Yes but one more person that we have to charge with murder even though he didn't murder or even break into the house. We will have to house him at a federal prison at a cost of roughly $30,000 a year for life even though he was probably just addicted to corporate dealt oxycontin pills. Am I the only one that see a police state run amok when you get charged with murder when you do not murder someone? And before anyone starts I am not defending the guy who got charged, but criticizing bad laws.

I have no problem with her shooting the intruder, but charging the person who never entered the house with murder is weird. He didn't do the shooting, nor did he enter the trailer.

But I have to ask.......she is 18, her spouse was 58?!?!?!? Wow! At least he had weapons for her to defend herself.

it was because of him and his dead accomplice that the one died. if they were never there, she wouldn't have to shoot the guy. This is a standard law that is in many states. If you caused the crime to happen, you pretty much killed the guy.

I the only one that see a police state run amok when you get charged with murder when you do not murder someone?

That law has a purpose. It's so people can be charged with murder in commission of a felony, such as kidnapping or robbery etc. Sometimes deaths occur, such as heart attacks, suffocation, death from bleeding or infection due to bindings, lack of access to needed medication, and a wide variety of accidents that would not have happened if a perp was not committing a crime. It also allows for people to be charged with murder due to fraud cases, such as selling bad/tainted meds unknowingly, medical malpractice, neglect, etc.

The fact is - this guy would not be dead if it were not for the crime. The crime then, is responsible, and since the other perp is charged with that crime which is responsible - then he too is held responsible for the death that occurred.

" " That is the sound of a high note from the world’s smallest violin for the 2nd perp. I have no sympathy for him at all since he was in complicity with this crime. He was just as guilty as his buddy who was served up an unhealthy dose of lead but was the luckier of the two. Twenty minutes where they had to know she was inside the residence. I have to wonder if this duo of sterling citizens have accomplished this type of crime before and were just not caught.

The law reads differently in different states, but I think the gist of it is: if someone is killed during the commission of a crime, then the whole group of perpetrators are culpable of murder. It doesn't matter if it's the criminal or the victim--a person died during the crime--all are responsible.

On a second note, if they change their mind about charging this wonderful young lady, please put me on the jury. She would never be convicted. I think the Oklahoma authorities know better than to do anything but praise her.

It also is one of those anti-gang type laws.... so when say a drug deal (felony) goes bad and someone tries to rob it... and someone dies... all the scumbags can be jailed for being responsible for the death.

Thank you second amendment!

HOO RAY! Score one for the good guys.

If you will break into someone's home with a hunting knife - after deliberately trying for 20 minutes to break in and you get shot, well I would say you were asking for it. Let's face it if this piece of crap excuse for a human being had been able to get his hands on her we would be reading about how she had been butchered while fighting to protect her baby.

As for his accomplice, the only reason he ran was because he knew that the fun they had planned for that night wasn't gonna happen because she had a gun - not a brief from the ACLU protesting the horrors of gun ownership - to protect her.

Good for you girl; you did exactly the right thing and should not feel the slightest remorse you merely killed a killer who would have killed you and your baby.

The fact is - this guy would not be dead if it were not for the crime. The crime then, is responsible, and since the other perp is charged with that crime which is responsible - then he too is held responsible for the death that occurred.

Nailed it. Exactly. A voice of reason in this discussion. Thanks Shuklack.

Doug:

No, you are not the only one who sees bad laws truning the country into a police state. The purpose of laws like this are so that police can shoot someone to get their kicks and then charge someone else with first-degree murder. Traditionally, first-degree murder means that you plan, in advance, to kill somebody.

The guy should really only be charged with the crime he actually committed. Anyone who defends charging him with murder belongs behind bars for the safety of the rest of us.

What?! This law has nothing to do with police shooting people.
This law is about felony murder. If someone dies during the commission of a felony than all accomplices can be charged in the death of that person. If the crime wasn't committed then the person wouldn't have died, so the entire criminal party is responsible. I love that people come out of the woodwork talking about "police state" nonsense when they have no grasp of the laws. Guess I belong behind bars with all of the people I help put in there on a daily basis.

police can shoot someone to get their kicks

Really????? Somehow I just don't see this happening! Police officers that I know that killing someone very seriously. It tends to weigh on a reasonable person.

The guy was part of a commission of a crime. When someone dies during that crime, all bad guys are charged the same! That's the way the law works and always has. This is not new!

I had to stop reading all the posts, because of really stupid people posting. Does it really matter that the surviving intruder may, or may not have actually got into her house? Yeah, he got away, he didn't get shot, but what if the first intruder, the first scum bag got to her before she pulled the trigger? These two douche wad scum bags would have raped and killed her and probably the baby too. She was JUSTIFIED! The other intruder should get the same justice. Scum like this, and trust me folks, if you think it is ever justified to break into some one else's house, then you're the scum, and I have every right to blow your Fu*king Head off. She is innocent, that douche wad should die in prison, or the electric chair or the equivalent, enough said.

For all you bleeding hearts that do not want to charge the other person with 1st degree murder, get your head out of the sand. Where did Publivs get his information that police officers go around shooting people just for the hell of it?

If you think this is a police state, you need to go to North Korea and live in their non-police state, or Iran, or any other country that is not a demoncratic form of gavernmenmt.

I was in Korea in 1952 and saw first hand hand the results of your non-police state. Until and unless you have the balls to go see for yourself, I would keep my mouth shut. Remember the old saying

"it is better to keep your mouth shut than to open it remove all doubt".

Another anecdote in support of legal gun ownership. After this news report going national I'd be willing to be that nobody messes with her again.

To the 2 Dougs, The law ALSO trys to protect the dead perp. (google "Jerome Jay Ersland) It's an OKLAHOMA case where a guy shot a perp and then got another gun and shot him some more and killed him. Ersland's in jail RIGHT NOW.

For all you bleeding hearts that do not want to charge the other person with 1st degree murder, get your head out of the sand.

To be honest, I only think there was ONE bleeding heart in this entire thread.

I'm a lefty yet she did the right thing - the living perp deserves to be charged - and I own guns.

I'm actually curious of how many liberal are pro-gun vs anti-gun. I think you'd be surprised.

If she was on the phone with the police for 20 minutes how come a police car never showed up while they were trying to break the door down?

I am a gun advocate but something smells about this one. Maybe the alleged accomplice was as Innocent as the shooter, the dead guy had been there before, maybe even by invitation.

Too many uglies in this story. I bet this just another MSNBC attempt to stir the gun law issue.

I'm an Indy, but lean towards Liberal, and I guarantee that at least 50%, most likely more liberals not only own guns, but are "Responsible" Gun Owners. This piece of trash does not deserve to live on the tax payers dollar. May his soul rest in pieces. ummm, peace.

The problem I see with charging the accomplice with murder is how this gets counted in the FBI and CDC statistics.

Classification of Death: Murder
Cause of Death: Firearm

This is how statistics can lie.

After 20 minutes, why were the police not there already?

Shuklack, you are a good example for people to look at and see not all people should be lumped into one catagory just because of their politics. In all probabillity. there are Repulicans that do not like guns.

It's a shame they even had to tell us she wouldn't be charged. Should there have even been a question?

As for charging the other party with the murder, I think that's a real stretch. I would come closer to calling a suicide than saying his buddy killed him. (Like when someone commits "suicide by cop" by charging at a cop with a brandished weapon).

I have never owned a gun in my life, but have been thinking quite seriously about it lately. After showing this story to my wife last night, she turned to me and said, "I am thinking maybe we should buy a gun to have in the house for this kind of stuff. We need to be able to protect ourselves."

I will go out shopping for one today at lunchtime.

I find it somewhat ironic that most of the responses on here congratulating this woman for shooting the intruder and having the forethought of making sure she covered her bases as far as her liability goes (count me as one of those people...you did good, girl!!) are also very much in favor of the murder charge being levied against the accomplice in the crime. I happen to believe that most of these people lean to the right on social issues, and will support any laws that put the most people in jail, even if they are not directly responsible for the crime they are accused of committing. However, isn't it a conservative stance that everyone should be responsible for their own actions? That said, unless the accomplice was somehow physically forcing this guy to break into this woman's residence, the guy broke in of his own accord. He got what he deserved! But charging the accomplice for his murder?? He didn't pull the trigger! There was really no murder committed, as far as I can see.

My wife and I get into it all the time about Charles Manson being kept in prison for murdering several people 40-something years ago, when it was never proven that he actually committed any of those murders. If brainwashing people and turning them into cold-hearted automatons to carry out killings is a crime worthy of a life sentence, then we should look long and hard at our military leaders. Do they not do the same thing? I understand that the circumstances are different, but brainwashing is brainwashing, no matter the circumstances.

What I'm saying is, let's convict the real criminals of real crimes, and not waste our tax dollars locking people up for crimes they didn't ACTUALLY commit.

Good for her!! Another dirtbag taken care of. If this keeps up, it may be safer for law abiding citizens!!

As for charging the other party with the murder, I think that's a real stretch.

It's actually not unusual. The law states that if someone dies during a crime the person(s) involved in committing the crime bear the responsibility of it.

Case in point: My friends step-daughter was with her boyfriend one afternoon and he left her in the car and went into a convenience store to steal beer. He ended up shooting and killing the clerk. They were both charged and convicted in his murder...even though she was in the car and didn't pull the trigger - she knew he was going into the store to steal beer. She is serving a 20 year sentence.

I have to agree with most everyone on here. Good for her protecting herself and her child. I do have the same question asked a few times though, why was she put in this position? She was on the phone with 911 for over 20 minutes. I am an avid supporter of the police and truly believe they (as a whole, there are bad apples in all walks of life) act in the best interests of the public, but how in the world were they not yet at her door?

ganddd.....I think I know which case you're talking about, and if that's the same one as the one I'm thinking about, the store owner defended himself against the armed robber with his FIRST shot, which put the man down and incapacitated him. However, it became murder once he took the law into his own hands and "passed judgment" without due process, by emptying his gun into the man, reloading and plugging him some more.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of vigilante justice, but only AFTER the legal system gets its crack at it. If, for some reason, a murderer gets off on some technicality (like police not following procedure about gathering evidence or something like that), and the perp gets set free, then I find no reason to question why he may have been found dead in his home a day or so later from a gunshot wound. If the "Law" drops the ball, then it's totally acceptable in my book that "Society" take care of meting out justice.

@Bruce-308647, if you seriously have never owned a gun, and plan on buying one, take a course on how to clean, aim, and actually fire it, take a safety course friend. Like a camera, yeah, you can point and shoot, but a safety course can mean the difference between your life or some scum bag douche wads life.

I would defend the right of people to own guns responsibly. She acted within the law to defend her child and home. I have no sympathy for the guy that died. I do agree though, that it is weird that the accomplice gets charged with first degree murder. First degree murder is premeditated as an accomplished act. I see nothing in this story to indicate the other guy intended to murder his accomplice or the victim, for that matter. "Probably would have", or "might have", or "what would they have done if" does not constitute premeditated murder in any law books I have ever seen. Conspiracy to commit murder or some lesser charge would make sense. But if they charge him with first degree murder, I believe his defense lawyer(s) will have a valid defense.

Don't get me wrong, the accomplice is scum and should be charged. I just think they should take care to make sure he is charged with the correct crime.

Weird it tried to post this twice...

Something smells about the fact that she was 18 at the time this occured and her now dead husband was 58!!!

Also, Doug is right, as well as :

Pvblivs

Doug:

No, you are not the only one who sees bad laws truning the country into a police state. The purpose of laws like this are so that police can shoot someone to get their kicks and then charge someone else with first-degree murder. Traditionally, first-degree murder means that you plan, in advance, to kill somebody.

The guy should really only be charged with the crime he actually committed. Anyone who defends charging him with murder belongs behind bars for the safety of the rest of us.

That is, in fact what first degree murder is, it means muder which is willful and premeditated, this is neither of those. If anything it should be at most second degree murder, but most likely just involuntary manslaughter.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/f/first-degree-murder/

Under federal law, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

• First, the defendant unlawfully killed [victim];
• Second, the defendant killed [victim] with malice aforethought;
• Third, the killing was premeditated; and
• Fourth, the killing occurred at [location stated in indictment].

To kill with malice aforethought means to kill either deliberately and intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/second-degree-murder/

Now, obviously this case does not fit the definition for first degree murder in any way. It might fit for second degree, however, I would say that if they charged him with second degree, he has a reasonable argument to bring her up on charges of voluntary manslaughter:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/v/voluntary-manslaughter/

"§ 2903.03. Voluntary manslaughter.

(A) No person, while under the influence of sudden passion or in a sudden fit of rage, either of which is brought on by serious provocation occasioned by the victim that is reasonably sufficient to incite the person into using deadly force, shall knowingly cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another's pregnancy.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of voluntary manslaughter, a felony of the first degree."

That might seem a bit much, but that is in fact a lawyers job, all he has to say is, once they got the door opened, what if simply seeing her with a gun would have been enough for them to turn around and run, that her actually pulling the trigger was going one step further, and therefore she should be found guilty as well?

Now, if we look at involuntary manslaughter:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/involuntary-manslaughter/

Involuntary manslaughter means unintentional manslaughter. If a person commits the crime of manslaughter without any malice or intention is charged with involuntary manslaughter. It may be committed with criminal negligence or during the commission of a crime not included within the felony-murder rule. It is also called manslaughter in the second degree. All manslaughters that does not come under voluntary manslaughter are involuntary manslaughters.

Under this law, there is no legal room to bring it back on her.

Yes Devils Advocate, that is the right case except both of the MEN perp were just young kids. Don't get me wrong, I am not defending Ersland. Just pointing out that along with Ersland, even the 2 adults outside in the get away car (that talked the kids into robbing the place) got charged AND convicted of Murder 1. THAT is the Oklahoma Law.

and Prohibition.... You should read up on OKLAHOMA Law and I also suggest you google Ersland's case so that you would know how the law is enforced.

Never corner something meaner than you.

Good for her for shooting the guy, but I want to know why it took more than 21 minutes for cops to get there if she was on the phone with 911 telling them that people were trying to break into her house. I can't fathom that no cops were within 21 minutes of the place. When you hear of a situation like that, and it is in progress, you the cop get there as quick as possible. She did the right thing, but I'd love to know how their police services there can be so bad. If she didn't have a gun, she would have been dead because help over there never arrives in time.

Also, I too wonder about the 18 year old with the 58 year old. Is her name Courtney Stodden?They had a child together. Not that it matters in this case, but I wonder what the laws are on sexual relations with somebody under 18 in that state. Something about that relationship didn't sound right. But again, as far as this situation goes, that line of questioning is not important. Besides, her hubby is dead. Nobody gonna prosecute a dead guy.

1/ @Bryan and @Bruce. Yes. If you buy a gun, that should include lessons from the reputable gun shop that you buy it at. Just because you own a camera doesn't make you a photographer (you are not a photographer dot com for a laugh), just like owning a gun does not make you a weapons expert.

2/ Looking forward to one of the morning news shows to get her on, so we find out about her 58-year-old husband. Was she his caregiver? Was he the baby's daddy? Did he leave her an estate so this young girl and baby are cared for? Can't wait to find out.

3/ My understanding that this is a very rural area. In some of those areas, one or two sheriff's deputies are covering hundreds of square miles and getting from one area to another can take a while. This is not your suburban community, this is the country.

4/ Don't own a gun and doubt that I'd be able to shoot at another human being, but grew up around enough guns to respect them. Seriously considering an aluminum baseball bat and a canister of mace to be kept bedside, however.

K. Snider.....first let me say, I'm not trying to be contrary or facetious....but if the law you mentioned above is stated the way you stated it, and let's say your friend's step-daughter's boyfriend was stealing the beer for his mom. She was aware of how he was going to get the beer (just like his girlfriend was). Let's say the mom was sitting at home, waiting for those cold beers to arrive, and wasn't at the scene of the shooting. She had no knowledge of the shooting beforehand, nor did she encourage it (just like the man's girlfriend didn't know he was going to kill the clerk). Should the perp's mom, then, be charged with murder?? Both women knew the theft of beer was going to happen, neither knew the killing was going to happen. Yet, the girlfriend gets 20 years. Should his mom get 20 years, as well?

If she was on the phone with the police for 20 minutes how come a police car never showed up while they were trying to break the door down?

GOOD FREAKIN' QUESTION!!! My guess is, rural area that's hard to find, but I could be wrong. Jeez, she felt like she had to ask permission to defend herself in HER OWN HOME??? Especially since the police didn't make it until AFTER the shooting??? Well, you can thank David Prater for that, he's the SOB prosecutor that put Ersland in prison for defending himself a little too aggresively. Now Oklahomans don't know if they have the right to defend themselves or not! Apparently we now have a "One-shot" rule; anything beyond the first shot may not be justified.

Ersland deserves a new trial, and David Prater should be run out on a rail!!!

I live in Oklahoma and the law protecting Mrs. McKinley has a name and it's the "Make My Day" law. To all of the critics and name callers, under Oklahoma law you can marry at the age of 15 with parental permission. Please go stick your bigoted and perverted heads back in the sand and STFU! Love has never bothered itself with age discrimination. Blanchard is a rural area about 45 minutes from Oklahoma City and yes it takes awhile for an officer to respond. Especially since Blanchard has a very small police department.

Also, I too wonder about the 18 year old with the 58 year old. Is her name Courtney Stodden?They had a child together. Not that it matters in this case, but I wonder what the laws are on sexual relations with somebody under 18 in that state. Something about that relationship didn't sound right.

Can't speak for the relationship, but in Oklahoma you can marry at 16 with your parent's permission. I had two friends get married at 15 when I was in 9th grade (nearly 40 years ago). Yeah I thought it was kind of stupid at the time, but whatever...odd but nothing illegal about their relationship.

I can't believe some of you are questioning why the accomplice would get charged. The law is there to prevent crime and to hopefully get these idiots to think twice before they commit a crime. He was right there with his buddy who got shot and he intended to commit a crime. I applaud the teen mom for having the guts to shoot this idiot who broke in. She will still have to deal with this for the rest of her life that she killed someone. And I feel sorry for her that these criminals put her in this position.

As far as the guy who wants to go out and buy his first gun to protect his family, I applaud your decision. I also agree with the guy who told him to take a firearms training class. I have owned and used guns my whole life and agree people need to be trained to safely handle and use firearms.

Not to get off track here because that POS got what he deserved but back to the spouse 58 and shes a teen, who else was a criminal here with a minor? I know hes not with us anymore but did he not have any morals? You know he was dating her while under age. And why does the guy that never entered charged? He didnt force the other guy to do it. He ran away. Just saying

about that

Take your hateful rant and shove it you know where. I guess we're all supposed to presume there are NO criminals and NO lowlifes where you live, bigot. I love my state. At least in Oklahoma we know our neighbors and look out and care for our fellow human. You can't say that about most of our 50 states.

Only bad part of the story? She didn't shoot the other guy.

If she was on the phone with the police for 20 minutes how come a police car never showed up while they were trying to break the door down?

Hate to break it to you folks but a 20 minute wait is not at all an uncommon police response time. This was a small town and likely had a minimal police force if it had one at all. Many small towns rely on the country sheriffs office which could be some distance away. I've heard similiar stories from large cities also. Sometimes the police are busy with other issues and even if they drop what they're doing to rush over it could easily take 20 minutes or more. Another thing many people fail to realize is that it is not technically the job of the police to come and protect you regardless of what their motto is.

Stories like this should be a wake up call to those who think they can just pick up the phone and viola, an armed security force instantly appears at their doorstep. If you choose not to take the steps to defend yourself and your property that is your right but please stop trying to take that choice away from those of us who would.

Casey Anthony needs too learn a some things from this women!

Pat that girl on the back, and give her an attaboy,,,,,,,,,,, i'd give her some fresh ammo also,,,, that's the way it should be,,,,, that's American justice

The first fact that struck me wrong was that this 18 year old was on the phone for 21 minutes before she shot the intruder. We don't know from this story how much longer it took before a cop first arrived on scene. But it took until the 23rd poster on this subject to mention it. There can be no other better argument against those who want to disarm Americans.

The second fact that struck me was that her husband was 58. I guess if you can get it, why not, but it's just weird and while not germaine to this story is an interest.

But the third fact that troubles me is the dispatcher cannot tell someone during a minimum 21 minute call that the law specifically allows the use of deadly force, including shooting the intruder, so long as (in this case) the woman feels her life or the baby's life is in peril and the intruder has entered the home. The Castle Doctrine is ancient, and in 21 minutes should have been communicated more clearly to her. Still, she did the right thing.

The fourth fact of interest to me is how was the door unable to be kicked in before the woman could get the couch in place to bar it. The charged perpetrator doesn't look like he lacks the physical mass to crash through a mobile home door. So, did she know they were coming? Did they stand outside and demand she give them the drugs before the physical attack began? In short, how did this crime evolve?

Lastly, that there is ANYONE in the USA, or anywhere else, that thinks a co-conspirator should not be charged with any of the crimes which could logically flow from their criminal enterprise, or in this case the logical outcome of being shot while intruding in another's home, has really got little understanding of the law, or of logic. Someone above posted that there are four federal proofs needed, yet this is state law. But even if it was a federal matter the four proofs still exist since one need not plan the actual shooting in order to be responsible for it, but must instead merely be able to foresee the shooting as a likely result of the criminality they are about to undertake.

T Bourlon, about the relationship, I think the point here isn't her youth so much as the 40 year gap in their ages. The late husband was 58, she"s 18...that just seems odd, And her stuck alone with an infant in a trailer miles from nowhere with drug addicts battering down her door is just pitiful.

I personally believe the 2nd Ammt has been stretched to the breaking point by NRA zealots, but the right of that young woman to defend herself and her infant is clear and fundimental.

BTW I'd hazard the guess that We The People are paying for her and her son as well. You trolls out there be sure to ponder that before your next rant against "welfare cheats".

A few other posters have said this, but why on earth did it take police so long to get there? And to be even more cynical, why did it take the SOBs so long to break in to a trailer? It's not as if they are indestructable or anything.

However, I'm so very very thankful that mama bear came out of the woods and gave this SOB an acute case of lead poisoning. You go girl! Protect your baby!

Never take a knife to a gun fight!!!! LMAO ..

I am glad to hear that the woman and her baby are safe and without physical harm. I am sure she will revisit that night again in the future to some degree or another. Taking a life for whatever reason is always a serious and disturbing matter unless your a sociopath. As for the accomplice being charged, if the law permits it than by all means the full weight of the law should be used. He may not have tried to go in after the shots, but his intent and purpose was to at the very least prey on a widow and her child. He is as responsible for the death of his accomplice as the accomplice was on his own for planning and attempting to carry out the crime in the first place. I have no doubt that their intent was something more brutal than robbery or why would two men be needed to steel from a woman and child. The woman acted properly in defense of her home and her child, it is unfortunate that she was forced to kill one man, but very fortunate that she not only had the means but also the courage to do what was necessary to survive.

If this widow does the same in a liberal state she will be condemned to prison for life. While liberals are putting more restriction to gun owners , Herick Holder was giving guns to Mexican cartels to blame gun sellers. He shooot in his foot when an US border patrol was killed with those guns. GUNS SAVE LIVES

I'd like to say I'm a LEFTY and I wish more people would step up and do what this young lady did. Its only a shame the second one got away. Can't win them all. More reason to protect our second amendment. Also I imagine that they are charging the second guy with first degree knowing it will be pled down to a lesser crime. This way it will almost ensure some length of jail time. Shocking right? A liberal that supports gun rights. We do exsist.

Am I the only one that see a police state run amok when you get charged with murder when you do not murder someone?

That law has been on the books for many many years. If you participate in a crime where someone is killed you can be charged with the death.

2nd Amendment saved her little boy's life. Long live US Constitution.

I agree with Robbob-1667446. Shame, she didn't shoot the second guy.

bjgracer,

No, we don't know the facts you claim. That part of the story interests me but it doesn't indicate anyone broke the law. I don't know the age of consent in Oklahoma, but it is at least 18. Her age is 18, but we don't know if she is one day shy of 19 or has just turned 18. And we don't know the age of the baby, or even if the dead 58 year old is the father. More facts here would help, but jumping to conclusions when no facts support them doesn't.

To the person that said police shoot people to get their kicks, that has to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read.

I know several police officers. My husband, father-in-law, and two brothers-in-law are all police officers. And believe me, the last thing 99.9% of all police officers want to do is have to draw their guns.

I have no problems with what she did, but what troubles me is the fact that she was on the phone for 21 minutes with the 911 operator who could have sent cops over to help her? I am just curious, why not send help over?

Yeah age difference thing adds a curious piece to the story but as far as capping the bad guy when he breaks in ...its all good to me. The baby is 3months i think i read. She had the presence of mind to even ask the 911 operator. Gotta love her for it. I have left leaning tendencies but I have really been thinking about picking up an AR15 to go with my .38 - So long as you are well versed in firearms safety I have no problem with it.

The law states that if a death occurs while you are committing a felony you are charged with first degree murder. Even if the cops had to shoot him any accomplice is charged. Good law.

Her maturity for an 18 year old has to be described as amazing.

Regarding her husband being 58 just puts a smile on this 62 year old face.

Mac-329110

That law has been on the books for many many years. If you participate in a crime where someone is killed you can be charged with the death.

Being charged with the death is just, but not with a premeditated murder, thats way over the top.

There are two issues about this case that bother me immensely. mTHe first has already been cussed and discussed on this thread - the injustice of charging a man with murder who was not even there and had nothing to do with the actual killing. The anal retentive megalomaniacs always find a way to make more laws, more control, and more government interference in our lives. Unfortunately, they always seem to win in the legislatures (which are filled with - SURPRISE - anal retentive megalomaniacs). Does he deserve to be charged with a crime? Of course; perhaps some sort of conspiracy thing. But to charge him with murder is WAY overboard. And those who say "it's the law" need to remember the plethora of tyrranical and oppressive laws passed by tyrants of all sorts and types throughout history even to the point of genocide. The system ALWAYS protects and feeds itself.

The second, and probably most disturbing factor, is the twisted fearful state of mind where a woman in a life threatening situation thought in necessary to ASK "is it okay if I shoot him". Everywhere I look I see the inordinate fear of government in the eyes of the people that the framers of the constitution warned us about:

"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826)

Delude yourselves if you like, governments throughput the world are out of control. Perhaps it's time for another civil war. Dead bodies at your doorstep have a way of bringing perspective to the control freaks when they know that decent people would rather die and kill than live their sick, twisted idea of Utopia. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that I would rather be dead than live in Hillary's village.

dano-3878024 - "Never take a knife to a gun fight!!!! LMAO"

This is the best response I have seen in this entire discussion. I am still laughing!

It is none of our business about the age difference between the deceased husband and young wife. As a mother, and a gun owner, I would shoot an intruder in a heartbeat if I felt that my, and my childs, life were in danger. The article says that the guy "charged her with the knife after he finally entered the home". Seems to me that if his intent were not to hurt her, he would have seen that 12 guage and turned the other way. Nothing said that he was shot in the back, did it??

@Bruce-308647, if you seriously have never owned a gun, and plan on buying one, take a course on how to clean, aim, and actually fire it, take a safety course friend. Like a camera, yeah, you can point and shoot, but a safety course can mean the difference between your life or some scum bag douche wads life.

I plan to. In fact, both my wife and I will. I am a "rule follower". I have the proper motorcycle endorsement on my drivers license to ride my bikes, I have a sport pilot license from the FAA to fly my powered parachute (and a repairman's certificate to conduct the annual inspection on it) and will get the proper training and "carry permit" to allow me to safely and legally own, transport, and carry a firearm. And like the girl in this story, if it come down to a "me or them" situation, I won't have to think more than a half second about pulling the trigger.

Believe it of not, there is NO FEDERAL CRIME of MURDER. Murder is only prosecuted by the state. If the murder is enhanced by being classified as a hate crime, the murder still is a state charge, violation of civil rights is a federal charge. Kill someone while robbing an FDIC protected bank...murder is a state crime, robbing the bank is a federal crime. I don't see a federal crime here by these knuckle draggin' POS's.

Here's my take on gun ownership (I'm a cop, btw) It's like the fire extinguisher or smoke detector in your home, or the airbags in your car. God forbid you ever need it, but when the emergency happens, you'd better have it, you'd better know how to use it, and it better be in good condition. It's a device who's purpose is to save your life and your family's life. If you never need to use it, outside of training, in your entire lifetime, you're lucky. But when you need it.... YOU NEED IT!

Just because someone owns a gun doesn't make him/her a "gun-nut". You wouldn't dream of disabling your airbags, or tossing out your smoke detectors before your kids go to bed tonight. That's how responsible gun owners feel about their guns. Residential crime happens every day and night. Stop judging those who want to protect themselves from it. And for Christ's sake, stop with the anti-gun laws!!

PS: The state of Oklahoma should give this young lady a hefty reward for removing these two maniacs from the community.

I can explain the "She's 18.....He's 58" question some of you have raised.....It's happening more and more......

If the guy was being treated for cancer, he was most likely on Social Security Disability. The Child may not even be his....BUT.....he marries the 18 yr.old..then dies.....the child qualifies for Survivors Benefits and his "widow" is now also qualified to get S.S. Survivor Benefits to Raise "his" child....for the next 18 years....and then she will get Surviving Spouse Benefits when she reaches retirement age.....At 58, if he accumulated the average Social Security Credits.....the gal and the baby will get about $3,400 combined benefits a month for the next 216 months....that's a cool $734,000 (Plus any COLA increases).....$850.00 a week is alot more than any job she's likely to have worked, now she doesn't have to work at all.....Nice she was able to kill the bad guy....but there was more to her marriage than seen at first look.

People don't want to die and have all their Social Security benefits go uncollected....and I can't say that I blame them one bit.....

Bruce-308647
I have never owned a gun in my life,...I will go out shopping for one today at lunchtime.

Take your wife with you. You want something that will fit comfortably in your hand and hers. May not be the same. Consider getting a second one in .22 cal for training and practice. That take recoil out of the learning mix and costs less in ammunition. And as stated get training.

AND ANOTHER THING... Even a trained and grizzled veteran police officer or soldier gets post traumatic stress disorder treatment after they're forced to shoot someone. I hope the state provides it to her because I assure you, her nightmares are on the way.

Rock out with your Glock out!

As an attorney, I feel relatively safe in stating the perp is not being charged with 1st degree murder, but with felony murder. There is a difference, which news stories seldom get right, although the sentencing is usually the same. One person commented about mom staying home waiting for stolen beer, question was whether she would be charged with the crime, the answer is no, because she did not actively participate. However, had the robbery been successful, and even though one person died the others got away, and she actually received the beer, the answer becomes "possibly." A driver of a getaway car is an active participant. I am a fan of the castle doctrine, but you should also understand that regardless of time frame for the police to arrive, the US Supreme Court has also ruled that the police are not obligated to protect you, so had these guys broken in and harmed her, she would not have a case against the police, regardless of response time. This is a good reason to have a self-defense weapon and to be well trained in its use.

Devil's, did I read your comment wrong? Do you really believe Manson shouldn't still be in prison? I you believe he should be free, maybe, if he ever does get out, you could invite him over for dinner.

For those questioning the second person being charged with murder....

Perhaps we should think about whom we hang out with, and our plan for the night. If you hang out with the type of person that spends 21 minutes breaking into a place, and then is capable of charging an 18 year old mom, you will also bear the repercussions of their actions. I, for one wouldn't be surrounded by those people. And for good reason. They are not good people.

Maybe the next person will think twice about the friends they keep.

Mike in Delray
I can explain the "She's 18.....He's 58" question some of you have raised.....It's happening more and more......

Not an original idea. As they got older many of the Civil War vets married much younger women. They got some one that could care for them in old age and the widow got a life long pension such as it was.

The last surviving widow of a US Civil War veteran has died - nearly 140 years after the conflict ended.
Alberta Martin passed away aged 97 at a nursing home in Alabama on 31 May after suffering a heart attack.

In 1927, she married the 81-year-old war veteran of the Confederate army, William Martin, when she was 21. ..

"Martin had already been widowed with a son when she met William Martin, also a widower who had served with the 4th Alabama Infantry Regiment during the siege of Petersburg in 1864-65 and had a $50-a-month pension.

D-Loominator- well said...

Bassai....Interesting....Workin'the System for as long as there has been any System to work.....human nature I guess....

How the @!$%# could anyone think of charging this woman? She had to wait for the scumbag to enter the house? Seriously? She had to give him a chance to kill her? I say thank God she had a weapon and than God she killed this scumbag.

She was 18 married to a guy who was 58?

brian-1077790......AND she's cute too......Jealous ???.....I'm 56 and I know I am !!!... ;-)

dont u love how the media spins it like its a question if u can shoot or kill someone breaking into your home.u have the right to kill them dead if someone breaks in.no questions asked.with this ndaa bill that the president signed new years eve.that give the president the right to kill torture or make u dispear with no due justice.i think we all need to buy 20 guns.even hitler and stalon didnt put that crap on paper.thats how scared theses cowards are with all the crimes they commited.

Charges????....Charges, hell! This young lady deserves a citation for getting rid of a couple of POSes, and a cash award for saving the taxpayers the huge expense of jailing, charging, trying, and incacerating the one she blew away.

Uh, by the way, nice shot, young lady!

This story is crazy in so many ways.

• 18 years old married to a 58-year-old
• 3 month old baby
• guy keeps coming back to get drugs
• cops can't seem to get there in less than 20 minutes
• she asks if she is allowed to shoot the guy

this article demonstrates good reasons to have a gun and there also bad reasons to have a gun.

the guy getting charged with murder makes sense to me.

I think that it is important to note that the accomplice is being CHARGED with first degree murder, not CONVICTED just yet. The point being that there is going to be an investigation as well as a trial. There is going to be a lot that comes out from this in the coming weeks about what the accomplice's intentions were. Everyone just needs to wait and see what happens, it's not like they are saying "oh well you were there so your guilty of murder, rot in jail". CHARGED and CONVICTED are two very different things and there is a messy process that goes in between the two.

As for the shooting itself, props to this young woman on protecting herself and her baby. I personally hold no sympathy for the accomplice. I find it hard to beleive that his intentions weren't just as horrible as the slain intruder. After all, I don't know how he couldn't have known what his friends intentions were after trying to break down a DOOR holding a huge KNIFE in hand....did he think his friend was gonna go in and just cut up the couch and bed, get real. He had to have known very well what is friend intended to do.

Devil's Advocate,

If the two ladies were at the scene and were participants then yes they would be charged. Also know that we have a justice system for situations like this. Some cases are not so black and white. If they were there with him, the prosecution has to prove they were accomplices for that charge to stick. The same will happen for this case. The article did not say he was convicted, just charged for felony murder based on the evidence, witnesses, circumstance, etc.

For those who say this law is wrong, the point of it is to be a deterrent. Here in CA this a a capital offense and could lead to the death penalty.

Jon,

Your explanation was spot on. Glad to see someone clear up the mistake MSNBC made.

BRAVO SARAH !

These punks deserved what the one got and the other should get the same.

For all you bleeding hearts who complain about keeping the accomplice in jail for decades at $30,000 a year there's a simple solution. Give him the 3-injection cocktail and bury him.

Good for her.

I have to ask though, why is a 50 something year old not only allowed to marry a minor, but to not be criminally prosecuted for it?

Pedophilia runs rampant in this society...

A courageous young lady who knew what to do and did it. Excellent!!!!!!!!!!!!!

First off that girls personal life has nothing to do with what happened. The media has no right to portray her in that way. The facts are two men were going to rob a young woman and her child. One was killed and the other ran like a coward. For his actions he should receive the same as his partner. A criminal should lose all rights while comitting a crime. Maybe this would help deter crimes like this from happening.

And someone get that girl a new home! She'll be finding bits and pieces of that scumbag in nooks and crannies for years to come.

Although......if she were sharp, and I think think she is, she'd call up Mossberg, or Remington or whoever made her gun, and hook up with some endorsements. She's more than cute enough! I see a whole new ad campaign. Let's make that happen! She can buy her own new house!

Obviously, ignorance runs rampant on liberal states.

If this crime was committed in a liberal state, the same thing would have happened.

Liberals believe in gun control and self defense. Liberals believe you don't need automatic rifles shooting armor piercing bullets, grenades, and elephant guns in New York to defend yourself.

Every time there is a self defense occurence, conservatives bring the story in the light regarding the right to bear arms. Liberals have no problem with the right to bear arms. After all, they have the same right. What their issue is are the extreme military grade weapons used to kill multiple enemies in battle and the people using the right to bear arms as an excuse to own them for personal use.

I guess if a self defense case happened to you and your family, where the criminals had AK 47s and you had a 9mm, you're perfectly happy with your family's odds.

Good for her!!! We are living in the south right now and there are armed home invasions every single day and half the time they kill the home owners. I would shoot them between the eyes in a heart beat if they broke into my home. Anybody who wants to steal or harm anybody in their home knows they can be killed so that's what they get.

I think when we start finding people guilty of "intent to.....(insert crime here)" and the sentence is the same as if the crime was actually committed, that that's when we are overstepping our bounds as far as law enforcement goes. To paraphrase Yogi Berra..."it ain't a crime until it's a crime".

Soon, we'll be so paranoid about crime that it'll be like that movie "Minority Report", where police will arrest and convict you because you "may" have a "propensity" to commit a crime in the future.

I think, in this case, there was no murder at all! There was a death of someone who was breaking into a home, caused by the owner of the home defending herself. Case closed as far as that goes. The other dude can serve time for B&E, or assault, or whatever....just not murder, because there was no murder committed.

Let me see If I have this correct; for 23 minutes she is on the phone with Police dispatch, while someone is breaking into her home; the police do not respond in the 23 minute time period; she shoots one as they finally break down her door; and a dumb, retarded D.A., says that they have decided not to file charges against her; they should file malfeasance charges against the police, and the D.A. should have his head examined even considering to charge her; remember in a emergency the police are only 10 minutes away ( in this case over 20 minutes), if you want to be safe in your home, keep a firearm nearby.

First, because the crime was PREMEDITATED, that makes the murder a 1st degree murder. It may be a stretch but it is not uncommon for Prosecutors to start with high serious charges knowing a plea deal will bring down the charge. Start high so when you come down and meet in the middle that middle is closer to what you want.

Second, don't jump to conclusions on the girl or her husband because of the huge age difference. Calling him a pedophile is not only a nasty assumption but incorrect. True pedophiles pray on children usually under the age of 13. You have no idea when they got married or what the circumstances were. Most people don't die from lung cancer within a year so maybe she was taking care of him and they got married to make it easier for her to pick up his medication, and afford some of the things needed for their situation. Whatever the reason or reasons it is not for any of us to judge her or the guy without 99% of the information.

I think good for her shooting this guy who tried breaking into a house with a child and girl in it days or hours after the other guys death.

This is a perfect example of who is responsible for protecting someone.. You are responsible for yourself and your family!! The police are only responsible after a crime has been committed.. This is why people should have the right to have guns but the gun grabbers and our federal government liberals keep telling you that they will protect you so only the police and military should have them.. Our founding fathers and the second amendment are proof that they new the citizens needed them for protection from criminals and the government..

Liberals have no problem with the right to bear arms.

I wish that were true, and I'm sure many do feel that way, but you can't deny that liberal cities like Washington D.C. and Chicago have both tried to have laws on the books that ban guns completely inside the city limits.

The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 prohibited residents from owning handguns, excluding those registered prior to February 5, 1977

These laws were overturned by the Courts as being Unconstitutional but the fact they were ever passed shows that some liberals do want a complete ban on guns.

Good for her.

Its a good thing she was on the phone with 911, that makes it a little tough to say "it didn't happen that way".

And the fact that her passed husband was older really has nothing to do with this article.

She defended herself, protected her child, and had the smarts to call for help.

If help had gotten there in time she would not have had to shoot the guy, but it didn't.

So she shot him... Can't say I blame her either....

Life's tuff, if you don't think it is, ask the guy she shot! Or the one that ran away afterwards.

The thugs picked the wrong trailer to burglarize. I think the accomplice in this Oklahoma deal should be charged with burglary, but not murder. I'm not sold on the application of the murder law in this case. I don't think there is a murderer in this case.

A few years ago an arsonist torched a vacant Seattle warehouse. Responding firemen attacked the fire, and at a point a decision was made by a captain to enter an engulfed building, a floor collapsed, and the result was fireman death. The arsonist (you guessed it) was charged with and convicted of murder.

I live in Oklahoma and the town of Blanchard is small and rural. The county sheriffs office has wonderful deputies, just not very many of them. It is unfortunate that the police were not there to help her earlier, but she helped herself just fine! Kudos to her for protecting herself and her child.

For those commenting on the age difference, the couple filed for a marriage license on 11/28/2011, so they were married less than a month before he passed away. (Public records search) This seems to be a marriage of convenience, but even it was a romantic relationship, it is none of our business.

About the first degree murder charge:

A person also commits the crime of murder in the first degree, regardless of malice, when that person or any other person takes the life of a human being during, or if the death of a human being results from, the commission or attempted commission of murder of another person, shooting or discharge of a firearm or crossbow with intent to kill, intentional discharge of a firearm or other deadly weapon into any dwelling or building as provided in Section 1289.17A of this title, forcible rape, robbery with a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, escape from lawful custody, eluding an officer, first degree burglary, first degree arson, unlawful distributing or dispensing of controlled dangerous substances, or trafficking in illegal drugs." Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.7 (2006).

So that is law in this state. The accomplice was responsible for knowing the laws of the state in which he resides. He chose to participate in the commission of a felony, so he is responsible. If he didn't agree with the law, he should have lobbied to have it changed, or moved to another state where such laws don't exist.

To all out there in Neverland. Life is perfect. But those like us that live in the good ole USA we have laws and the need to protect our families. I think but not absolute that if the victim and her baby would have been killed both perps would have been charged with murder. Take that for what it is worth. Since that didn't happen both should have been shot. All else in this case is not worth talking about. Arm yourself and learn to use your weapon. As said before WHEN SECONDS COUNT A RESPONSE IS ONLY MINUTES OR HOURS AWAY. Thank GOD for the 2ND Amendment.

folks - typically the law works like this; if a 1st degree felony is being committed (armed robbery, armed burglary, basically any armed crime), if a person dies during the event it is considered a 1st degree murder. it does not matter if you actually "planned" to kill some one, you planned the crime in which a weapon is being used and someone dies, so in effect you "planned" the killing, knowing it was highly likely someone would get hurt; thus a 1st degree murder charge. It is a common practice. When I was doing time for trafficking I knew guys who where just the "wheel" man in armed robberies where someone died and they got life for murder because they were involved with crime that caused a death, even though they did not pull the trigger.

BTW for the guy who said it would all fall on the OK. tax payers to keep the second guy locked-up, not quite true, all states get federal funding for their law enforcement/prison systems.

The second perp knew his friend was going in with a knife and someone could/would get hurt, so he IS responsible for the death. He will probably plead to 1st degree manslaughter and get 20-life; he deserves it.

Also for you Death Penalty advocates - it cost way more to prosecute and carry out a death penalty than it cost to put someone away for life.

I am very proud of a fellow Okie gal. She was calm and handled herself very well for being 18. Her having been married to a 58 yr maybe why she was so mature. NO one knows the circumstances of her marriage, and frankly its no ones business but her own. There may have been many reasons, everything from being in love to inheritance reasons. Who knows he may have had a nest egg, worked & retired, and realized that he was never going to be able to use it or he wanted her to have his home & his property. WHO KNOWS. And you know what I am a "liberal" I own a couple of shotguns & rifles, even a handgun or two, I ** GASP** hunt, and am waiting on my Concealed Weapons permit (took the class & filed the papers). See the right love to say the left is antigun, anti defense.....that is nothing but a scare tactic to for their base.

@Bosslimo

Liberals have no problem with the right to bear arms.

Just out of curiosity, I'd like to know who exactly appointed you spokesperson for all liberals because I know a few who would vehemently disagree with you. I guess they must have been home sick the day it was decided you'd represent them.

LEAHG That is what I was thinking and she needed health insurance or a place to live because she was dumped by her family but who knows.. At every step the government is trying to give more rights to criminals than families.. Some states it is illegal for you to defend your home or self and you can be charged with assault or murder even if you are defending your children from death.. Obama did this in his earlier years in Illinois and that is another reason Conservative families hate his a$$..

This story is all about the numbers. An 18 year old with an infant son widowed from a 58 year old cancer patient waited for 21 minutes while on the phone with 911 until a 24 year old intruder broke through the door all while a 29 year old accomplice waited outside and is now being charged with 1st degree murder. Wow...

I have a permit to carry a concealed deadly weapon, and firmly believe in the following;

the average responce time for a 911 call in my area is 6 to 8 minutes. the average responce time for my handgun is 1800 feet per second.

Good for her, if I lived in a trailer in the middle of nowhere Oklahoma...I'ld buy a gun too...sure took the Sheriff a loooong time to get there!

How much would anyone like to bet that the widow had been selling or had promised to sell these idiots her late husband's pain meds? Something is amiss since the deceased intruder showed up at her door multiple times, especially when considering how much older the woman's husband was. I still think the surviving intruder should do a lot of time, but charging him with a crime he never commited is the antithesis of justice. Why can't the courts just come up with some sort of accessory charge that carries the same penalty? He obviously commited crimes that were not murder, so charge him with those and give him the max for every one.

To the point: I'm glad this young lady, in extremis, did not hesitate to use deadly force.

As to all the second-guessing (such as, were they her husband's guns, or how come her husband was 58?): it's idle gossip, not relevant. So what? Who cares? If you believe the story as written--there are infamous cases of journalistic error, but this reporting seems straightforward enough--she did what she had to do. The local prosecutor appears to have enough common sense to realize he will be laughed out of town--or at least out of court--if he charges her with anything.

As to the issue of charging the surviving perp with murder, I'm a little confused by that as well. As I understand the law: if a murder is a consequence of a crime, all the perps are equally culpable. However, in this case, there was no murder. It was justifiable homicide. Maybe the law reads that if a death (not just a murder) is a consequence, all perps may be charged with murder, with the idea that such a statute would have a deterrent effect. Of course, the laws against the original crime obviously had no deterrent effect, so . . .

Scott579799;

Were it not for the arsonist setting the building on fire, there would not have been a fire fighter response, therefore, no death of said fire fighter(s). So, his criminal act precipitated the death of said fire fighter(s) Ergo, he is held responsible for those deaths as his act caused them.

@Mike in Delray - This is for you...

Ok, At first, I was just blinded by the fact that this poor girl is only 18 and she has this little infant - Having just buried her husband and fataly shot someone has to be more trauma than almost anyone can handle. However, After reading some of these posts my initial reaction has swayed, just a bit.

For those of you that may have missed this post up above by @Mike in Delray I have reposted below - it is worth reading - I try not think so negatively of people but what he says makes sense. Once this began to roll around in my brain I have something to add. The article says that the police are only assuming that they were there for drugs - it says MIGHT have been -

According to court documents, Martin and Stewart might have been looking for prescription drugs -

Look the guy was there the night of the husbands funeral and there was no issue - no call to the police, no freakouts, nothing. Now, if @Mike in Delray is correct about the 58yo husband not being the child's father than who is??? The baby is 3mos. old plus the 9mos. pregnant leaves her at 17 when she got pregnant - statutory rape no matter who the daddy was. The guy she killed was only 24 (24 adds up better than 58) and I don't know about you but if you were 17 and pregnant by a 24yo scary guy and an older man offered to protect you and set you up for life financially, in today's world, wouldn't you think about it? I know I would. She had everything set up - something convenient to block the door, a bottle ready to keep the baby quiet, both guns within reach & loaded, total calm on the phone with the cops, asked very specificaly about about her being within the law if she shot him and exactly where he needed to be in relation to her before she shot him - Then the second he gets through that door she's an ace shot & kills him. If that guy was the baby's biological father she just removed any obstacles that may interfere with her getting those survival benefits. Maybe he showed up the night of the funeral demanding his fatherly rights back, maybe he was threatening to take her to court or worse. The second guy ran and he hasn't said much about Why or What. As for the cops not getting there - coincidence? was she in a truly remote area that them taking that long makes sense? was it maybe not sent over the scanner as an immediate danger? I don't know but I feel we have not gotten the truth of this situation and I am sure more will be coming out about it. My heart went out to her - it really did, however, now, I am hoping we haven't all been played for fools.

@Mike in Delray - You are one smart cookie...

I can explain the "She's 18.....He's 58" question some of you have raised.....It's happening more and more......

If the guy was being treated for cancer, he was most likely on Social Security Disability. The Child may not even be his....BUT.....he marries the 18 yr.old..then dies.....the child qualifies for Survivors Benefits and his "widow" is now also qualified to get S.S. Survivor Benefits to Raise "his" child....for the next 18 years....and then she will get Surviving Spouse Benefits when she reaches retirement age.....At 58, if he accumulated the average Social Security Credits.....the gal and the baby will get about $3,400 combined benefits a month for the next 216 months....that's a cool $734,000 (Plus any COLA increases).....$850.00 a week is alot more than any job she's likely to have worked, now she doesn't have to work at all.....Nice she was able to kill the bad guy....but there was more to her marriage than seen at first look.

People don't want to die and have all their Social Security benefits go uncollected....and I can't say that I blame them one bit.....

"Look the guy was there the night of the husbands funeral and there was no issue - no call to the police, no freakouts, nothing. Now, if @Mike in Delray is correct about the 58yo husband not being the child's father than who is??? The baby is 3mos. old plus the 9mos. pregnant leaves her at 17 when she got pregnant - statutory rape no matter who the daddy was."

I suggest you research age-of-consent laws in the United States. Not every state requires one to be 18 to be able to consent to sex. Try Wikipedia, or, if you don't want to use it as a primary source, google individual state laws, typically "(State) Revised Statutes" or something similar. You might be surprised at what you find.

and...double post, meh

SUMASE....This was posted above by ....LeahG..."I live in Oklahoma and the town of Blanchard is small and rural........

For those commenting on the age difference, the couple filed for a marriage license on 11/28/2011, so they were married less than a month before he passed away. (Public records search) This seems to be a marriage of convenience, but even it was a romantic relationship, it is none of our business."

______________________________

I don't think I am far off base......Married less than 1 month before he dies.....Marriage of Convenience doesn't quite describe it right.....There was some kind of plan....

Not too long ago, everyone was all slobbering and teary eyed over a warm and fuzzy story of an adoption of an infant that was finalized 8 minutes before the guy died....(his time of death according to the "Home HealthCare worker", who knew the wife was at the Courthouse pushing to get the Adoption "in time".... Right AFTER she got the call it was finalized, she noted the time of death. )

The new widow was 45....gets a similar~ $3,400/month payment for the next 18 years and magically the same year those benefits run out....she is old enough to get her Spousal Survivors benefits for the rest of her life.....about $1.4 Million overall......The guy had even said he was hoping that they got it done in time so they would get his benefits.....

Hey, Mike, Wow! Less than a month - that looks so bad... Look, maybe I seem naive or as if I have on "Rose colored Glasses" but I can't stand all the insanity going on in this country and it would be sad if this was one big scam. My bet's on you - I def think you got it right but I sure am hoping my add on to the theory is wrong. Thanks for the update and the info on the other case - It's a mad, mad world we live in...

@Blood - I don't think I'd be that surprised at what I would find as far as age of consent laws - I know all the states laws vary but at the same time some of the laws that are on the books are older than dirt and need to be updated. I know that 98% of the time things are "Consensual" but at the same time most kids under a certain age do not truly know how damaging the consequences of that consent can be - like it or not we need to go back to the time when children were children not mini adults - I have a 15 year old niece that is only allowed to wear lipgloss, can not wear high heels, is not allowed to date, needs her friends to be approved and has to be in bed by 9 - that may be extreme but with all the craziness out there I'll take that any day compared to her hanging on a corner or walking into a family party with a 21 year old "boyfriend", more makeup than a stripper and a skirt that shows her stuff that shouldn't be shown. Sorry, but this girl was 17 when she got pregnant and if the guy was over 21 then Consensual or not it was a form of rape.

No person appointed me the liberal spokesperson.

I'm merely giving a moderate view.

As a conservative, do agree that all abortion doctors should be shot dead as they go to work? Do agree that all mosques should be burned to the ground? Do you think other countries should be nuked upon any disagreements with the United States?

I have not singled anyone out as a radical extremist, liberal or conservative. However, you point to a few liberal extremists and have them represent all liberals as a whole.

It is, as I've stated, that most liberals oppose the right to bear weapons of mass destruction.

LogicReguired

Congradulations. You found one law in one district. Still, it doesn't account for the rest of the United States.

As mentioned above, most liberals oppose the right to bear weapons of mass destruction.

This liberal has a 9mm with a 16 round clip and a proud owner of a C&CW license. That should be efficient enough to deter any threat I could have. I don't have a need for a bazooka.

Someone above said, "she just removed any obstacles that may interfere with her getting those survival benefits"

Nah, I think the guy removed that obstacle himself, when he spent 20 minutes forcing his way through a barricaded door, then charged a woman and infant while brandishing a- what was it, 5 inch?- hunting knife.

Are we seriously implying, here, that she somehow planned it out that way? Like, she's telling him, "Okay, Imma sell you the old man's meds, but only if you spend like half an hour breaking down the door, and then charge me with a hunting knife. Also, I will be watching you the whole time down the barrel of two guns, but don't worry, we're just playin' pretend. Go!" But deep deep down inside, she's really thinking, "Ha ha ha! Wile E Coyote, SUPER- genius!"

tiredofhypocrites....you're being obtuse! I'm not saying Manson should not be serving time for the crime(s) he actually committed. What I'm saying is that he's serving a life sentence for "conspiracy to commit murder" for the deaths actually committed by his "family". How is it fair to make the punishment for conspiracy the same as the punishment for murder? Heck, if just planning or thinking about doing crimes is the same as actually doing them, I dare say half of America should be locked up!

Truth be told, though, I'd love to have dinner with the man, just so he can relate what in the world was going through his head. Demented? Probably. Interesting? Most certainly.

@Bosslimo

However, you point to a few liberal extremists and have them represent all liberals as a whole.

First off I'm not a conservative. Second YOU were the one painting with the broad brush not I. Many liberals are unhappy with the gun laws in this country and it's not just the extremists who want major changes. Your examples are so far off base they're not even in the stadium, laughable even. I know many more conservatives than liberals, none of the cons have ever expressed the sort of views you use in your examples, nothing even close. Half of the libs Iknow would like stricter gun control. Some want handguns banned because they are only good for killing people. Some want huge taxes on ammo. I know one guy who believes if your gun gets stolen you should be convicted as an accessory if it is used to commit a crime. Nuke other counties over a disagreement, give me a break. I've always said, if you have to use gross exaggeration to make your point, you never had a valid point to begin with.

Heck, if just planning or thinking about doing crimes is the same as actually doing them, I dare say half of America should be locked up!

Ummm, that's not at all what happened. He planned the murders AND THEN THEY HAPPENED. Do you really not see the difference? If a sicko can con others to commit the crimes for him you really believe he should be held to a lesser sentence because he didn't hold the knife himself? Really?

You people are dumber than rocks, in rural areas it could take hours to get a sheriff out to you.

And this a America, you can fall in love with whom you like whatever age. Mind your own business.

Felony - Murder Law; in the commission of certain types of crimes, if any person is killed, all those other persons who aided or abated in the commission of the crime are deemed guilty of Murder.

REALLY? So if they would have gotten in and she did not have that gun and the two of them killed her and the baby would they both be wanted for 1st degree murder? And you would be getting the lynch mob ready for some blood for these two. So why can't he be charged for it even if it was his partner in crime who got killed they were breaking into that house with a large knife that is intent to kill if you ask me. His intent was to harm someone in that house no matter if they planned to kill her they planed to harm her. He should be charged just as he would have, had he finished his crime.. End of story.. He was going to harm her and her baby too. He is not Innocent of his partners death. He is just as responsible for his partners death as his partner was of his own death and he should be charged accordingly.

Backcountry164

They are more than views. Abortion doctors have been killed headed to work. Mosques set ablaze at night. Every single one of the republican candidates except Ron Paul would attack Iran. Just because you don't associate yourself with the extreme doesn't mean they aren't there. Gross exaggeration? Try actual facts.

The point I was making was that most liberals understand the need for the 2nd amendment. I know many conservatives and none adhere to the extreme in their politics. The same is said for the liberals and their political views that I know.

Gun control to moderate liberals means controlling the weapons made specifically for war, not self defense.

If you think the number of liberals who would like to see major bans on firearms is equal to the number of conservatives who want to murder abortion doctors you're living in la-la land.

You must have misunderstood me.

I used the extreme examples above to show that liberals do not believe in total ban on weapons. My point was that the fringe of liberalism may indeed believe in it but most do not.

I was not saying that the number of extreme conservatives equaled the amount of extreme liberals wanting major bans on weapons.

The concept fails to point out what you mean by major as well. Banning 30 rounds a second weapons might be major to some. Is banning armor piercing bullets major? How about the registration of a hand gun?

I stand by my first opinion. Most liberals are not opposed to the second ammendment. Most liberals do want a ban on weapons of mass destruction.

Backcountry164...

Ummm, that's not at all what happened. He planned the murders AND THEN THEY HAPPENED. Do you really not see the difference? If a sicko can con others to commit the crimes for him you really believe he should be held to a lesser sentence because he didn't hold the knife himself? Really?

Yes, REALLY!! Look, I'm making the assumption that you're a conservative here. Let me ask you...do you, as most every conservative does, believe that YOU are responsible for your own actions? If so, how can Manson be directly responsible for the Tate/LaBianca murders? Responsible enough to get a sentence that is the same as if he was plunging the knife in himself. These "family members" who did the killings were ultimately responsible for their own actions.

A bit hypocritical of you, isn't it?

You dont really need to be Annie Oakley when you are dicussing point blank range with a 12 gauge 00 full choke. But she does deserve an atta-girl for taking out a real POS. And another one bites the dust!

The second post from Doug confuses me why would we be housing this scumbag in a federal prison since he committed a crime at state level. Unless she lived on a reservation on on base at Fort Sill murder is a local crime. Oklahoma has a state prison system. Ain't much room to miss in a single wide.

What? Is that English?

Any Real American knows that's "Dirty Harry"----Clint Eastwood

"Ah-ah, I know what you're thinking punk. You're thinking did he fire six shots or only five? And to tell you the truth I've forgotten myself in all this excitement. But being this is a .44 Magnum - the most powerful hand gun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question--Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya punk!" Clint Eastwood (Harry Callahan) in Dirty Harry

The 5 shot .454 casull magnum or .600 nitro express is the most powerful revolver and is guaranteed to break a lesser man or woman's wrist when fired.. I think the .45-70 is the biggest factory single shot and who knows what a gun smith might be talked into.. Maybe a .50 cal. BMG ?? That would be an arm breaker for sure..

RoadrunnerO I have both the .50 in Desert Eagle and .50 Beowolf in AR-15 format. Both kick but not bad. The Desert Eagle is much worse. Both can take out cars but could be used on Druggies that need to be stopped when kicking down a door. They won't break your arm though.

No this is the most powerful hand gun. :p

as a public service to our readers, Guns and Shooting Online has developed the .825 G&S Online Express Magnum cartridge. Proportionally similar to the .44 Remington Magnum in shape (see the photo at the top of this article), the .825 could be described as a .44 Magnum on steroids--lots of steroids!

The .825 G&S Online Express Magnum, with an actual bullet diameter of .823", provides a realistic 0.323" increase in bore diameter to kill elk and other North American big game animals and keep them dead. This is the cartridge that separates the girley men from the real men....

Calculated recoil in our 5.25 pound test pistol amounts to only 92.9 ft. lbs. for the Standard (1280 fps) load and a somewhat more interesting 125.6 ft. lbs. for the Premium (1610 fps) load. We feel that any experienced handgunner with hair on his or her chest should be able to handle that level of recoil energy without complaint. After all, recoil is what puts the kick in shooting!

This, then, is the .825 G&S Online Express Magnum cartridge, the most powerful handgun cartridge in the world. Not available in stores.

BIKEBOY Good to meet you, yep the muzzle blast from a desert eagle can blow your hair back in that caliber.. A 100 pound woman might disagree with you as that is a lot of kinetic energy in those recoils.. Control and twitch might make that iron tough on some as well.. Those are not revolvers and still are pop toys compared to a .50 BMG round.. Maybe that TV gunsmith would do it for the shock and awe effect on the shooter.. I have had many a soar wrist and palm from shooting a big caliber revolver 50 to 100 times and I am a big guy.. I know a few tough gals that could outdo me but even they have to admit that's a lot of gun.. Mt favorite was a 44 magnum super blackhawk I bought in Texas and would shoot 350 grain soft point hand loads now it is a cowboy ..44Anything is better than nothing and some say a 9mm is not a man stopper and to a point they are correct.. But using the right ammo - hollow point - and several shots in quick succession will get the job done.. Every woman I know except for one who is too skittish to even handle a weapon can point and squeeze using a 9mm.. I don't shoot anymore because of bad back problems but could do a one or 2 round tap if it were me or the bad guy.. Enjoy......

Holy smoke that is a huge caliber and when you get to these big brutes the test to allow you to shoot one should be a one handed catch of the head of a 3 pound sledge swung at you.. But I would still like to see someone shoot a .50 BMG handgun..

BASSAI Sorry that .825 is not a real cartridge.. Just silly writing from bored scribes..

Road runner0;

Such a single shot handgun exists in .50 BMG and .408 Cheytac. Developed on a very large break action like a contender, it has a 15" barrel and huge muzzle break, Weighs 15 pounds. Come on down the Commerce Oklahoma next Aug and you can shoot it. The recoil is about the same as firing a 12 magnum shotgun with just the pistol grip. And it is very accurate out to around 500 yards.

BASSAI Sorry that .825 is not a real cartridge..

Allow me to emphasize my last comment from above.....

:p

You do a home invasion, you deserve it if you die. Dave the doubter, you said it alright. Break into some ones house, Die, Mother Fu*ker, Die. There is never an excuse to break into some one else's house, let alone try to break in when a mother is home alone with her baby. She should be given Hero Status, and the surviving douche bag should never, ever, see the light of day again. And hey folks, this is coming from a so called liberal. It is one area that other countries truly have us beat. I guess you can't truly be a Christian, with out that eye for an eye thingy.... I guess that makes me a Christian, as I would take his eye. He never managed to finish his crime, and only got so far, but God finally caught up to him, and justice was served, an eye for an eye. Good Day All.

I'm not sure the authorities got it right, I wonder how far away she lives that they couldn't get to her in 20min. Wait, maybe knowing she had guns, they did get it right ;) What gets me is that anyone anywere would be charged. Thats the real story. Glad everything turned out ok in this case.

I wonder how far away she lives that they couldn't get to her in 20min.

Not surprising. We clock emergency response time with a calendar.

I was hoping a few politicians would break into my home.

Depending on OK law the other guy might be put to death. In CA, Felony Murder is a Capital offense punishable by death.

BASSAI That is what we got from our sheriffs department when my wife called after some jerk threatened to kill them when I was at work.. They told her to have a gun ready and if the person entered the house to point it at them and squeeze the trigger.. Once that transpired then call them back and they would come out and file a report.. A short barreled rifle is a better choice for a woman over a hand gun as any real man stopper rounds would be a lot for most women to handle.. The AR15 or AK47 with hollow point or soft point rounds are definite man stoppers at 25 yards or less.. A shotgun with buckshot would be the alternate choice but that is more up close and personal.. I carry a .44 in the house with soft wad cutters that will splatter on impact..

Has anyone taken up a collection to replace this woman's door and cleaning up the blood?? Every state is different but some have victims funds that do this.. If I was 30 years younger and single she would be the kind of gal I would want to court..

RoadrunnerO;

Why not teach women to shoot? As someone clearly did with this young woman. I taught my wife, sons and daughters to shot. Wife carries a Colt commander 38 super, the rest carry a 9mm or .40. My youngest won 6 long range rifle comps in 2011. She shoots a .408 Cheytac I built for her. I carry an Officer model in .45. My answer to the question why do you carry a .45 is "Because they don't make a .46" The kids also took Ti Qwan Do from age five, and maintain the tradition with their kids. I've been having a ball teaching the Grands and greats gun safety and to shoot. Teach them young and gun "accidents" don't happen. They know they aren't toys, they know what they do, so there's no mystery.

The world is a crappy place, too many freaks wandering around. I thought it my responsibility to prepare them to deal with them in a meaningful way. 911 is state sponsored dial a prayer. If you live out in the sticks, like we do and this woman does, it take s a while for the sheriff to get there. If you can't take care of yourself, you may be out of luck.

Miner forty niner otherwise known as another dumb city boy who doesn't realise we aren't all packed up like sardines in the heartland, Yes cops take time Sometimes they are 15 to 30 miles away when you call.

I've lived in the backwoods of Kentucky and in downtown Cincinnati.

Everything in the country is much slower in pace. The cities rely heavily on police. The country relies on individuals, and the police just sort out the chaos.

I can't say you go girl, because it had to be hard. I can say, Justice Served.

I agree that this woman had every right to defend herself in this situation. I don't believe she should be charged with murder. That said, there sure are a LOT of inconsistencies with the many stories released about this incident.

The woman claims she didn't know the man at all. Meanwhile, her neighbors have stated publicly that both men worked with her husband on the property that her trailer is on. I believe that not only did this woman know the intruders, but she knew why they were there... that's why she kept asking if it was okay to shoot them.

We are continually told that the man "charged" her. Meanwhile, his body was found slumped over the couch. She was waiting for him to get the door open. As soon as he did... BAM. The guy didn't even get over the couch in front of the door before he was taken out. Charged her? More like got the door open.

It takes the average 6th grade boy about 3 kicks to bust a front door in. Unless you have a floor lock, any kid can kick a dead bolt through the door frame, ESPECIALLY on a trailer. So... two strong men needed 20 minutes to get through that door? Not buying it.

I'm NOT defending these guys. They clearly weren't Mormons doing missionary work. All I am saying is there are a LOT of inconsistencies with the many stories out there and I'm not exactly sure what to believe. There's WAY more to this story than meets the eye.

She had ABSOLUTELY every right to defend her self!!!!! To his immediate family members, my saddest condolences, but at the same time, Fu*k him, he got what he deserved. I would say the exact same thing if this were my brother or son who did this @!$%#ed up bull sh!it. He deserved to die, trying to break into some one elses home.

I tried to edit responsibly, but I guess it got through any ways... lol

i doubt she would have NOT shot the guy if she wasnt a mother. she would have shot him regardless,as she should have. i would have done the exact same thing and im not a parent.

Rachel-2393811

You just don"t mess with a momma bear...

...especially a momma bear with a 12 gauge.

Way to go Momma Bear!!!

It would be nice to know if a fund has been set up for her and her baby in case her hubby wasn't able to leave her anything. I would most certainly donate!!!

Oldgraymare, I was wondering the same thing! She certainly is going to need more than money after having to KILL another human being in order to protect her baby and herself. I am very proud of this brave young mother and I can only imagine how frightened she was.... I was a single mom, living in the country and often wished I had a gun. I now have a 12 guage and know how to use it!

This is why families should teach their children how to defend themselves.. So when they are on their own they have an equalizer and know how and when to use it.. It is a sad state of affairs when a person is on the phone for over 20 minutes with the police and help never shows up.. Neighborhood groups are better and a call to them would have 5 armed neighbors over in 2 minutes or less.. So much for the cops we are all on our own..

If you came into our farmhouse and got by the wolf mix dogs the first line with the high power pellet guns you would have met the three archers with compound bows and been sat on and licked to death by the 150lb lap dog we kept in the house.As for neighborhood groups my nearest neighbor was 3/4 of a mile away The next one was 1 mile away across a US highway heavy with truck traffic.

She did; people are sending gifts.

forget age/ real tragedy suffer loss of spouse child if robber won/sounds like departed spouse may have been father figure /thank god he taught use gun/save her and child. extreme force sanctioned:)unlike with g bush mission accomplish she does not miss

I would gladly donate something if I knew how. Anyone have info?

This occurred the next town over from me and out here, that boy should have known he would get shot. I am glad she and her baby are alright and she had the strength to not be a victim. If you or anyone else would like to help this widow and her child, follow this link to the local news page for information.

ok, so I guess MSNBC doesn't like to have links attached to my comment... try koco.com and there is a link there about how to help this woman.

What I don't understand is the laws which she might have faced if she lived in my State. The first thing they ask you is did you know the victim, had he ever been to your house, did he have a weapon you could see, is your gun registered, why didn't you call the police? If you don't have the right answer to every question you can be charged with manslaugther. I tell all of my friends better the breaker in be a statistic than me. We recently had a man who killed a would be car jacker, armed an all, charged with manslaughter because he choose to protect his life and car. The car jacker had a record of car theft. He pleaded guilty to a lesser penalty with probation but now he can't carry a weapon which he was licensed to do when he shot the thief. Then I had a life long friend run over by a hit and run driver and killed. That was nearly a year ago, you guessed it the police have no information. Shades of CSI, if they ever catch him he'll probably be charged with vehicular homicide given a slap on the wrist and sent home to his wife and kids. What a system. If it had been me I would have never called 911, and the thug would have been placed in somebody's garbage bin for burial at the nearest landfill. Let him answer the police's questions.

N.C. Thornton... you need to move to Oklahoma. Our law says NOTHING about whether the perp had a gun or knife. The law states that you do NOT have to egress (run and hide OR back down) and you are within the law to use deadly force if you or your family is confronted with the same (deadly force) and you fear for your (or your families) life. I'm not a lawyer and I hope I paraphrased that correctly but you get my point.

There is a lot of information missing on the second person., He may have been at the door with the one that got shot. and when the first one was shot he turned and ran. If this is so he is guilty also. But if she was on line with 911 for 20 minutes where were the police? Did she live in the country? I feel sorry for the girl. She did what she had to do, but will have to live with the act of killing someone no matter how much of a scum bag, it will be hard and she will need some psych. help. I live in the country and have a gun and a rifle, and yes would use it if had to. I really don't know how politics got into this conversation, don't really think it has anything to do with it,. I am a moderate and don't belong to any party. A lot has to do with how you are raised with use of guns and gun safety courses if have one in the house. It is a good thing she had the gun or she would have been dead and if baby was crying it would have been dead also. The article never said when the police got to her home. Where were her neighbors? If lived in trailer park. lots of questions. Think I would get rid of any drugs in the home and let it be known don't have any left from my home. I feel sorry for the girl for what she has gone through and will go through. She did the right thing even would be right if no baby to protect herself.

There's alot that's yet to be said here, now im not siding with the suspects "so dont get your panties in a bunch" and thank god her & the child are ok.. but.... 1- what was the relationship between this girl and these 2 guys hmmmmm !!??? Not for nothing but I listened to the 911 tapes and she appears pretty calm for just your "typical break-in"....

2- Sounds more like she was "calmly" asking advice from the 911 dispatcher whether to kill or not kill, as opposed to stressing urgency for the police to come, ya know???.. its like looking up in the law book on grandma's shelf, "just so you'll know what you can get away with" before going out to commit a felony...

Now Im sure ill catch alotta flack from you gun slingin'-child marryin'-good ole boys out there in the OK corral....but before everyone decides to play @$!*-house lawyer or LEFT/Right congressman, just think first kiddies k ???

NC Thornton,

Do you live in Virginia? Sounds like it. In this state, the burden of proof that you feared for your life (the only way you can use lethal force if someone breaks into your home) is totally on you. Yeah, can you believe it? If someone breaks into your home in the state of Virginia, it is recommended that you either run or comply with the scum bag who broke into your home. I need to move to OK.

I live in Texas if he breaks into your house you can shoot the bastard. But since I currently live in a quiet neighborhood in a quiet town with a decent PD I leave it to the police. If I lived in the country there would be a loaded shotgun over the door and every punk in the area would know it.

flwrstx - my thoughts exactly - little beautiful girl and your lovely baby - get an education and get on with your life - you are a survivor - you'll do well

Age aint nothing but a number, however old he was he taught her how to protect herself and her child. I only hope she can live this nightmare down and get on with her life. She doesn't sound like she relished taking a life and in doing so it is a traumatic experience no matter what the circumstances. She needs to be comforted by all who know her that she did the right thing under the circumstances.

yeah how old was she when he started courting her...10? 12? She probably called him uncle kenneth for years before marrying him.

Ya"ll are foolish! So the guy is 58! What of it? Do you imply that he was some sort of "child molester" ?

Is it just "gross" for you to imagine them together?

Are you young guys just jealous because the "old guys" are not relinquishing to you the domain which you think you and ONLY YOU deserve? (younger women).

I too am 58 and my beautiful wife is 25 yrs old and expecting our second child.

She is a nurse and we spend time equally between the U.S. & her home country.

If you can't stand the competition, don't compete! Just quit trying to ridicule or shame older men into not competing. MILLIONS of intelligent, beautiful, successful younger women are very HAPPY to have found secure, successful, handsome, loving "older" men who can provide for their needs.

P.S. My wife does not depend on me financially...nor I her!

Please lets not forget this young lady protected herself and her child as she should have. Why she married an older man is her business whether for love, security or "whatever". Folks stay on the topic of the crime and result instead of the age of her deceased husband.

Some of us still have morals and traditions. I think its more than inappropriate that he was married to someone half his age. Foolish too, most people that are 18 will want something completely different out of life at around age 23. With a baby that just sets up another broken home, a baby without a father, a father who can't survive because of child support payments, ect, ect. Oh wait this poor child doesn't have a father because he already passed away. Traditions are our guides in life for a reason, you give yours away and then complain at how the world owes you a paycheck because you can't survive on your own.

MINER, you CORRECTLY said,"I THINK" its inappropriate..." you're welcome to your opinion, as we all are and should be in this country. You are not however, welcome to impose your so-called morals and traditions on the rest of us! Your very narrow and pompous view, "Some of us still have morals..." only shows the rest of the world how many "better-than-thou" idiots there are left in this world who think they are "righteous" enough to lecture to rest of us about how "immoral" we are, and to dictate what our "morals" should be. I dare say I know MANY more people in this world who are more "moral" than even you! You must be one of those liberal/democrat/"progressives" masquerading as a Conservative Christian in an attempt to make them all look stupid!

Her personal story may be complex and beyond some peoples understanding.. I am guessing that Marrying age down there is 16.. She may have been an unwed mother and married this guy so she could have health insurance and a place to live.. I don't know and don't really care.. For all we know she ripped these guys off promising to sell them drugs and took their money.. Maybe the truth will surface later and maybe it will not.. Or maybe there is nothing and it is as simple as it seems.. As for being calm on the phone, some people can get to a state of fear that actually calms and steadies them.. Ask war veterans, during fire fights some people scream in fear and some become calm zombies that become killing machines..

She is 18. Her baby is 3 months old. 9 month gestational period. The old man was a child molestor, no way about it. You have sex with someone under the age of 18 at his age, that makes you a scumbag. Depending on her current age now, she may have been 16 when he bedded her.

I bet her parents are proud...

Wraith, good point! I am about to "Google" the ages for legally marrying in OK., some states are ridiculously young. Someone @ work today said it was like 15 & 14 in some states like Alabama & Tenn. These must be vestiges of some sort of laws back in the Civil War days or something...that need to be changed!

say nay, if you google 'age of consent by state' in Wikipedia, you'll find that the age of consent for all states is 16-18 (varying state to state). Alabama and Tennessee's age of consent is 16, as is Oklahoma. And may I ask how old you were when you first had sex? I'm betting you didn't wait till you were 18.

That's it. There're the true humanitarians coming out.

It's none of your business why they were married. There are plenty of people who marry when they are of age AND close to each other's age, and they still suck at it. So for all you guys know, they were very happy together. For all you know, he may have just married her just to give her a better life with no sex involved. There are a million reasons why they may have been together...but it's none of your busness, so try and not worry about what's going on out there. I'm sure you have your own problems to correct, and maybe a few embarrassing ones at that.

RE: comment 11.9 by Wraith

She is 18. Her baby is 3 months old. 9 month gestational period. The old man was a child molestor, no way about it. You have sex with someone under the age of 18 at his age, that makes you a scumbag. Depending on her current age now, she may have been 16 when he bedded her.

Who says that this man ever 'bedded' her? - to use your rather antiquated terminology.

1.) I have not read anything --here or anywhere else-- that indicates that this girl's husband is the biological father of her child.

2.) Being married does not automatically = a sexual relationship... especially given the circumstances.

He was ill enough to have DIED within a month of their marriage, and, apparently, was in hospital for most of that time as he had been admitted 'earlier that month' (December). So, just because these two decided to become legally married does not mean that their relationship had ever been, or ever became, a sexual relationship.

Miner thinks an @!$%# like my "father" same age as my mother who walked out on her while pregnant and never paid child support would've been better age has nothing to do with it. And she inheirited the trailer and land.

When seconds count, cops are minutes away. Police protection is a myth. The reality is, you and only you are ultimately responsible for your own protection.

That is a very good question, Jackie, especially since the 911 dispatcher knew the young mom was alone and had a gun. The intruder could have overpowered her, taken the gun(s) and shot her and the baby with them. What if she didn't have a gun??? That guy would have killed her before the cops got there. The police department in that town is a disgrace!!

Glenn - I live in Washington State punched in 911 instead of 411 - and got a third degree - took time to insure them I was OK - lived in Virginia my husband was in the attic with insulation had an asthmatic attack fell into our glass coffee table - called 911 -they were there in 6 minutes- 69 stitches -

These are our first responders - they save lives - yet they want to cut them

It depends where you're at, maybe this girl was out in the boondogs?

I used to live out in the country, was at least 30 minutes away from the first sign of habitation, another 10 for civilization.

21 minutes must've seemed like a lifetime for the young mother. What a nightmare. I'm glad that it had a happy ending....at least for her and her baby. She should be given a medal and made a spokesperson for home invasions.

deleted

In answer to 12.2, why must some, always find blame, You don't have one fact but you know the police were at fault, or the 911 operator, The blame can be placed squarely on the man trying to break in, he broke in, he crossed the threshhold of the door. He's dead, go dig him up and tell him he should have planned everything differently, he should have called 911 and told them what he was going to do and told them you have ten minutes to get here or I'll be a dead man.

I worked for 6 years on the graveyard shift for a drugstore. In those 6 years, I was robbed at the register 5 times. Once, the robber had a knife, and another time the robber had a gun.

If the dispatcher had been told that the intruders had weapons, the odds are the police would have arrived sooner. That was the case each time for me at work. The police arrived in 3-5 minutes versus 20+ minutes.

And Shuklack makes a good point. If you live too far away for the police to arrive quickly, that can't be helped.

Barbara is also right. Tucson, AZ, a city of nearly one million people, recently cut 25% of its police force because citizens wouldn't approve a 1/2 cent increase per dollar on their taxes. Tucson can't afford to lose officers. Crime is already too high.

Why was flbikerchick collapsed? She has a valid point: it's those pesky unions who are to blame for the bad economy. You know, fire, police, teachers, etc. The ones who protect and teach us. You know, our friends and neighbors.

I'm with you, flbikerchick.

OBTW, I'm a liberal, but would strongly advise against trying to break into my house.

Lots of people are questioning why it was 20+ minutes and still no police...It's possible that it wasn't bad policing...not everyone lives in cities or suburban areas where help can be there within minutes...she likely lived in a rural area.

I bet they got there within 2 minutes after they heard the gunshot on the 911 call.

Being New Years Eve, they probably didn't want to leave their DUI checkpoints!

20 minutes on the phone with 911? Where were the police? I'd like an update to this article that explains why it took them so long. I'm not putting any blame on 911, the police, the dispatcher, or anyone else. It was the two criminals' fault, nobody else's. I'm just wondering WHY?

Even in populous northeastern states there are whole counties that depend on one or two state police cars to patrol the entire county, or the parts of it sometimes unprotected because they have a part time police department. It can easily take thirty minutes or more to get from one end of the county to the other, even with lights and siren. You can only go so fast on winding country roads, or you don't get there at all. If the one or two cars are already on another call, say a crash or domestic, it may not be possible to leave that scene without endangering the victims of that incident.

Are you serious flbikerchick? I'd like to know where you heard that considering MANY of us SUPPORT our first responders, and some of us may even BE first responders.... lets go ahead and not spread false information...

K-727, to answer your question, and address the issues so many seem to have with the more than 20 minute response time: for rural areas such as this one, it is in a somewhat remote location. Typically in these areas, there are no local police but only county sherriff deputies that respond to calls. Since these deputies cover whole counties, the nearest one available can easily be an hour away at any given time. Sometimes rushing to a location doesn't seem like rushing when coming from a long distance!

We live in a simi rural area just outside a major city. On 3 occasions We have called 911 2 for fire and 1 for the Sheriff. On all three occasions it took more than 20 minutes for the responders to reach our house. Its just a fact of life is you want to live in a less crouded environment.

I am so tired of the '21 minutes and the cops weren't there??' questions!!!! THE HOUSE IS IN THE COUNTRY, PEOPLE! Not everyone lives in a town or city. There are lots of places in this country much farther from police protection that this little Oklahoma town. I live in a rural area and 21 minutes would be a great response time. The nearest 'town' is only 2 miles away, but doesn't have police. The next nearest place, with a force, is 20+ miles away, in another county. For police in my county to get to me it is a 40 mile drive, unless they happen to be nearby. Even then, it is a long, dark drive down my driveway (1/2 mile long), with no street lights. We don't lock our house because we figure if someone wants our stuff that much and can find the house ;), then they are welcome to it. They can come get it and at least I won't have to replace the door when they're done. If I'm there though, they'd better watch out for the very large dogs and the shotgun.

Glen You are so right. When seconds count they are minutes away. You can be dead clinging to the phone by the time they get there and the killer is long gone. In cases like this seconds count and If she did not have that gun she could have been killed and her infant child along with her. The only one that can protect you and your family is you.

I lived in a town with one police officer on his day off you waited for the sheriff. Their office was 17 miles away one time the mayor came to try to control the situation till the deputies arrived. People we don't all live in NYC and most of us don't want to.

Charleyfarley,

The DA mentioned that there would be no charges against her because someone probably asked him. In Oklahoma and about 30 other states the law is very clear, if someone comes into your house with intent, you have the right to use deadly force, period, end of story.

Under Oklahoma law, she didn't break any laws.

Yeah - give the dirty harry crap a rest. Wasnt funny the first time you posted it - not funny now.

And no - you cant just go out shooting"punk scum". If they threaten you or are in your house then yes.

I agree with most if the posts here about self defense and protection of home and castle.I live in Indian and just found out the there is NO self defense provision in the law here.I had always thought that "if they were found here at night they would be found here in the morning".Boy was I wrong.If I was to terminate with extreme prejidice an intruder in my house,I could (and probably would) be charged with murder. Just gotta be careful where you are at.

@sparky46514 - I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure where you got your information about Indiana not having a castle provision. According to Indiana Code 35-41-3-2, you absolutely have the right to use deadly force to "prevent serious bodily injury" to yourself or a third person. A link to the code for you:

As always, be responsible, but don't hesitate if your life is in danger. As the 911 dispatcher said, "You have to do what you have to do."

As my dear old dad used to say: Regardless of the law, if you're being attacked, shoot to kill....no wounding and maiming, that just pisses "em off....and I would rather YOU (meaning my siblings and me) be put on trial for the murder of a "bad apple" than the other way around, and it's YOUR word against a dead man's word.

I marvel at the resolve this young girl showed, and she is absolutely correct in saying there is "nothing more dangerous than a mother protecting its child." I am glad they're both OK. It's chilling to think of the possible outcome had she allowed those two to get inside with her and her baby.

According to the atricle she did not shoot the robber until he broke down the door and was on his way to attatck her with a knife. I used to live over 20mins from police with three children ,Never thought about it till we needed them as people were shooting across our property from the road to get the geese in a field adjacent to us . We moved.

We need to donate to get this girl a house where she can raise her baby in a better enviroment . I think she will be having many sleepless nights in that trailer .

Yeah he might get to shoot up one last time before being checked out permanently.

The article clearly stated that her husband died of lung cancer and the men might have been looking for prescription pain killers he may have been on.

BAJ, please read and then reread the story. The husband was on painkillers due to last stages of cancer. How cheap of you to describe a person of drug dealing when they need the drugs to help with the pain. What a total a** you are.

Way to go Barbara. Her husband was 'into' cancer. Cancer hurts. He was on painkillers. The scumbags were looking for the leftovers.

Barbara, Try reading the article before making a brainless derogitory comment like insinuating he was a drug dealer. It plainly stated he was a cancer patient. Cancer patients often are on very powerful pain killers. Many are also on medical marijuana. Druggies know this and will break into a home for the drugs.

Let's see. Probable source of painkillers from a cancer patient and an 18 year old woman alone in the house, and presumably undefended. Now, what could they possibly have had in mind?

Good for her. I'm glad she was armed and unafraid to do what she had to do.

She said she thought it took him about 20 mins. to get through door but as I think many will realize is that when we are in certain circumstances that even 5 mins feels like eternity. So it may really have been only a few mins. Also, there are parts of Blanchard that are very rural much like alot of other smaller communities, so it can take a while longer for Police to arrive.

We live in a simi rural area just outside a major city. On 3 occasions We have called 911 2 for fire and 1 for the Sheriff. On all three occasions it took more than 20 minutes for the responders to reach our house. Its just a fact of life is you want to live in a less crowded environment

She would have been charged with a crime if she had stepped outside to shoot the creep. At least manslaughter maybe murder. She did the right thing by waiting until he got inside. That makes it clear cut self defense.

I didn't say that she should step outside. I would have shot through the door if he had been trying to bust inside. I would like to think that a panel of my piers would have enough common sense to realize I was protecting my child and file no charges. Then again common sense in America is dead.

It is obvious to any fool but you, Jake, why it's murder to shoot someone outside your home. What's to stop you from picking off the neighbor that's been bugging you for years? You just call him over and pow! At your house, the result would be exactly the same as here except for one small detail -- the intruder would still be dead on the porch, but you'd be in jail and your family would be left without you. And that, Jake, is why women are oh-so much smarter than men. We know enuff to get 'er done without putting ourselves on the wrong side of the law.

I was agreeing with you until you turned sexist by saying women are smarter than men. That maybe, but you are not smarter than any men.

Oklahoma law states that you can't shoot an intruder until they enter your home. So she would've been in bigger trouble if she had shot through the door.

Plus she would have to have the door replaced.

Jake-4017360

I didn't say that she should step outside. I would have shot through the door if he had been trying to bust inside. I would like to think that a panel of my piers would have enough common sense to realize I was protecting my child and file no charges. Then again common sense in America is dead.

Your peers dont decide whether to charge you or not - they decide whether you are guilty or nor.

Just move to texas, pretty much open season as long as they are on your property and it is night time. Still even with that law it not like you hear of innocent people getting shot only the very rare bad guy.

The Oklahoma law is a "Make my Day" law that has nothing to do with inside or outside. What it does do is allow you to stand your ground. You are NOT required to escape harm (and you can not go looking for someone) plus you are allowed to use whatever force is neccessary if you or your family is threatened with deadly force and you fear for yours or their life. One good place to look at the definition of this Oklahoma law is to google "Jerome Ersland". He's the phamacist that shot a robber but he got a second gun and emptied it killing the wounded perp. He's NOW in jail... charged with 1st degree murder along with all the perps involved that lived.

Under most "Castle Law" states (Not sure whether OK has one) you are able to use lethal force to stop an imminent threat, that is, if someone is hellbent on kicking in your door, you are still legal to defend yourself before they are actually given the chance to harm you. Contrary to what Francesca-722380 insinuates, you can not simply start shooting at anyone for no cause. That is obviously still a crime, and to imply that people would do so is offensive. Give people some credit for common sense!

Not everyone lives in a metropolitan area. As has been stated countless times on this discussion board, she lives in a rural area. Another article had responses from people in the same area, stating that the home is on a rough, very rural road. I live on such a road and my house is hard to find. I'd count myself lucky if the police or fire department could get to me in 21 minutes.

Yeah you try speeding up a gravel road in the dark. We'll be calling a tow truck to get you r car out of the ditch and you'll be answering the call on foot Twenty one minutes not that bad for rural.

teascum - what do you think police are stationed everywhere - remember the cut backs - just read Detroit Police closes down their phones at midnight - how many criminals know that - thank you Governors and Republicans

So you're saying before these "cuts" - police were always prompt in arriving?

B A Jackson, atleast you read the detroit article, unlike this one!! blame Governors, aren`t some demecraps? and blame Republicans? Detroit the motor city I bet you drive a Honda!

Olahoma is a deeply Republican state. In fact, Oklahoma literally means "red people".

Nice job.... is that a miss print that her husband was 58.....

Apparently not everyone reads the article correctly. Both men where coming through the door. So Yes this man can be charged . Since a dealth happened. Weather it was planned or not. Second, the young lady was on the phone with 9 1 1 . Not the police. Totally different, police take time to get to the place.The ages between the woman and her husband has nothing to do with the case. Best of luck for this woman.First her husband now this.

I am so glad that this young woman had a gun at her disposal, and waited for the man to break in the door before shooting him. If she would have shot him outside her door the charges would be against her, and that would have been an awful shame. I do not understand, either, why after 20+ minutes on the phone with a 911 dispatcher that the police had not yet arrived. Curious about what this incident did NOT get top priority over.

There is a large age difference here between this woman and her deceased husband, but they were married. Right??? This means that her family would have had to consent to the marraige to make it legal.... Is there a maximum age difference for those that love? Does this have anything to do with what happened to her. She recently lost her husband and now has to live with shooting/killing a man. No matter the threat to her and her baby, I cannot imagine that the decison came easy or the results will not be difficult to live with.

I'm so thankful the young woman and her baby survived. I'm sorry for the loss of life, as this goes beyond the 2 men here to their families. There are surely many lives that are effected here, and my prayers go out for all of them.

Great that this teen mom shot and killed an intruder and all, but did anybody else see that her deceased husband was 58? Only in Oklahoma. Holy Jesus.

We live in a simi rural area just outside a major city. On 3 occasions We have called 911 2 for fire and 1 for the Sheriff. On all three occasions it took more than 20 minutes for the responders to reach our house. Its just a fact of life is you want to live in a less crouded environment

Not everyone lives in a metropolitan area. As has been stated countless times on this discussion board, she lives in a rural area. Another article had responses from people in the same area, stating that the home is on a rough, very rural road. I live on such a road and my house is hard to find. I'd count myself lucky if the police or fire department could get to me in 21 minutes.

This is for Willowbrook since she brought up the age difference: What the heck does that have to due with the issue at hand. Second: I am a 6'5' 250lb. military veteran male in good health and I would not have waited as long as this young girl. In today's world, the criminals have weapons superior than most initial responding law enforcement. Third: the law is correct in the murder charge on the second scumbag. People talk about what it cost to keep these scumbags in jails. has anyone who thinks this way thought about what it costs the victim for medical bills if they could have got to her with a knife or the cost to bury her? American Jails are resorts compared to other countries and allow the criminals to get healthy and bulk up to commit more crimes as soon as they are released. On that note, we need more men like the Maricopa sheriff in Arizona. Finally, it is people as yourself who look at issues not related to the case and when on a jury, feel bad for the perpatrator(s) and aquit them which in turn violates the victim one more time. What do you think she should have done, let them break in and rape her, rob her, and then kill both her and her child? Then, IF they were caught later, tax dollars would be spent on two scumbags in prison (not to mention investigations, court appointed lawyers, trials, and multiple appeals). In closining, thank God for the Second Amendment and the support of the NRA.

NYScott,

I'm with you. What does the age difference have to do with the story. I have two daughters myself and I am so thankful to GOD that he protects them every day. I am also thankful that he has taught me how to use one. I don't think I would of waited as long as this young lady did. Thank God she lived in a State with sane laws for protecting private property and life. To think if the so called "Progressives had their way this young lady would of been unarmed and her and her baby dead." Yes it is proven that when criminals know the general public is armed and equipped to handle themselves they will think twice before entering a home that is armed. Now for you criminals out there who read this article. Don't F**K with a Momma Bear and her cubs because you will die.

So what if she drives a honda thats made in Marysville Ohio. Cindy if your police officer is 20 miles away on rural roads at night 21 minutes is damn good time.

And i hope this incident doesn't screw her head up for life. Calling 911 in my state is a joke (Washington).

Sorry to make the point that it is not the anti-gun folks that are hysterical. Get it?

This is the story of a rare positive outcome of owning a gun at home. Its a shame she didnt get the fat one too.

Why, prison population needs some manboobs to love on.

tex2c2--I agree but this story will not be reported as a good thing( if at all) because it goes against all the gun banners way of thinking

Most liberals don't want to ban guns. We want to make it more difficult for people who shouldn't have guns to get them, like criminals and the mentally unstable. I don't like guns but I don't care if you have them. I just want you to have to go through all the correct and legal channels to get them. Why is that wrong?

The problem with gun laws is that they insure that honest folks follow the laws. Criminals will buy guns off the street. In countries where guns are banned, the murder rate is about the same except knives, clubs, bricks, etc. are generally the murder weapons. Note that her assailant was wielding a knife.

Donkeycat: You simply aren't paying attention to the Brady campaign, are you? They want a BAN on guns in the hands of anyone but the police (they'd ban THOSE too, if they thought they could.) Plus, it's ONLY liberals who support those morons. I suspect there are a few liberals who own guns. Most of 'em just don't want anyone ELSE to own them. I give you Rosie O'Fat, who professes to HATE handguns, yet hires ARMED bodyguards for herself and her adopted kids.

its always the ones trying to ban something that are hysterical, those of us who have what they are trying to ban simply exorcise our rights to stop them, only the paranoid ones get hysterical, or the ones who are pretty much limited and have nothing better to do so they want to make others suffer as they have, which is wrong thinking and should be fixed with therapy. nuf said.

Well, if she hadn't been armed, this piece of less-than-@!$%# and his accomplice would probably have raped her, killed her and the baby, stolen everything they could carry, and walked away to do it to someone else.

Tough girl, good instincts. Lesson to idiots: don't mess with a mother- especially if she's armed.

1/4" grouping at 20ft? That is a little lose.

I do agree with everyone that says she did the right thing. The threat of home invasion is why I have a pump action with a load of 2 bird, 1 slug in my house( at least when I live in the States). I don't care what language is your native tongue, everyone speaks pump action.

I have to wonder, since the accomplice is being charged with murder, will the CDC's mortality statistics count this as a homicide by discharge of a firearm, or legal intervention? What about the FBI's crime statistics?

I think, it would be easy for some official to say... "Someone got shot, and someone was charged with their murder... Let's count this one as a homicide by firearm."

Scott... We should ban legislation! Too many laws already.

You are a freaking Idiot too.

What reality do you live in???

Private ownership of firearms is a HUGE deterrant of crime. Where I live, Minnesota, many people own firearms of one kind or another. It is very very rare that we have any home invasions or burglaries in residental homes. Why? Because people are heavily armed here. Criminals would love to see public ownership of firearms taken away. They would love it as everyone would be pretty much defensless.

What do you think would have happened had this lady not been armed??? You think these guys were there for a cup of coffee?

You think the public should not have the right to firearms? What you gonna do when some drug crazed criminal breaks into your home? Hmmm, talk to them and counsel them that there is a better way to deal with their childhood or issues? Call the police, IF you have time to get to a phone and the criminals stand there while you call the police? If you call the police, what is the response time where you live? You know what the police will do when they finally get there? Write a report about what appears to have happened to the victims!!!

Myself, I am very clear about what I would and will do if someone breaks into my home. As my wife is calling 911, I will tell them to leave. If they don't, then I will tell them to stop, if they advance and I feel my life or lives of my family is threatened, then I will use deadly force. I will deal with the legal consequences if I have to, rather than seeing my family raped or murdered. Do I speak hypothetically? No, I have been in the situation before where someone was seriously intent on killing me, and know I will do what is necessary to survive. Hopefully a situation can be resolved without deadly force, but there are times that is the only recourse. My family and I have a right to live as much as some p.o.s. criminal who breaks into our home !!!

I started to reply to this idiot but then I realised he is so stupid it must be a plant so I will reply in kind. Please Mr home invader fill out the questioneer I placed by the door and enter all relevent background material I should use in determining whether I should shoot you. Please include any trauma you may have suffered during other break ins. Please slide completed form under the door for my perusal, Or knock politely and I will open the door. Reg you're a moron and give democrats a bad name. Plus you need to get different friends, but it looks like your friends are being re-cycled anyway.

Reginald Brown,

You sir, are an idiot. You're right, another man is dead. Another drug addict that broke into a single mothers (with an infant none-the-less) house with a 12" hunting knife is dead. What do you think their intentions were? "Give us the pills and you won't be hurt"???? Without her (defensive) actions, what we would be reading about is another case of "Mother and infant brutally raped and murdered by two men looking for deceased husbands pain medications". And you think that is what should've happened?

Sorry about your friends, but it sounds like either you need a new circle, or you condone B&E with the intent to commit bodily harm. If you would do that in my home, if my dog didn't get to you first, you would end up the same way. I am a United States Marine, and I can more than handle myself, but I would do the same thing, because I have no idea if it's just him or he has 3 buddies outside, or if he's tweaked out on drugs, etc.

Bottom line, you are an idiot.

Reginald Brown, were you being sarcastic or are you really that retarded?

smilynn, you're giving legitimately retarded people a bad name.

I would like to see this new law REGINALD BROWN is envisioning:"All friends and acquantances of Reginald Brown are free to break into homes and steal, rape and or murder without fear of being shot. Homeowners and residents should calmly sit by and wait their turn to be raped and or murdered." After all, some of these poor young men perpetrating this violence and destroying peoples lives may have had rough childhoods.

There sure are some scary people in this country.

It all started as first degree burglary! Perp 1 got killed! Perp 2 ran! Charge-first degree murder!

Sounds all correct to me!

Is this "Reginald Brown" for real? Does he really believe that people should have the right to break into another person's home and do all the raping, stealing, and killing they want without fear of their victims fighting back? Surely, he's making a very bad joke. Surely.

A couple with whom I went to high school had two sons. The older boy was killed while committing a home invasion. His baby mama was driving the getaway car, and their infant twins were in the car at the time. He was an idiot, and so is his baby mama. The boy invaded the home of someone who just happened to be armed; he got what he deserved. If the homeowner hadn't been armed, he and his family would be dead. As for the baby mama, she's in prison, of course, and the kids are in foster care because the boy's parents aren't any better than he was (apples and trees, you know). Their other son was arrested and sent to prison after he robbed his employer of several thousand dollars and a car, picked up his 8-months-pregnant girlfriend and drove to the airport. The father of these two boys is in prison now for committing armed robbery. While living in a house owned by one of my sisters-in-law (who had been the mother's best friend in high school), this "family" stole money, belongings, and prescription medications from my in-laws. The younger son (then aged 13) raped my five-year-old niece, both boys terrorized my disabled nephew, and then they tore the house to pieces and caused damage to my in-laws' house. The younger boy should be as dead as his brother. The only reason he's living is because my in-laws are totally anti-gun, and they allow people to run all over them.

It's a shame that the father and the younger son are sitting in jail, living on my tax dollars. The mother goes around to area churches, begging for food and a place to stay. Then, she gets thrown out when she's caught with drugs or steals from whoever the church sent her to stay with. She's rapidly running out of churches, and I have no idea why she isn't in jail or dead.

Those boys weren't raised right, but that did NOT give them the right to harm others. Play with fire, and you'll likely get burnt. People like this pitiful excuse of a family are why decent people NEED to be armed.

The reason the accomplice is being charged with Murder is because he was committing a crime with someone who was armed with a knife and a death occurred due to the act of said crime. If the knife wasn't present, it would not have constituted a felony and he wouldn't be charged with murder. He knew that his accomplice was armed and committing a crime and he CHOSE to participate in the crime! He was at the scene for at least the 20 minutes that she was on the phone with 911, thus he was aware and participating in the felony crime being committed. He did not flee the scene until he was aware that she was shooting at them and that HIS life was in danger, which leads me to believe that if she hadn't fired any shots he would have entered the residence and participated in whatever crimes they had intended to commit when he agreed to accompany the guy who was shot. To me the 20 minutes means that he:

A) knew that his accomplice was armed and thus as an accomplice was armed,

B) knew that they were in fact committing a crime by forcing entry into a dwelling uninvited,

C) should reasonably know that someone could be seriously injured or killed during the crime since a deadly weapon was present,

D) the 20 minutes of attempting entry also can constitute premeditation as it provided plenty of time for him to realize that the situation had escalated and that someone was going to be seriously injured or killed and the fact that they brought a weapon also implies that they intended to attack and kill the woman which meets the requirements of premeditation as the law does not state that premeditation has to occur a set amount of time before the crime is committed. As far as we know, he intended someone to be killed, just not the person who was.

We also do not know what his statement was to the police or prosecutor. Maybe he said that his accomplice and planned to break in, kill the girl (so that she couldn't id them) and steal the drugs which would serve the premeditated murder stipulations. Again, we don't know all the facts so it's amazing to me to see so many people defending the scumbag who is breaking into a house with an armed accomplice which for me is enough to make him responsible for all the crimes committed. He definitely had a part in the death that occurred and should be held accountable. That is the risk you take when you commit a crime. QUIT DEFENDING THE CRIMINALS!!!! If they had broken in and he stood by and watched his friend kill the girl would you say he only deserves to be charge with a lousy break in? If you said yes to that then I hope two idiots like these guys come visit you.