Question for someone who know OK self defense law.

[nemesis]

In light of national events in RAT controlled cities.

For example. If Norman erupted the way Portland has. Shipped in, insane criminals professing anti American ideology are attacking Bob's Bookstore. They've already broken a front plate glass window and are preparing to enter with gasoline. The assumption is they're going to burn it down.

Does Bob have to wait until they actually set foot onto the property before he uses lethal force to defend himself?

What if the above scenario involved Bob's home? If the loonies are in the neighborhood and in Bob's yard, and Bob believes they are preparing to attack his home, does he have the right (as per OK law) to preempt the attack with lethal force?

 

[TwoForFlinching]

You would think the moment glass came crashing down, that would suffice for imminent harm.

 

[nemesis]

You would think the moment glass came crashing down, that would suffice for imminent harm.

Yes, one would think.

Does anybody here "know?"

 

[okcBob]

What about if you’re surrounded in your car?

 

[aarondhgraham]

There is no "Knowing",,,
It's all up to the DA at first,,,
Then the jury if you are charged.

There is no statute in Oklahoma law that states specifically where it's absolutely permissible to kill someone.

You're always taking a chance.

Aarond

.

 

[nemesis]

It's all hypothetical and, I don't own a business. Just curious.

If Bob in the above scenario is actually name Chu and he's from Korea and he's on the rooftop of his business. He's in Oklahoma and rioters are torching businesses on his street. And a rioter has a molotov cocktail and draws back to throw through the window of Chu's shop...

In my opinion, Chu has a right to defend his property with lethal force. District attorneys don't always agree, apparently.

Like the kid in the news who was being chased and assaulted by those gangsters and he defended himself. One of the attackers actually had a firearm. (The one shot in the arm.) The DA has ignored the details of the case and are charging the kid.

Crazy times we're in, bros.

We might be in for a rough ride in the years ahead.

 

[Tanis143]

Title 21. Penal Code

§ 21-1289.25 PHYSICAL OR DEADLY FORCE AGAINST INTRUDER

NOTE: This statute was modified effective November 1, 2017. The pre-11/1/17 version is below the double lines. The changes effective 11/1/17 are indicated as underlined for additions and strikethrough for deletions.

A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes or places of business.

B. A person or an owner, manager or employee of a business is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

1. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle, or a place of business, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against the will of that person from the dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle, or place of business; and

2. The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

C. The presumption set forth in subsection B of this section does not apply if:

1. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not a protective order from domestic violence in effect or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

2. The person or persons sought to be removed are children or grandchildren, or are otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

3. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle, or place of business to further an unlawful activity.

D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

E. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter the dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle of another person, or a place of business is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

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

G. A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of defensive force, but the law enforcement agency may not arrest the person for using defensive force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the defensive force that was used was unlawful.

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.

I. The provisions of this section and the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act shall not be construed to require any person using a weapon pursuant to the provisions of this section to be licensed in any manner.

J. A person pointing a weapon at a perpetrator in self-defense or in order to thwart, stop or deter a forcible felony or attempted forcible felony shall not be deemed guilty of committing a criminal act.

K. As used in this section:

1. “Defensive force” includes, but shall not be limited to, pointing a weapon at a perpetrator in self-defense or in order to thwart, stop or deter a forcible felony or attempted forcible felony;

2. “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people;

3. “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest; and

4. “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

Basically, as soon as they break the glass and move to enter or go to try to light a fire, its game on.

 

[nemesis]

Basically, as soon as they break the glass and move to enter or go to try to light a fire, its game on.

Thanks for the above info.

As I read it, Chu's case depends upon this: Paragraph B. Item 2. "The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred."

If rioters have already destroyed a business, or several businesses, and Chu is on the roof of his flower shop, and a rioter has a lit molotov cocktail in his hand and is drawing back to throw through Chu's plate glass window, and Chu "neutralizes the threat" with his Ruger mini 30..........

If I'm on the jury, Chu walks. Based upon the info you provided.

 

[nemesis]

In light of the above, here is a precipitating example. A 70 year man in Kenosha is trying to save the store where he works. He obviously was outmanned and needed a firearm. Likely, self defense laws are way different in his state.

https://neonnettle.com/news/12461-7...ken-by-kenosha-rioters-while-protecting-store

 

[trbii]

Our DA here in Tulsa, Steve Kunzweiler stated a couple months ago about anyone using deadly force to defend themselves in a vehicle, would be judged on a caseby case basis. Then we were all advised not to knowingly drive into protest, riots, roadblocks if any other route was open to us. the message to me was, you will be judged by twelve. and gleefully be lied about, misrepresented by all media outlets.