Two armed men with weapons decide to break into the house of a young 18 year old girl with a new born child and do who knows what.... and one of them gets shot and killed by their intended victim.

By law they are both responsible for what ever crime they commit. If only one guy kills the girl, both are responsible.

Who ever is involved in a crime like that, if anyone dies as a result of that crime, they are equally responsible.

Msharmony, you don't have to like it. That is the law.

It serves to discourage people from participating in crimes where someone might get killed. You are not innocent if you are a party to the crime.

End of story.

TEEN MOM CALLS 9-1-1 FOR PERMISSION TO SHOOT INTRUDERS BEFORE KILLING ONE USING 12-GAUGE SHOTGUN


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/mom-calls-9-1-1-asking-for-permission-to-shoot-intruders-before-killing-one-using-12-ga-shotgun/


Eighteen-year-old Sarah McKinley and her 3-month-old son were unharmed when two intruders tried to break into their home outside of Oklahoma City on New Year’s Eve. Her husband had died from lung cancer on Christmas Day, and when she realized intruders were attempting to break into her home she had nothing to do but grab her 12-gauge shotgun and pistol, and call 911.

She spoke with the operator for 21 minutes, making sure she had the right to shoot if the men forced their way in.

“I can’t tell you that you can do that, but you do what you have to do to protect your baby,” the dispatcher told her as she held the infant with a bottle, according to KOCO.

She ultimately pulled the trigger.


One of the men, 24-year-old Justin Martin, McKinley is believed to have been stalking her since her husband’s death. ABC news reports that McKinley barricaded herself in her bedroom with the baby and guns. When Martin kicked down the bedroom door, McKinley’s maternal instincts kicked in:

“When Martin kicked in the door and came after her with the knife, the teen mom shot and killed the 24-year-old. Police are calling the shooting justified.

‘You’re allowed to shoot an unauthorized person that is in your home. The law provides you the remedy, and sanctions the use of deadly force; Det. Dan Huff of the Blanchard police said.”

Martin died and the second suspect, Dustin Stewart, currently sits in jail. Investigators are searching Martin’s car for evidence that the home invasion was premeditated, KFOR-TV reported.

“I wouldn’t have done it, but it was my son,” McKinley told KOCO. “It’s not an easy decision to make, but it was either going to be him or my son. And it wasn’t going to be my son. There’s nothing more dangerous than a woman with a child.”
Amen.

it is sad, but I fully support this lady and her ability to keep cool enough to protect her son

my only question is - it took 21 minutes for them to get into her house - at least that's how long she was on the phone with 911...where in hell were the police in all that time

that's disgraceful

there are plenty of laws still on the books that are whacky

I believe that to be one of them.

IF the girl had been killed, Id be all for it. But since the girl DID the killing, I think its whacky for the death to have a charge of murder attached to it period.

IF you are involved in a felony where a 'victim' is killed, I could stretch it. But if you are involved in a felony where one of the other felons is killed, whether in defense or police exchange, I think its ridiculous to prosecute as if the FELON is a murder victim.


UNLESS the death is 'unjustified'....as in, a mere thief broke in a home and on the way out was shot in the death,, than Id support a charge of murder even THOUGH he was a felon...

it is sad, but I fully support this lady and her ability to keep cool enough to protect her son

my only question is - it took 21 minutes for them to get into her house - at least that's how long she was on the phone with 911...where in hell were the police in all that time

that's disgraceful

Whether the murder/death is deemed justified or not the criminal is responsible. If they had not been engaged in the crime, the death would never had happened.

This is not just some old wacky law still on the books. It is a current law and it is strongly and currently enforced.

Criminals are responsible for the consequences of their crimes no matter what their involvement. It has to be this way because you can't trust a criminal to tell the truth about who shot who or what they intended to do etc.

So what you think about the law, does not count unless you end up on the jury.

there are plenty of laws still on the books that are whacky

I believe that to be one of them.

IF the girl had been killed, Id be all for it. But since the girl DID the killing, I think its whacky for the death to have a charge of murder attached to it period.

IF you are involved in a felony where a 'victim' is killed, I could stretch it. But if you are involved in a felony where one of the other felons is killed, whether in defense or police exchange, I think its ridiculous to prosecute as if the FELON is a murder victim.


UNLESS the death is 'unjustified'....as in, a mere thief broke in a home and on the way out was shot in the death,, than Id support a charge of murder even THOUGH he was a felon...

I found 'em.

They were making sure Dunkin' didn't get robbed.

That is sure human of you.

Again it is sad all the way around. Sad she had to do it and sad for his family.

I dont agree. I think there should be a burden of proof that 'If they had not been engaged in the crime, the death would never had happened.'

if the aggressor had already been stalking her there is no reason to believe he wouldnt have done the same thing WITHOUT the other person,,,,

I understand you dont know who to trust about what happened, but thats when evidence and investigation come in. And the law still says innocent until 'proven' guilty so it doesnt just depend upon 'trusting' what someone has said, but proving otherwise.


I also realize what I think doesnt count unless Im on a jury and juries are not predictable just because people have so many opinions about how laws should be applied and what constitutes the 'proof' of being proven guilty.