Objectivity needed

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

soonerwings

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
2,199
Reaction score
472
Location
McClain County
Allow me to present you all with a (not so) hypothetical situation. Let’s say that a man (let’s be creative and call him Mr. Doe) is at home on a February evening and fighting a head cold. He takes some cold meds and lays down to get some sleep.

Sometime around 7 (it’s dark outside), Mr. Doe is startled awake by a banging on his door. He says that the banging is so loud that he thinks someone might be kicking the door. Mr. Doe grabs his pistol, opens the door and points it at the person banging on his door, which turns out to be a pizza delivery guy that went to the wrong house. Mr. Doe did not order a pizza and was not expecting anyone to come to his house.

Is Mr. Doe guilty of a crime? My opinion (based on a reading of the Oklahoma Firearms Act with an emphasis on 21 OS 1289.16 and 21 OS 1289.25) is a resounding HELL NO. That being said, I may be biased given my political leanings and knowledge of Mr. Doe’s character.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

inactive

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
7,158
Reaction score
903
Location
I.T.
21 OS 1289.16 can be inferred to believe that one can point their firearm with lawful cause. What is lawful cause?

21 OS 1289.25 allows one to use any degree of physical force (which could include pointing a firearm I suppose)... against another person who has made an unlawful entry into that dwelling.

But the pizza dude didn't unlawfully enter the dwelling, did they? They knocked and the door was willfully answered. So in a vacuum the statues don't protect Mr. Doe here. We'd need to look at what defines "lawful cause" to point a firearm. See: http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=81374 which I believe are jury instructions:

"Lawful cause" includes the pointing of shotguns, rifles, or pistols ...(in defense of one's person/home/property).

I think this could be enough to keep him from facing a conviction, but it's somewhat ambiguous and the statutes are written in a way where a feisty D.A. could try to prosecute.
 
Last edited:

Tanis143

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 5, 2018
Messages
3,062
Reaction score
3,169
Location
Broken Arrow
Actually, yes he is. The delivery guy was outside the house, door was closed and so far the DG had not made any attempt to break in. Had the DG hit the door so hard it opened, then Mr. Doe would be in the clear. But the fact that Mr. Doe opened the door negates self defense. All he would have had to do is yell "What do you want?" to find out what the DG was doing.
 

918evo

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
624
Reaction score
444
Location
Tulsa
He did break the law, however he can, or better yet, have his lawyer explain that given the excessive banging, Mr. Doe, not expecting company that evening, thought someone was breaking in and decided to confront them. The DA will argue that Mr. Doe should have called the police first and such. If Mr. Doe talks to the police and tells on himself and includes the cold medicine excuse I think there is a chance he will need to plead down to some type of assault. Being under the influence is rarely a good excuse.
 

soonerwings

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
2,199
Reaction score
472
Location
McClain County
Actually, yes he is. The delivery guy was outside the house, door was closed and so far the DG had not made any attempt to break in. Had the DG hit the door so hard it opened, then Mr. Doe would be in the clear. But the fact that Mr. Doe opened the door negates self defense. All he would have had to do is yell "What do you want?" to find out what the DG was doing.

But 1289.16 lists defense of any person, ones property, or home as lawful cause. There is no duty to retreat in Oklahoma law, so I’m not sure why you’d say that opening the door negates self defense.

Additionally, 1289.25 says that the law PRESUMES that one who uses defensive force (which includes pointing a firearm) has a reasonable fear of imminent harm if he has reason to believe that a forceful/illegal entry is being made. Note that the attempt to enter doesn’t have to be made in reality, but the defendant has to have reason to believe that someone is trying to get in.

Does that change things in your mind?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

soonerwings

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
2,199
Reaction score
472
Location
McClain County
21 OS 1289.16 can be inferred to believe that one can point their firearm with lawful cause. What is lawful cause?

21 OS 1289.25 allows one to use any degree of physical force (which could include pointing a firearm I suppose)... against another person who has made an unlawful entry into that dwelling.

But the pizza dude didn't unlawfully enter the dwelling, did they? They knocked and the door was willfully answered. So in a vacuum the statues don't protect Mr. Doe here. We'd need to look at what defines "lawful cause" to point a firearm. See: http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=81374 which I believe are jury instructions:

"Lawful cause" includes the pointing of shotguns, rifles, or pistols ...(in defense of one's person/home/property).

I think this could be enough to keep him from facing a conviction, but it's somewhat ambiguous and the statutes are written in a way where a feisty D.A. could try to prosecute.

Actually 21 OS 1289.25 allows one to use force if they have reason to believe that someone is trying to enter. It’s all about reasonable belief.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom