Woman who drove 3 slain in Oklahoma home invasion speaks out

[sarisataka]

Woman who drove 3 slain in Oklahoma home invasion speaks out

The woman who says she drove three teenagers to an Oklahoma home where they were fatally shot during a midday break-in told television reporters that she feels guilty, but not responsible for their deaths and that she has little compassion for the man who shot them.

Elizabeth Marie Rodriguez, 21, is jailed without bond on murder and burglary warrants in Wagoner County for the deaths of Maxwell Cook, Jacob Redfern and Jakob Woodruff at the home just outside the city limits of the Tulsa suburb of Broken Arrow. The Wagoner County sheriff's office says the three were between 15 and 19 years old.

Authorities have said the three were shot Monday by the homeowner's 23-year-old son, who has not been arrested, and that each was found masked, dressed in black and wearing gloves. A knife and brass knuckles were recovered at the scene.

"I understand he (the son) protected his home," Rodriguez told television station KOTV. "He had his rights." But she said he could have shot the three in the legs. "He's at the bottom of my list to be compassionate for," she said.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/woman-drove-slain-oklahoma-home-invaders-speaks-195102043.html

She later refers to the deaths as "murders". It poses an interesting question. Excessive force is not allowed but, in self-defense, does a victim have any duty to minimize injury to their assailant(s)?

[LisaL]

1. No, the victim doesn't have a duty to minimize injury to the burglars.

[Thomas Hurt]

4. that does not mean that after you driven the invaders off your property

you shoot them in the back, as an example.

[Warren DeMontague]

6. They're dead because they decided to break into a stranger's home. Period.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

[Thomas Hurt]

10. Warren of course that happens

and rightly so, but not every home invader sticks around to get shot at....

your right to self defense has boundaries, no matter how self righteous you might be feeling at having your home violated.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. I suspect you will find that this person acted within those boundaries as per OK law.

[Thomas Hurt]

15. never said they didn't

[Yo_Mama]

43. They're dead because of a violent home entry and failure to flee when challenged.

If you are breaking into a home and someone calls out, a rational person would turn tail and run. The young man who shot ended up locked in his bedroom - if they had just left they'd be alive.

This is awful. I can't comprehend why she doesn't feel responsible. One of the boys was 15 or 16. Who uses kids as cannon fodder?

[sarisataka]

11. That would be excessive force

no one in this case was shot while fleeing

[Thomas Hurt]

14. obviously

[yardwork]

49. That exact scenario happened years ago in my town.

The shooter was acquitted. He did chase the intruders from his home and he did shoot one of them in the back as they fled, and that person died.

Personally, I thought he should not have shot at them as they fled but I wasn't on the jury. People feel very strongly about this. I would think twice about being a burglar.

[Ligyron]

51. Same thing happened in my neighborhood.

Burglar shot while fleeing and they tried to prosecute him. Waste of time (and money) as jurors found him innocent in ten minutes.

These cases are rarely prosecuted anymore as almost no jury will convict under these circumstances.

Oh, and trying to shoot to wound? Never happens like in the movies where the Lone Ranger shoots the bad guy's gun out of his hand. Normal people are scared to death in these situations and take no chances instead going for center mass.

[msongs]

2. charging her w murder is stupid, but we have for profit jails to fill nt

[sarisataka]

3. She has admitted to planning

the crime that led to their deaths. She also had them go into the main house to steal more items. Is that not sufficient to make her responsible for their deaths?

If she is not responsible, should anyone be held accountable for the deaths of the three teens?

[HoneyBadger]

21. That was the second time that the same group robbed the same house

4 robbers seems excessive considering that they were making multiple trips

[Thomas Hurt]

8. felony murder

near as I can tell it is recognized in OK.

[NWCorona]

9. If the situation was reversed and the home owner was killed. Should she be charged with murder?

[Warren DeMontague]

12. I think that particular charge is questionable, however

the rest of it.. sorry, getting shot is an occupational hazard of breaking into strangers' homes to steal their shit.

[Foamfollower]

18. What she did is absolutely felony murder under the law.

She is completely 100% responsible for the deaths of three people.

She mst pay the penalty.

[NutmegYankee]

28. There is some logic to Felony Murder.

If an individual decides to engage in a serious crime (Felony), then they should be responsible for all consequences of that act, whether intentional or not. Breaking into an occupied dwelling is a felony and as a consequence of that crime, three people lost their lives. The 4th surviving accomplice should be held accountable for those consequences.

[indie9197]

35. The only logic I see in felony murder charges are when an innocent person dies

during the commission of a felony, not a perpetrator. No wonder our prisons are full. I wonder what percentage of lifers are in for felony murder.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

55. You want to let her slide because the "wrong" people were killed?

She doesn't get off because the deaths she is responsible for were of "not innocent" people.

Society has a vested interest in penalizing people who illegally cause the death of others -- even criminals. When the cause is a violent felony like home invasion, it receives the harshest sentence.

When a street gang member murders another street gang member, we don't say "oh well he was a perpetrator too"

[indie9197]

76. Think about it. Three counts of felony murder against someone who didn't kill anyone

or order someone to kill anyone. Why is she responsible for the three deaths? They are responsible for their own deaths, through their bad choices.

Also, it was not a planned home invasion. It was a planned burglary gone wrong. Totally different.

If I am in a street gang and get in a shootout with another street gang and one of my gang gets killed- You think I should be charged with murder along with the other gang? Sorry, but that is f*cked up logic and probably why most other countries and four U.S. states don't have a felony murder law.

[sarisataka]

79. Re: it was not a planned home invasion.

The survivor has said they believed the home unoccupied.

But it seems she also states they put on masks, took their weapons before entering the house and after the first burglary. That indicates they had a suspicion there would be someone inside and therefore definitely be a home invasion.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

80. The knife was only there to slice oranges and apples in case the kids got a bit peckish.

The masks were for sun protection.

[EX500rider]

81. ..and the brass knuckles were just in case they needed a emergency paper weight..

[Hassin Bin Sober]

83. Yeah, if you turn some city street in to the O.K. Corral, yes, you are responsible for ALL deaths...

... if you are otherwise guilty of a felony related to your shootout.

Obviously, self defense would preclude a felony charge/conviction (even gang members have successfully used self defense arguments).

But if you and your buddies set out to, say, ambush another gang, you absolutely should be held responsible for ALL deaths in your foray in to Wild West life.

The standard is, iirc, the death has to be a "foreseeable result of your action"

Your phrase - "burglary gone wrong" - how many times have you heard that phrase? What happens when a burglary goes wrong? People can often wind up dead. That's the point.

Don't do felony burglaries that turn in to home invasions and you will be ok. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. It's really that simple.

I'm not unsympathetic to your position. I get it. And I will agree sometimes the felony murder statute gets overused - I mentioned upthread a case of a guy getting charged for a helicopter crash during his high speed chase. But these are gray areas that need to be worked out before a judge and jury.

I also think, just outright dismissing any culpability for her in those kids' deaths is wrongheaded.

[Recursion]

36. It's the absolute textbook case for felony murder (nt)

[SomethingNew]

63. Not really

A textbook FM case would be where one's accomplice kills an innocent person. There has actually be quite a lot of debate over whether a person should be held liable for FM when it is their own partner in crime that was killed by the victim or a bystander.

[NutmegYankee]

69. Actually, the accomplice dying is the textbook case.

If the accomplice kills someone, they can be charged with regular murder. The textbook case is a husband and wife go to rob a bank and the guard shoots the wife dead. The husband can be charged with felony murder of his wife.

[SomethingNew]

87. Gotta disagree.

The real core of the felony murder is that you can be charged with murder if someone dies as a result of your dangerous felony, regardless of intent. When discussing intended deaths caused by a third party, the far less controversial one is when your accomplice did the killing.

Criminal law is not my specialty so I'll grant that I may be misremembering but I'm pretty sure here.

[Crunchy Frog]

40. The more I hear about and from her,

the more I think she deserves it.

[Warren DeMontague]

5. Why do we give a shit about the opinion of the woman who was involved with a home invasion?

Oh, she doesn't have a lot of compassion for the person whose house she and her droogies were breaking into?

Well, that's not exactly surprising, is it.

[LisaL]

7. My feelings exactly.

[sarisataka]

16. It is unusual for a person

involved in a crime to speak so openly. In this case, as in others, people have second guessed the actions taken by a victim. At the extreme, it has been proposed every time a person is killed, it should go to trial, even if the killed was the victim.

Also it questions what is the responsibility of a person who was instrumental in a crime, but not directly involved.

[Warren DeMontague]

17. It's unusual in part because any lawyer worth their salt would tell them not to do it.

I question the murder charge for this woman, although she clearly bears some culpability--

but that's a long way from "screw the kid of the guy whose house got broken into, he's the real bad guy here"

[sarisataka]

22. Among her many "bad choices"

is the decision to waive her right to an attorney. I can only speculate she believes complete cooperation will reduce her sentence.

I have no issue with the law charging a person committing a felon with the murder of anyone who dies in the process of the crime; but I am also open to reviewing the fairness of such a law. Depending on the state, it can truly be a matter of life and death.

I also support laws which shelter a victim from civil immunity if the actions they take in self-defense are deemed lawful.

[SomethingNew]

65. Re: death

I'm not sure if any states allow the death penalty for felony murder. I'm pretty certain that TX doesn't.

[marybourg]

30. This is long settled area of the law.

As stated above, it's felony murder.

[sarisataka]

31. As I stated in another post

I have no issue with murder charges and believe they are appropriate. Others have been vehement that this is excessive. I am willing to listen to those opinions.

There are three options for charges. She faces charges in all three deaths, arguing that adults are responsible for themselves she only be charged with the deaths of those who were not legal adults or face no charges beyond the burglary. Additionally should the charges be murder one or something else.

So far I hold my position that the charges are appropriate.

[Yo_Mama]

44. No, felony murder is different and doesn't carry the death penalty.

I don't have any problem with a felony murder charge in this case. You have the adult putting the adult teen and two minors in danger for personal gain. This is a case in which felony murder charges are not only warranted, but a gross injustice would be done if legal penalty for these deaths were not levied on her.

It's cases like these that justify the felony murder charge.

Here's a link to OK jury instructions for such cases:
http://www.okcca.net/online/oujis/oujisrvr.jsp?oc=OUJI-CR%204-65

[sarisataka]

59. I had heard it reported

as both first degree murder and felony murder. I mistaken believed they were synonymous.

[Yo_Mama]

66. It's first degree murder by felony murder, if that makes any sense. In OK, not DP. n/t

[Archae]

20. I have *NO* sympathy whatsoever for her or her goon cronies.

They broke into that house with the intention of beating and stabbing the guy, and robbing him, at the instigation of that woman.

They deserve *NO* sympathy whatsoever.

[tblue37]

23. Funny, I don't seem to feel a lot of compassion for *her*. nt

[yardwork]

47. Because the "news" media is more interested in interviewing her than in journalism.

[WinkyDink]

19. THREE men. THREE. The shooter was going to be a victim of something, maybe even murder.

[mercuryblues]

24. No. It is believed

by law that if you can take the time to only injure, you weren't in fear for your life. The thieves had a knife and brass knuckles, they weren't there to bake cookies.

[ProudLib72]

25. What I really hate about this and what should be the primary

argument here is that Rodriguez drove the teens to the house with the expressed purpose of burglary. She was also aware that the teens were armed (albeit with brass knuckles and a knife). She is guilty, guilty, guilty. And yet she assumes no responsibility. This is the major problem with our country. No one is willing to take responsibility for their actions. Where do you think people get the idea that they aren't responsible? When someone like tRump can shed responsibility and cast blame on everyone else it just goes to show how perverted our society has become.

[Yo_Mama]

45. This is why an attorney wouldn't have let her speak - she is doing herself no good.

A jury would be enraged.

She needs trial by judge and she needs to show repentance and understanding.

The bottom line is that she was using kids as cannon fodder for her personal gain. This is quite heinous. It would be a very bad crime even if it hadn't ended in three deaths. That it did, and that she won't accept responsibility, introduces the element of depravity. This was terrible for her prospects.

[cwydro]

26. She can rot in jail.

What a moron.

[beachbum bob]

27. Criminals in Oklahoma should understand the risk...I shed no tears.

[Demonaut]

29. :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[luvMIdog]

32. She needs to accept responsibility for being the one who drove them to their deaths

[Hoyt]

33. When they entered house, they sealed their fate. Just don't like gunners using these rare incidents

to rationalize and promote their sick gun habit, which is probably what robbers were looking for. The white wing racist NRA's lobby arm is all over this and when you look it up they are promoting Gorsuch.

[Adrahil]

34. No.

Attempting to minimize injury can lead to disaster. Ince deadly force must be resorted to, neutralize the threat as quickly and absolutely as possible.

[DFW]

37. The burglars did not announce with a megaphone that they carried no firearms.

I'm not for having assault weapons around the house, but as long as these people did, as soon as he saw masked intruders and ANY kind of a weapon, knife, Brass knuckles, even an ice pick, the resident had to assume it was not for the purpose of making sandwiches on their lunch break. Outnumbered one to three, and not knowing if they had firearms not in view, I can't say I would have reacted differently. Even if I were enough of a sharpshooter to shoot all three in the legs within a couple of seconds, how the hell do I know if one of them won't pull out a Beretta and put one between my eyes? I also find Rodriguez's stance rather cowardly. Plan the job, but get the boys to do the risky part, and she waits outside in the car.

[Yo_Mama]

46. And drives away when she hears gunshots. I don't know whether the one kid could have been saved,

if she had stayed, but certainly she wasn't worried about their lives, was she? Callous, callous, callous.

She shouldn't be talking about this. She's making it all the worse.

[yardwork]

48. Agreed in all points.

[Lee-Lee]

38. That woman is a textbook manipulator who is still at it

She was manipulating those three into doing the dirty work of stealing for her Tom pay her bills. I'll be willing to bet that isn't the first time they did that and they are not the first ones she has convinced to do something to cover her needs.

Now that she is caught she is doing interviews like this, no doubt ignoring her legal counsels advice, trying to keep playing that game. She thinks she can gain sympathy and manipulate public opinion enough to reduce her charges or sentence.

[dalton99a]

50. +1

[Crunchy Frog]

39. Disgusting! Hope she spends the rest of her life behind bars.

[tavernier]

41. Once upon a time in my neighborhood

a man came around asking for food donations and a job. His left hand was amputated and a great deal of the left side of his face was missing. He told us that he had been in an explosion while serving in the military overseas.
We gave him money and food, a small trailer, furnishings,a bike, a car, a job at a service station, and our friendship.
Before long we discovered that he had a bit of a drinking problem but we aren't tea totalers and figured he had good reason.
He also had a short fuse, and within a month had started fights with several people in the neighborhood, explaining that one was beating his girlfriend and he was defending her, and other similar good guy excuses.
Eventually a neighbor called the police after one such incident and an accusation of theft, and they searched his home. He was arrested and jailed.
In his online arrest record we discovered that weapons were found in his home and being a felon on probation, this was a big no no. As it turned out, he had never served in the military but had lost his hand and face while commiting a home invasion, and to my memory it wasn't a one time thing.
Yes, we were suckered because most people want to be helpful and believing. After many discussions, we decided that we would probably continue to be helpful to those in need, but never again quite as trusting or innocent.

[Yo_Mama]

42. NO, because self-defense is only allowed when one is in fear of life or limb.

Once the person poses no additional threat, the right to self-defense ends.

Not only is it not practically possible to shoot at the legs, in a case like this in which the defender would presume the attackers were armed, it would not get the job done. If you are going to shoot at all, you are going to shoot as best you can to take out the home invaders.

This is tragic, but the tragedy does not rest on the shooter. Anyone who sees three ninja-clad persons breaking into his/her home, and calls out that he/she is armed without getting them to go would have to presume that the invaders were armed. The fact that there was another person in the home (the father) makes the case for defense even stronger - even if one believes one has a safe way out, the other person probably doesn't.

The 911 call makes it clear that the young man was still in fear for his life - he was barricaded in his bedroom and wanted to be sure that the police were there before he unloaded his gun. He believed one of the attackers was still there, and was warning the police because he thought the attacker was highly dangerous.

This is such an open and shut case of justifiable homicide that I find your question irrational and almost inhumane. One doesn't have the duty to risk death or injury to defend the lives of criminals, which is what you are implying the standard should be. One certainly doesn't have to take that risk with regard to a family member. One most certainly doesn't have that duty when the three persons are crashing into the home.

[sarisataka]

58. I posed the question

as it applies to more than just this case. Also I am willing to listen to those who challenge to my positions. If a good enough argument can be made, my position may evolve.

In any case of self-defense there will also be second guessers. It is understandable from other criminal associates but we often hear from commentators "why did he have to shoot to kill". 'Shoot their legs' (Ignoring the anatomical reality of likely fatality resulting from hitting the femoral artery) is often the least difficult expected trick shot a victim is asked to make.

Usually if a discussion of the position can be made, the root issue is the victim's choice of weapon used for defense. Some people have a serious antipathy to firearms and would rather they never be used defensively; victims should (in their opinion) use other means of defense even if it leaves them at a greater disadvantage. (you never hear someone claim rather than hitting them in the head a victim should have struck an assailant in the legs with the baseball bat or hit the knife out of their hands)

edit add> if the facts continue to be found true as originally presented, this will be a textbook case of proper self-defense. Victim used a weapon to rapidly end the threat, once the immediate threat was resolved he wisely retreated to a safer place, summoned police and medical help as soon as possible and gave precise information to allow the police to locate and differentiate the criminals and the victim.

[Yo_Mama]

62. This case horrifies me; I think it requires seriousness.

It's a tragedy that two minor teens and one adult teen lost their lives. My God, their families. It's hideous to bury a teen - has to be worse when the teen is shot down committing such a crime. What do you do? What can you say? What's the funeral like? It's horrific.

This is going to blight the life of the shooter, even though right now it appears absolutely justified. Doesn't matter - he's going to suffer. Big time. I think people who try to cause more suffering to those who fought in self-defense are despicable. They revolt me.

But the absolute worst of this one, for me, is the idea that a young woman could use these boys this way. I'm not surprised she can't acknowledge what she's done - if she had much of a conscience, she wouldn't have done it in the first place. But somehow, the idea that she's going to talk herself into decades in prison makes it all even worse. Why pile the human wreckage higher?

I was reacting strongly to what I believe to be the immoral nature of such suggestions. I really do not find such questions ethically defensible. I do allow for the idea that such questions arise out of a natural human need to evade the horror of this, but still - the speaker is deriding the victim here to make the speaker feel better, and in my opinion, it's a vile thing to do. I don't think it should pass unquestioned and uncontested.

[sarisataka]

67. I find I learn the most when

posing the most difficult questions. I evolved my view on the death penalty while discussing the murder of a child. The logic that led to me completely oppose the death penalty was if it is illegal/immoral for the parent to execute the know murderer of their child then why would it be legal/moral for the state to do so at a later date. (hypothetical events were added to an actual situation to assume certain scenarios)

I do know how such funerals go; I work part time in the funeral industry. Let's just say that services for victims or perpetrators of crimes who died in process are difficult. Very difficult.

My experience with criminals and those I know who are in corrections leaves me unsurprised by the woman's words. As a rule, criminals will not ever take responsibility for their actions or any results of those actions. Any admissions of guilt or remorse are usually an effort to avoid/reduce punishment

[Yo_Mama]

71. Well, in that spirit, here's my reply.

The reason why it is wrong to ask that defenders try to shoot attackers in the legs first is that, in almost every circumstance, this would imply that someone who was using a weapon in self-defense really was not in immediate fear of life or limb (or someone else's life or limb). That's why I find it to be an immoral/irresponsible/dishonest question.

If one feels one has the margin (either by distance, superior weaponry, or ability to evade) that would allow non-lethal force, then one shouldn't be shooting at all. It really is that simple. Shooting at someone isn't non-lethal force. Aiming for the legs is not only less certain to stop the attacker, it is quite possibly going to result in shooting the torso. Nor are leg wounds necessarily non-fatal, as you observed.

Self-defense is self-defense. And the need for the self-defense must be immediate.

I can hardly imagine a situation in which a person would legitimately attempt to shoot an attacker in the legs. If the attacker doesn't have a weapon, and the defender has the weapon and the distance, then show the weapon and try to get the attacker to retreat. If the attacker has a weapon capable of inflicting an injury at a distance, shooting the attacker in the legs is not realistically protection of your life - the attacker would shoot back. If the defender doesn't know, and the attacker responds to challenge by advance, then the defender must assume a weapon or intent to injure on the part of the attacker.

About the only instance I can imagine in which the defender would shoot the attacker in the legs is if they are in a clinch and that's all the defender can shoot, which at least weakens the attacker.

Such a question is often a way of implicitly denying the defender's self-defense claim, and as such, it's dishonest. If the speaker wants to claim that the defender wasn't really in fear of life or limb, than the speaker should state that and debate that point.

It's idiots who ask such questions who got all the stand-your-ground, home is your castle laws passed, because the resulting inquiries were perceived by the public to be grossly unfair to the victim. Because they generally were!

[sarisataka]

74. We are in agreement about self-defense neccessity

and actions one should take in defense; though perhaps disagree some on questioning situations.

You are also correct on the initial impetus for codifying SYG laws. Whether a real or perceived major issue, there were incidents of justice being turned on its head and crime victims forced to defend themselves criminally and civilly for actions taken to protect themselves from criminal assault.


In my post I have just added, I have compiled some differing opinions on self-defense and how a person acting in self-defense should be handled (even after statements have confirmed the victim's version of events)

[NutmegYankee]

84. "home is your castle laws" date back the 17th Century.

It's the newer laws that remove the duty to retreat in public places, but Americans have always under common law had a right to defend themselves in the home. The premise is the home is your last refuge, so you have no duty to retreat from it.

[ghostsinthemachine]

52. My friend, Bulldog, an ex marine, shot two

young burglars, breaking into his house. They were climbing in a bedroom window. Bulldog was tough, a pro kickboxer who had a bulldog tattooed on his bald skull.
Everyone made him a hero. He would go out and people he didn't even know would buy him drinks, pat him in the back., cover his tab etc. He would talk to me and I knew he was really hardtiming over killing two young people over stuff.

On the one year anniversary of that day bulldog took the same gun out, put it in his mouth and blew his brains out. He could never get past killing two kids.

[janterry]

54. I'm sorry for your friend

I've worked with people who were in similar situations (what they did was justifiable, but the trauma of it followed them for years).

Sometimes people forget this - as though the shooting is a victory. It isn't . People do what they can in the moment, indeed - they have to - but it's still a terrible tragedy.

[Yo_Mama]

57. I know a guy who shot three. Absolutely justified, and he did it as a last resort to

protect others when an home invasion/robbery by a gang turned into something much much worse.

But he's never recovered. The people who write as if anyone is happy about being driven to this extremity are rather vicious, in my opinion. That's not the way it is. That's not the way it works out.

[sarisataka]

60. Contrary to the belief

that many people are looking for an excuse to kill, most people have an extreme aversion to killing. Even experienced combat veterans will kill with reluctance and experience PTSD afterwards.

Dave Grossman's book On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society is a good read on the subject.

[janterry]

53. You pose a complex question

Morally, yes, we all have a duty to minimize injury.

Legally, the son had a right to try to protect himself and his home. Did he use too much force? I don't know. He may have been experienced in using a firearm, but he was young - the situation frightening - and I assume he did the best he could. Indeed, he's alive.

I'm guessing that the police will rule that his use of force was justifiable (in a legal sense).

Perhaps it was also justifiable in what I'm framing as a moral question. Frankly, I don't feel like I'm in a position to question what happened. I'm sure that the police there have already done that. And the young man will, himself. This will be something he will have to recover from, too.

I don't want the young woman to rot in prison. She did the wrong thing. She was complicit in a crime - and what happened was frightening and dangerous. But I don't think she needs to be locked up forever - or we need to charge her for the murder of her friends (I guess this is the essence of the charge).

[NutmegYankee]

68. It's clear from the 911 call that the owner's son (shooter) didn't want the burglers to die.

He asked for medical personnel to come to the house to help them, and he said at least one was hurt very badly. He locked himself in a bedroom and waited for police to arrive. Part of his fear was he believed at the time that he had hit two of the suspects and the third had not been hit and had run out the back door.

[janterry]

70. wasn't it also some kind

of automatic weapon (fast firing) -
I'm guessing he barely knew what happened - since it was all happening so fast.
What a burden he'll have to live with. Even when you make the best choice for your situation - it's impossible to escape the fact that this will impact his life forever. Such a tragedy - I hope he has a lot of support in the future. It's very likely that he'll need it.

[NutmegYankee]

72. It wasn't an automatic.

It was a standard single fire with each trigger pull like most modern civilian weapons. That said, people tend to squeeze quickly in fear. Police officers often discharge their entire pistol magazine (~13-15 rounds) in 5-6 seconds when confronted with a deadly threat. Firing that fast probably accounts for the low hit rate by police as the rounds just spray all over.

[McCamy Taylor]

56. WTF? Now victims have to be expert marksmen?

My advice, if three armed and masked people break into your home, shoot for the largest/easiest target--the torso. And--hate to say it--but consider the double tap, because the last thing you want is one of them pulling himself up from the ground behind you and shooting you in the back.

These kids went in prepared for violence. They got violence. Yes, they were too young to understand what they were doing. But that did not take away their intended victim's right to survive.

Their getaway driver is now party to capital murder of children, since these were kids that she drove into harm's way.

[EX500rider]

61. Yeah I agree...if 3 guys all in black and masks broke in...

....and weren't a police SWAT team, I would be very scared of their intentions and they would each get at least 2 or 3 rounds each. They could have vests on for all I know.

[Calculating]

64. Zero sympathy for masked and armed home invaders

If three thugs wearing masks and armed with weapons are breaking into my house, I'm going to assume they're not there to play nice. I'm gonna get out my semi-auto rifle and deal with the threat. Too many horror stories about home owners and their family getting murdered, tortured, raped, and burned alive by groups of home invaders.

[sarisataka]

73. Why I started a discussion on a victim's 'duty'-

Alternative views on self-defense:

Something seems out of place here. Self defense says the article. I wonder if he gave warning shots first. Just seems so horrible.


Justified; but probably a sociopath that took pleasure in his license to murder 3 people under the umbrella of "justification".


{Warning shots are illegal. Shooting at the legs is employing deadly force without justification.}
It doesn't matter if it's illegal. Not doing it means you WANT to kill a person.
You WANT to take a life. You WANT death for the person standing in front of you.
If that's not signs of a disturbed individual, I don't know what is.


But, too many people shoot in these cases when it could be handled differently. Then again, I wasn't there. Daddy probably trained his kid to open fire, that guns are necessary to become a man or some such BS, and that George Zimmerman is a role model.


Sounds like the home invaders were serious bad guys but...
...I wouldn't like to live next to someone who thinks the best solution to a nasty situation is to smoke everybody he sees.


That stereotype that people in the South wait for people to break in just so
they can hunt humans for sport is mostly based in reality.


Three death sentences for a B&E, but only two bodies in the house. And a felony murder charge for the accomplice who didn't kill anyone and may not have set foot on the property?
Laws are stupid.


An AR-15 is a suboptimal weapon for home defense. The possession of such a thing, and that it could be loaded and brought to bear in the situation described speaks to me of an eagerness to use it. That's my other beef, and it may remain only a suspicion--again, because the shooter ensured that no one is likely to testify otherwise.


{There is no linkage between self defense and justice.}
Except that killing rather precludes any other form of justice.


The shooting victims deserve a thought.


Defsense (sic) against home invasion is one thing, this is murder


{I have no problem with someone defending themselves in their own home.)
I do. Sometimes society must ensure laws for all people for the greater good.
This is one of those examples. The situation would have been far better handled by reporting the incident to the police, who would have apprehended the individuals who broke in, who probably were not getting resources they need because of the incredibly bleak economic situation put upon them through oppressive GOP policies. In that case, they would have been punished with reasonable jail time, but more importantly, been provided with the assistance they need to reintegrate into society, while the homeowner would just get his insurance money to pay for the damage done (sometimes even getting MORE than he deserves; see video below) Instead, a young life is snuffed away, and a homeowner will have to pay the price with a (hopefully) long prison sentence.

All of these comments are from DU about this case.

[aikoaiko]

75. "[Victim of her crime is] at the bottom of my list to be compassionate for," [getaway driver] said.

I'm glad she's being charged with felony murder.

[samnsara]

77. oh HELL no!!!!

[samnsara]

78. i took a firearm safety class from an ex cop who told us that if theres an intruder...

...you shoot three times. Don't think he meant the legs arms and hands!

[steve2470]

82. She's lucky to be alive, the kids she manipulated weren't so lucky

I have absolutely ZERO sympathy for her. She is partially responsible for the kids' deaths. I think adults have a moral responsibility to at least attempt to sway kids (and very young adults as in 18 and 19 years old) to do rational moral things. She did none of that.

If she gets felony murder, I won't shed any tears. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. You learn that in first year law school.

Ignorantia juris non excusat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat

[Henry Krinkle]

85. The grandfather of one of the wasted thugs sounds like a real piece of work

Family member of teen burglary suspect killed in Wagoner County break-in speaks out

COOKSON, Okla., (KTUL) -- A family member of one of the three teen suspects killed after breaking into a Wagoner County home Monday is speaking out for the first time.

The grandfather of Jacob Redfearn believes shooting and killing the 17-year-old and his friends was not needed.

RELATED | WCSO: Getaway driver in deadly home invasion had no connection with homeowners

“What these three boys did was stupid," said Leroy Schumacher.

Schumacher agrees his grandson and his friends made a bad decision, but not one worthy of deadly consequences.

They knew they could be punished for it but they did not deserve to die," said Schumacher.

Schumacher says his grandson didn't have a chance. The 17-year old, he says, never got into trouble.

“Brass knuckles against an AR-15, come on, who was afraid for their life," said Schumacher.

“There’s got to be a limit to that law, I mean he shot all three of them; there was no need for that," said Schumacher.

Schumacher does say he supports the right to bear arms and protect your home. But he doesn’t agree with shooting and killing intruders.

http://ktul.com/news/local/family-member-of-teen-burglary-suspect-killed-in-wagoner-county-break-in-speaks-out

[linuxman]

86. No sympathy.

She knew what she was bringing them there for, and she knew the risks.

We all make decisions. She made hers.

This story is almost identical to my brother's (3 armed robbers with cutting and bludgeoning tools, forceful home invasion, getaway driver standing by outside), only in this case, the victim was sufficiently armed, and ultimately victorious. My brother wasn't as lucky.

I hope jail sucks. She looks bad in stripes, BTW.