I got no problem with any of it. Would have done the same damn thing. Tulsa is a bad city for this stuff. Just saying, for me, I would have STFU until my lawyer got there and we went to the PD and talked to them, which he did do later and then went right back home, which is what should have happened. I just wouldn't have been so animated with the news F's- "bamm, that 9mm sure is loud in the house" and "I waited til I got him in sight to shoot him". Within his rights anyways tho if the dudes inside, no matter what the threat level was, don't think that needs to be proved even if the perp was unarmed.
I'm no lawyer, but: I think this falls under castle doctrine, not stand your ground.
My understanding is that in Oklahoma the homeowner has the presumption that if those 3 points in the second story are met, the home owner can presume the intruder is there to do him or his family great bodily harm or death.
I agree, he shouldn't be talking to reporters, and showing a little remorse for the loss of life, and anger for being put in that position of taking a life, wouldn't hurt.
My understanding is that in Oklahoma the homeowner has the presumption that if those 3 points in the second story are met, the home owner can presume the intruder is there to do him or his family great bodily harm or death.
I agree, he shouldn't be talking to reporters, and showing a little remorse for the loss of life, and anger for being put in that position of taking a life, wouldn't hurt.
I suspect that the homeowner is perhaps still kind of under the influence of Adrenalin. While the "Bamm" comment was a bit much, he was kind of expressing a bit of remorse in that he said he wanted people to quit breaking in.
Yeah the guy seemed a lil off in front of the cameras. Understandably so. The comment he made that I thought was a lil too much info for the cameras was something like "the guy was grabbing his chest and saying I'm sorry and turned around headed back to the bathroom and I shot him. I'm pretty sure I hit him with the second shot too. " Now me personally, I say kill em twice and kick em while they're down but I ain't gonna tell the news camera all that cuz there are idiots that will run with the part of the story where the guy was trying to get away and the guy shot him again. I'm sure legally the homeowner is in good shape legally but I know that in the last few years I've learned it doesn't seem to matter if you're right legally, someone with an agenda can paint a picture that will ruin ya.
(These are only the opinions of Cowcatcher and he prolly shoulda just kept em to himself)
(These are only the opinions of Cowcatcher and he prolly shoulda just kept em to himself)
You are correct on all points. Castle Doctrine, and it's a presumption, not an ironclad rule--presumptions can be rebutted. If it turned out to be a six-year-old kid accidentally opening the wrong door, and the scene was well-lit at the time of the shooting, you can bet the DA would be trying to rebut, and properly so.
Obviously, that's not the case here, but it should be understand that even the Castle Doctrine isn't a no-holds-barred blank check to start shooting.
Similar threads
