when he shot Maxwell Cook, Jacob Redfern and Jaykob Woodruff at his home just outside the Tulsa suburb of Broken Arrow."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/no-charges-against-oklahoma-man-who-killed-3-intruders/
 
Last edited:
hdwhit said:
I don't know that I would describe the district attorney's decision to not pursue criminal charges as a "pass" when a civil suit from at least one of the deceased seems inevitable.
Click to expand...

The filing of a civil case in OK after the prosecutor declines to prosecute is not "inevitable". It's almost impossible IAW OK law.

Oklahoma Statutes Citationized
Title 21. Crimes and Punishments
Chapter 53 - Manufacture, Sale, and Wearing of Weapons
Oklahoma Firearms Act of 1971
WDDocument.gif
Section 1289.25 - Physical or Deadly Force Against Intruder
......................................................................................................................................

"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

.........................................................................................................................................
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.".
.
 
Last edited:
It's not impossible to file the suit or even almost impossible. What the law does is give such a suit a nearly impossible hill to climb to prevail which is why it's hard to find an attorney to pursue one.

Suit is filed and defendant files a motion to dismiss based on the law. Now the plaintiff has to prove that somehow the defendant's actions were so outlandish that the protections in the law don't apply and action should be allowed to proceed.

It's just like the protections in the lawful commerce in firearms act. Suits against gun dealers and manufacturers are still filed, but most of them are quickly dismissed after the defendant files a motion to have them dismissed under the provisions of the law. But every once in a while they find a sympathetic judge who finds a reason to allow the suit to go forward and it's always big news when it happens.

If one of the anti gun organizations got behind it or if the family had deep enough pockets to make the fight worth it, there could still be a civil suit.

I'm not saying it's likely, but we shouldn't use terms like "impossible" when talking about lawsuits. The old saying that anyone can be sued for anything is (unfortunately) still true.

Those statutes that forbid the awarding of damages arising from a justified self defense action provide protection by making the odds of winning such a suit (or even getting it heard) very poor.
 
wally said:
Not in Texas, hopefully Oklahoma has similar protections for lawful self-defense.
Click to expand...
Nor in Ohio.

Here, the mutant survivors could sue till plate tectonics allows us to walk from Jersey City to Glasgow. By law, they can't collect a penny.

In civilized states, you don't get to put the government's gun to your victims' heads when you fail at using your own.
 
Are you kidding that wouldn't go anywhere in California, though CA has long had a strong castle doctrine. Someone breaking into a home is presumed to pose an imminent threat of death or serious injury, thus justifying lethal force. And even seeing multiple masked men outside trying to break in if they were indeed burglars it would probably go in the resident's favor. Their predatory intent is clear.
Having breached the home before being shot it wouldn't even be questionable.
Three masked armed men without relation to anyone in the home broke into an occupied home, unless the evidence didn't match the story they have no recourse.

Three armed men kicked in a door while masked and got shot, that's the risk in being a home invader. Their family doesn't get paid because of it. No, they get the shame and lifetime loss of having their child dead for being a home invader. It is sad when a family has to lose someone, but adults making the choice to violently prey on people for money are who you want to see on the losing end.
 
Last edited:
Does no one feel sorry for the rifle he will likely never get back? Pretty sure it's still locked up in the evidence room.
 
Torian said:
Does no one feel sorry for the rifle he will likely never get back? Pretty sure it's still locked up in the evidence room.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, maybe not. Likely depends on the local sheriff or police department. A shooter here had his gun returned. Sarah McKinley's old break action shotgun was confiscated: Deputies gave her a new Mossberg 500.
 
Jim NE said:
A "pass"? That would imply he was absolved of something that he was guilty of.
I've seen or heard nothing so far to suggest he was guilty of anything.
Click to expand...
It helps to understand how the law sees this sort of thing.

Our society frowns on intentionally threatening, hurting or killing another human. Doing so is, prima facie (on its face) a crime of some sort. One avoids being held criminally responsible for such an act of intentional violence against someone else only if your act of intentional violence can be somehow legally justified or excused.

And you don't decide if your act of intentional violence against someone else was justified or excusable. Our society assigns that authority to others. Sometimes a prosecutor or grand jury will look at the circumstances and decide that it's sufficiently established by the evidence they see that it's most likely you were justified or could be excused, and the prosecutor will, therefore, choose not to pursue a criminal charge. If you're unlucky the question will wind up being decided by a jury at your trial.

So Zach Peters did get a pass.
 
alsaqr said:
The filing of a civil case in OK after the prosecutor declines to prosecute is not "inevitable". It's almost impossible IAW OK law.
Click to expand...
A decision of of a prosector to no prosecute does not mean that a court has found "that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection F of this section." ".

To gain immunity either from prosecution (the prosecutor can change his mind, or a new one may have different ideas) requires the presentation of evidence to a court. Should the court find that the act had been lawfully justified, using a preponderance of the evidence standard, the actor would be immune from civil action and from prosecution.
 
alsaqr said:
Since the last thread went far off kilter and was mercifully closed, i'll open a new one.

The Wagoner county, OK prosecutor declined to prosecute:

"Wagoner County Assistant District Attorney Jack Thorp said Monday that Zach Peters “acted justifiably” March 27 when he shot Maxwell Cook, Jacob Redfern and Jaykob Woodruff at his home just outside the Tulsa suburb of Broken Arrow."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/no-charges-against-oklahoma-man-who-killed-3-intruders/
Click to expand...

Ain't no 'pass' Kemosabe. They got justice. They were in the right and the three in the wrong. Simple as that.

Deaf
 
Kleanbore said:
A decision of of a prosector to no prosecute does not mean that a court has found "that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection F of this section." ".

To gain immunity either from prosecution (the prosecutor can change his mind, or a new one may have different ideas) requires the presentation of evidence to a court. Should the court find that the act had been lawfully justified, using a preponderance of the evidence standard, the actor would be immune from civil action and from prosecution.
Click to expand...

Yep, the prosecutor can change his mind but he won't be re-elected.

Just talked with my criminal lawyer friend. He can find no evidence of a successful civil suit in the state of OK since the "stand your ground" law was passed in 1987.
 
alsaqr said:
Yep, the prosecutor can change his mind but he won't be re-elected....
Click to expand...
Well that's your best guess, but unless you have a functional crystal ball (and you believe in such nonsense) there's no way to know for sure.

alsaqr said:
...He can find no evidence of a successful civil suit in the state of OK since the "stand your ground" law was passed in 1987.
Click to expand...
How about unsuccessful suits or suits that were quietly settled?

And entirely too much chest thumping.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
  • Locked
(OK) Homeowner justified in killing burglar 09-06-03
Replies
4
Views
617
laynlow
L
E
  • Locked
Texas man cleared of shooting suspected burglars
2
Replies
44
Views
1K
ashtxsniper
A
J
  • Locked
Man gets 120 days in killing of stalker
Replies
14
Views
1K
pinblaster
P
D
  • Locked
2 men freed in L.A. girl's killing
Replies
17
Views
1K
pedaldude
P
T
  • Locked
NH law allows use of force in defense
Replies
3
Views
1K
80fl
8
Back
Top