OK Teenager Kills Intruder

Interestingly, I heard an extended interview with her today on a local LA radio station. She spoke for at least 20 minutes maybe a bit longer.

http://www.kfiam640.com/pages/BillCarroll.html?article=9574415

She stated she felt she had been stalked by someone for several days with things inside the house moved and once she came home and one of the electric cords was cut up. Her friends and family tried to persuade her it was nothing and perhaps one of her widowed husband's family.

She gave quite a bit of details about her dogs. If I heard correctly, she states two ended up dead one day of each other, and then the day or day before the event, Two more disappeared and she hasn't seen them since.

On the day of the event, they were inside the trailer with doors locked when her dog started growling and facing the door. That went on for over half an hour and then the knocking started. Prior to that she had been calling her friends to see if they thought it was anything to worry about.

When the knocking loudly and forcefully started, she knew it was real and it was going to happen what she had been worried about for several days. The baby was crying loudly so she took him into the bedroom and got the shot gun and pistol and then called 911 all within a few seconds.

After talking to the 911 operator, she say she focussed on staying calm to protect her son. She says that she didn't answer the door or respond in any manner, but did prepare herself for what she needed to do to protect her son. She says she contemplated other options like running out the back door, but with a child in her arms, she knew the second person would get her and she couldn't run far. She decided to wait for the cops and otherwise she prepared to defend herself.

After talking to the 911 operator for 20 minutes, instead of banging on the door angrily, he then started to slam into the door with his shoulder. She says she heard the door pop with his second attempt. He hit the door so hard it shoved the couch barricaded against it 2-3 feet into the living room. She saw something shiny in his hand that she thought was a pistol. He closed the door behind him and looked directly at her but did not speak. She says she hesitated to shoot him knowing the consequences it would cause. She stated that she believed he fed off of her hesitation and went to aggressively throw the couch out of the way to overcome her even though she had the shotgun pointed at him.

When he went to shove aggressively the couch out of his way, she realized he wasn't going to stop and that is when she shot him in the head with the 12 ga near his left ear. He stood up possibly by reflex and then very slowly collapsed on top of the couch he had tried to shove away. She says she kept the shotgun pointed at him thinking he might be faking her out since she didn't see any blood.

A short time later, the police came and took her and her child outside. She says she felt like passing out, she couldn't focus and everything seemed out of focus and she was shaking uncontrollably.

That hopefully is a pretty accurate representation of her extended interview as best I can remember with this old mind of mine.
 
Thanks for the link to the interview.

This interview has a lot of things in it that can teach us about situational awareness and trusting your instincts.

The brain works in the background without us totally being conscious of the peices that it's putting together and the conclusions it's drawing.

For Sarah it all crystalized when Justin Martin knocked on the door. She says "I heard the knock on the door, and I knew then, that that was the moment it was all happening."

Here is an interesting part - she had only fired the shotgun one other time in her life, and wasn't even sure it would fire - but that's what she chose.

She also held the shotgun and her pistol at the same time (not sure how she did that)
 
Here's the best article I've read on the subject

Teen widow who shot dead home invader who 'wanted her late 58-year-old husband's meds' WON'T face charges

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...looking-prescription-drugs.html#ixzz1ilA4H87s


ligonierbill said:
Regards the internet rumors and "friends of the perp" defending him: A few years ago a local kid robbed a store and shot and killed a local cop who chased him. Cop was a highly respected and much loved member of the community. Kid pled guilty and is in for life, no parole. Yet to this day, some members of the community say "there's more to the story", "he had his own reasons for pleading guilty, but he's innocent", etc. There are many people who don't much care about right and wrong, they only care about "them" vs. "me and mine". Unfortunately, we're among the "them", and sometimes we need to defend ourselves.
Click to expand...



The comments of the two Pillbilly's friends on the local OK news sites are pathetic. They just can't understand why they were at fault. First it was the landlord sent them excuse, now it is dirty pool because they thought she was gone and wanted the pills, but she was home and didn't answer the door. Funny how they couldn't hear the baby crying, or possibly the dog barking. I guess the weed they were smoking and hydrocodone they took affected their hearing?

There really aren't any two ways about it, once he forced the door all bets were off. Even if everything the friends of these two clowns say is true, she still didn't force them to break in the door.

It reminds me of a few years ago when that drunk driver stuck a .41 Magnum in a LEOs face and pulled the trigger. It snapped on an already fired cartridge, then the guy fired and missed. Then the officer killed him as he drove away.

Drunk Driver Pulls Gun on Police Officer

Here's the video above, pretty cut and dried right? Well, that guys family and friends said the cop shouldn't have shot him and he was a nice guy, etc. :rolleyes:
 
The whole sheepdog analogy is way over used, misapplied, and over simplified to explain society. It does not include the large number of individuals, for example, who carry for self protection and who have no interest in trying to save all of his/her fellow humans from the bad guys.

For those of you who are sheepdogs, you will be the ones to round up the sheep for slaughter when the master tells you to do so?
Click to expand...

I have been called Devil Dog, never sheepdog:D.
I carry for protection. Protection for my loved ones, myself, my community, those who cannot defend themselves. I am not trying to save all of my fellow human beings, just those in my sphere of life. I have to live in my community, my children play there. It will be safe for them to do so. Sense of superheroism? No. Call it civic duty, responsibility, pride. I really don't care. I do know that if we keep waiting for others to take care of the problems we see, wait for police after the fact, then we show fear. That fear emboldens criminals. They already don't fear the law. If they fear the people, where then are their targets? I don't wear an "S" on my chest, I wear my heart on my sleeve.
 
For those of you who are sheepdogs, you will be the ones to round up the sheep for slaughter when the master tells you to do so?
Click to expand...

That is contrary to the concept of sheepdog, in our context here. Taking the positive attributes of a sheepdog and assigning them to people with responsibility and conviction is one thing. Equating armed citizens to obedient dogs is another and completely out of context.
 
That is contrary to the concept of sheepdog, in our context here. Taking the positive attributes of a sheepdog and assigning them to people with responsibility and conviction is one thing. Equating armed citizens to obedient dogs is another and completely out of context.
Click to expand...

Just what do you think a sheepdog is if not an obedient dog? That is exactly what they are. As near as I can tell, I am quite late in equating armed citizens with obedient dogs. The people who claim to be sheepdogs are doing it themselves.

They don't protect the sheep out of love, but in the analogy by the Vietnam vet, human sheepdogs protect human sheep out of love. The reality is that a sheepdog isn't the friend to the sheep anymore than a prison guard is to prisoners.

One aspect of the analogy does hit home, however. It notes that police, soldiers, and warriors protect society and that they are sheepdogs. We have had countless threads here where people express concern that the military and police sheepdogs of our society will be used to force us to submit to the sheepdog's master, the government, and than in many ways, this is already going on. Funny how there is so much fear in society of our police and military sheepdogs.

Out of context? What the analogy really reflects is a poor understanding of what sheepdogs do. Picking and choosing on the attributes that are positive is out of context. Hence, it is a very poor analogy.
 
Last edited:
The Dailymail story has quite a few innaccuracies.

The story states that her son is 3 years old... I am guessing that he is 3 months old.

Ms McKinley's 58-year-old husband Kenneth had died from lung cancer on Christmas Day, leaving behind their three-year-old son Justin, and an arsenal of cancer medications.
Click to expand...

An arsenal of medications? Who the heck uses that adjective to describe the number of different medications that a cancer patient is on?

Sarah herself stated that she shot Martin in the head, the story says she shot him in the torso.

Attorney Doug Frieson told Newson6.com that the law always protects someone in their home, no matter the circumstances.
‘The simple fact that you’re unauthorised in the home is enough that allows the homeowner to use deadly force.’
Click to expand...

I'm guessing they misquoted Frieson, but Whether Frieson said this or not this is an inaccurate over-simplification of the castle doctrine in OK. They left out the verbiage "right to use deadly force if necessary against an intruder when there is reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm"

I don't mean to nit pick but sloppy reporting bugs me.
 
COuntZerO said:
The Dailymail story has quite a few innaccuracies.
Click to expand...


I'm not trying to carry the Daily Mail's water for them, but its obviously a mis-print of the child's age since they have four pictures of her holding an infant.

Arsenal also means: 2. : store, repertoire <the team's arsenal of veteran players>

Perhaps because, they're British they use that word to describe things other than stores of weapons? Nevertheless, its secondary meaning is a store.

The only place I've read head shot so far was in Alaska444's recollection of a radio interview. I'm not saying he was wrong, but I have read torso in the local OK news channel web sites.


COuntZerO said:
I'm guessing they misquoted Frieson, but Whether Frieson said this or not this is an inaccurate over-simplification of the castle doctrine in OK. They left out the verbiage "right to use deadly force if necessary against an intruder when there is reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm"
Click to expand...

I remembered the attorney story, it was one of the first ones that came out.

Attorney Doug Friesen says no matter what the circumstances, the Make My Day Law protects someone in their home.

"The simple fact that you're unauthorized in the home is enough that allows the homeowner to use deadly force," said Friesen. "Without ascertaining whether there is a weapon involved or not." Attorney: Blanchard Mother Has The Right To Shoot Intruder
Click to expand...

I believe(lawyers correct me if I'm wrong) that the mere act of someone invading your home is considered prima facie evidence that they did mean you harm, or you had a very credible reason to fear they might.
 
upon further review and more articles

the intruder was indeed an idiot

his 'code' clashed with real life. I uess he had a shotgun pointed at him with a couch barricading the door after he got the door open(busted). She did NOT shoot; he still didn't get the message and after she hesitated decided to go "byzerek" again and start to roughly shove the couch away. man, this guy was a hard head. what the heck was going thru his guy's mind? (besides the shotgun blast...I guess it hit him in the head)
 
Dear Nate45 and others, you can go to the radio station link I posted and one other on that same page that has the full interview and discussion of what happened including 20 minute interview with the widow herself. She described in great detail where the shotgun blast hit the creep by his left ear. Listen for yourself and don't worry about erroneous news accounts that have a lot of details incorrect. Why would folks continue to discuss these erroneous news accounts when you can listen to a very detailed personal description of what happened on that night from the person herself. Talk about pure silliness.

http://www.kfiam640.com/player/inde...ogram_id=BillCarroll.xml&program_name=podcast
 
Last edited:
Double Naught Spy said:
Just what do you think a sheepdog is if not an obedient dog?
Click to expand...
That you could say [much less believe] such a thing is faintly disturbing, as it is completely foreign to the basic core of the concept.

Again, please read Col. Dave Grossman's article
http://killology.com/sheep_dog.htm

for that matter, please read Dave's entire precis as to both the mindset--and cost--even when killing is in the defense of undeniable right.

http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Psychological-Cost-Learning-Society/dp/0316040932
 
I believe(lawyers correct me if I'm wrong) that the mere act of someone invading your home is considered prima facie evidence that they did mean you harm, or you had a very credible reason to fear they might.
Click to expand...

You are correct. From the OK code:

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=69782

E. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter the dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle of another person, or a place of business is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

F. A person who uses force, as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsections B and D of this section, is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes charging or prosecuting the defendant.

G. A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force, but the law enforcement agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
Click to expand...

The shooter in these legitimate home invasion cases is almost never arrested. The vast majority of these good shoots never go to the grand jury. The family and friends of the late perp can petition for a grand jury. Yep, you're right: No one will sign a petition on behalf of a perp who was killed after forcefully entering a ladys home armed with a big knife.
 
I believe(lawyers correct me if I'm wrong) that the mere act of someone invading your home is considered prima facie evidence that they did mean you harm
Click to expand...

I agree but that's not what Frieson said. He mischaracterized it. Nothing about invasion, nothing about force. He said "The simple fact that you’re unauthorised in the home is enough that allows the homeowner to use deadly force." That's not what the law says. I don't want to turn this thread into a debate about castle doctrine - I'm just saying that technically, what was printed was inaccurate.
 
C0untZer0 said:
"The simple fact that you’re unauthorised in the home is enough that allows the homeowner to use deadly force." That's not what the law says.
Click to expand...
+1 ... C0untZer0 is correct (in his correction) :)

1. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in
the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully
and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle,
or a place of business, or if that person had removed or was attempting
to remove another against the will of that person from the dwelling, residence,
or occupied vehicle, or place of business; and

2. The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful
and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=HB1439

The key word in the legislation is "...unlawfully and forcefully..." [emphasis added]. In the computer world that's known as an 'AND' gate, through none shall pass unless both conditions are met.

C0untZer0 should not worry about hijacking the thread, as this is a key point which can have tragic consequences if misunderstood.
 
DNS,

I can accept that. I am the one who changed the accepted context of the definition of the Sheepdog, as we use the term.

After a brief search of the internet, it seems my context was too limited, as I did not include any uniformed protector, but the voluntary armed citizen. I believe you are correct.

Still, your question of The Sheepdog's obedience to it's Master, implies behavior contrary to The Sheepdog code (my word). In other words, when commanded to round up the sheep for slaughter, a true Sheepdog will out. It would be a fundamental test of The Sheepdog's motives and fidelity to his/her commitment. I.e., A true Sheepdog would not obey that command. Oath Keepers come to mind: military and peace officers who will honor their oaths to defend the Constitution, but will NOT simply follow orders. Of course, we sheep will not know which Sheepdogs will go which way in that instance and that is the crux. I do see a danger in sweeping indictments of the group as a whole.

All that said, I think the Sheepdog analogy is overused. We use shortcuts in reference to complex ideas which leads to disruption in discourse, because we are lazy, I guess.

;)
 
We use shortcuts in reference to complex ideas which leads to disruption in discourse, because we are lazy, I guess.
Click to expand...
[orginal ed ;) Noted ] :)

But I disagree. We use cultural shortcuts to transmit that 1,000-word descriptor in a picture.

Only in Washington DC do we need a $250,000 contract for a Beltway Thinktank to take 6 months to write, coordinate, PC-filter and publish-for-comment a Foreign Affairs treatise on the definition of "SheepDog"
:D




(postscript: I ascribe to the "citizen" aspect of sheepdog)
 
The sheepdog is an excellent analogy for military people, uniformed law enforcement officers, and (to a lesser extent) firefighters and other first responders... which, oddly enough, was exactly who Grossman meant when he created that overused word picture. He never meant to include ordinary civilians, armed or not. Some CCW people picked up his analogy and ran with it, applying it to themselves by extension, but Grossman wasn't talking to or about us. He was talking to & about military and law enforcement personnel.*

Personally, I dislike the sheepdog metaphor. A lot. I don't like it for several reasons:

  • By its nature, it's very judgmental: "Sheeple!" "Grass-eaters!" Other people, those who choose not to carry, are brainless and will-less "sheep" who must be protected by their betters. While I think carrying tools you can use to protect yourself and those around you is a responsible choice, I do not think it is the only responsible choice. I barely know what's best for me, and you want me to jump in and be enthusiastic about telling other people what's best for them? I don't think so...

  • It implies a level of responsibility to act that goes far beyond that required of regular citizens -- which can and does lead to people getting physically involved in situations that would be better handled with a discreet phone call and alert watchfulness.

  • For those who would quote Edmund Burke in response to that last point: only doing nothing is "doing nothing." There's nothing wrong with making that needed phone call and being an excellent witness, but self-proclaimed sheepdogs often require themselves and others to intervene physically rather than intelligently.

DNS is quite correct as to the purpose of a sheepdog. Yes, the sheepdog protects the flock -- but he does so at the behest of a master and for the master's purposes, purposes which the sheepdog does not know and does not need to know. The sheepdog does not act for the good of the sheep, though the sheep sometimes benefit from his actions.

The sheepdog analogy holds best when applied to law enforcement and military personnel, not to private citizens. It's good to be prepared to protect yourself and those around, but that does not mean the sheepdog analogy really fits regular people who have that mindset.

pax

* Note: from what I understand, he has since extended the analogy since so many regular people have grabbed it & run with it. I'm talking of his original use of the metaphor, not what's happened to it since or what he's said in response to public perception.
 
BTW - I also hope the surviving perp gets charged with killing those German Shepherds, not that it will add anything on to the sentence for the more serious charges, but I want him to be charged with it.

Even the dogs that were killed helped clue Sarah in that something was amiss, their presence on the property forced the criminals / would be rapists to take an additional action that they otherwise wouldn't have had to take, thus in some marginal sense they helped alert and protect Sarah.

Besides the criminals themselves, the worst thing she was probably dealing with was those people who were telling her that there was nothing wrong and it was probably her imagination or just her former inlaws harrassing her. The situation with her dogs, and her instincts were telling her she was in danger, and her family was telling her to discount those feelings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top