Go ahead, make my day...

I've recently been studying (English) law over here in Britain, and somehow it cropped up that there is a law in (i think) Oklahoma (if that is how you spell it) called the "you make my day" law (after Clint Eastwood), which says that you are entitled to shoot dead anyone trespassing on your property.

I haven't bothered to research it because I don't live in Oklahoweveritsspelled, nor intend to.

Firstly, is this true?

Secondly, if it is, then just what does it entail, and how on earth do you control it? I can think of any number of scenarios which could go wrong if this is the case.

I am a supporter of this law (big surprise… Not!). Here is an article for you clicky.

strangely enough, i am slightly sympathetic to it as well, but i dont think you should be able to kill people.

nice link btw, i am printing it out for my class!

There is a similar law in Texas that is named after Chuck Norris and involves roundhouse kicks to the face of intruders. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

There is a similar law in Texas that is named after Chuck Norris and involves roundhouse kicks to the face of intruders. :laugh4:

---

:laugh4:



bad law though...

Meh, just gives crazies a reason to use their bang stick.

I think the logic is that if someone is trespassing on your property you shouldn't have to take the time (and thence the risk) of verifying whether or not the intruder is armed and what level of threat they pose before taking decisive action to neutralize him. On the surface it makes sense, and I can't claim to have researched it much further.

I think we have this law in North Carolina, as well as concealed carry permits, though I'm not sure I haven't been here long.

Shooting a tresspasser because you think you're in danger, or because you have no time to think about it is one thing.

However, say that you're about 3 metres away from the burglar. He puts his hands, wich are empty, in the air and his facial expression says "oh shit!"
You'd still be entitled to shoot him?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

However, say that you're about 3 metres away from the burglar. He puts his hands, wich are empty, in the air and his facial expression says "oh shit!"
You'd still be entitled to shoot him?

---

Who would? The stereotypical gun-nut that the stereotypical "liberals" like to worry about is really just a meathead who likes his toys-- he's not a monster.

Of course most wouldn't. What I'd like to know is if someone could get convicted if he did shoot in that scenario.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

I am a supporter of this law (big surprise… Not!). Here is an article for you clicky.

---

I'm against this law (another big surprise... Not!). Too open to abuse.

From the article you posted:

Quote:

---

"After a few minutes, I thought that it was odd that I had heard nothing more. I took the gun from my nightstand, left my wife fast asleep and went downstairs to make sure everything was OK," he recalled yesterday.
What happened next was an experience of pure terror. As he looked through the peep-hole from the kitchen into the garage, he saw two strange men. One was pilfering from his wife's car: the other was standing at the opened door, by the tool racks.
Just as he stepped through the door to challenge the intruders, the lights went out. "It was total darkness and suddenly I was very, very scared. I fired one shot and yelled a warning. I saw one figure run off and as I went towards the driveway I saw a body in the doorway. 'Oh no!' I thought. 'He's dead.' "

---

So, let's review:

1) These intruders were not even in his house
2) Yes, they were trespassing and stealing, but they were not offering any threat of violence

What a reasonable person would have done to protect his family:

Called the police and then stationed himself at the door to the garage with his gun in hand, ready to open fire if the crooks try to enter the house.

Result: Crooks go to jail, nobody dies.

What this gun-happy yahoo did:

Opened door then fired a blind shot into the dark, thereby putting everybody in more danger.

Result: Family was in more danger because he opened the door and stepped out, giving the crooks a target if they are armed, and easy access to the house if they can kill him. 19 year old kid receives de facto death sentance for petty burglary.

The Dr. in this case is at best a very unsafe individual who should not be allowed to own a gun, and at worst a murderer. At the very least, he should be put on trial. I'm not saying he should be convicted, but he should be tried. Just as anybody who shoots somebody else should be tried, no matter where the shooting takes place.

Has anyone besides myself read the actual law concerning trespassing in the state of Oklahoma?

http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-e...ia/trespassing

The actual text of the law concerning the use of deadly force concerning invasion of a dwelling which is the primary purpose of the statue

http://www.sos.state.ok.us/documents...2R/HB/2615.pdf

There is a burdern of proof that is necessary to justify shooting a trespasser on your property regardless of what state one lives in.

I thought this law was common in the US. Anyone who comes into your property uninvited can be legally shot down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

I thought this law was common in the US. Anyone who comes into your property uninvited can be legally shot down.

---

If one was to do that - one gets to suffer the consequences of thier act in the judicial system.

There is a burdern of proof that must be meet. If during the investigation of the shooting the law enforcement officals determine that there was not a justification under the "fear for my safety" then an individual can be charged.

A law enforcement official that I know in Arkansas stated to me that if you someone breaks into your house and you shoot them, you had better make damn sure they fall dead in the house or entering the window/door. Anyother scenerio will get the homeowner arrested and charged with manslaughter.

So its not just entering onto the property - and it requires the homeowner to provide a burdern of proof to justify their action.

The way I understand it is that if you are in mortal danger from said person then you have a right to shoot them.

This paragraph worries me a bit:

Quote:

---

Just as he stepped through the door to challenge the intruders, the lights went out. "It was total darkness and suddenly I was very, very scared. I fired one shot and yelled a warning. I saw one figure run off and as I went towards the driveway I saw a body in the doorway. 'Oh no!' I thought. 'He's dead.' "

---

It sounds as if the man didn't intend to fire at someone, he just shot and hit someone. His shouting a warning and shooting at the same time would make me think he was firing a warning shot but seeing as he actually hit someone it was an unaimed or badly aimed shot. Although I think he had a right to defend his property especially because he had identified them as intruders he should have been less reckless with his gun. If he had shot with the intent to kill/wound that's one thing, but a lethal warning shot is another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

This paragraph worries me a bit:

It sounds as if the man didn't intend to fire at someone, he just shot and hit someone. His shouting a warning and shooting at the same time would make me think he was firing a warning shot but seeing as he actually hit someone it was an unaimed or badly aimed shot. Although I think he had a right to defend his property especially because he had identified them as intruders he should have been less reckless with his gun. If he had shot with the intent to kill/wound that's one thing, but a lethal warning shot is another.

---

There is a law in Texxas which follows this particular scenario as well. One has the right to defend one's property here. It is, in fact, perfectly legal to kill an intruder inside your home, because the law assumes that an intruder poses a personal danger, thus self defense. It gets tricky when the intruder runs away and you shoot him in the back as he runs down the street; but I have heard that such cases have also been dropped.

I know for a fact about one case in which a guy in an apartment complex heard noises and looked out his second floor window to see several teenagers inside his car in the parking lot 50 feet or so away. He fired a warning shot and the youths didn't respond; so he fired a second shot at them. One of the youths was killed. A grand jury declined to indict him; citing justifiable homicide to protect his property.

So you can shoot the schoolkids who sneak into your garden to get their ball back?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

So you can shoot the schoolkids who sneak into your garden to get their ball back?

---

Oh I wish. Here we have to make them cups of tea by law, then ring the Gardai so they can come and arrest you for being a paedophile groomer.

:rolleyes:

Nah, I just scare them away. Being grey-haired and bearded, I just put on a "wife-beater" T-shirt, plaid Bermuda shorts, suspenders, black socks, and beige loafers and go out on my porch and yell, "Hey you kids, get off my lawn!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

Nah, I just scare them away. Being grey-haired and bearded, I just put on a "wife-beater" T-shirt, plaid Bermuda shorts, suspenders, black socks, and beige loafers and go out on my porch and yell, "Hey you kids, get off my lawn!"

---

Heh.

That's a particularly amusing vision since over this side of the water, suspenders mean the frilly lingerie women wear to hold up their stockings.

I now have this indelible image of Aenlic as a grumpy old man dressed like something out of the Rocky Horror Picture Show harrassing small children. My therapist thanks you.

I hope you don't fly British Airways any time soon. :wink3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Heh.

That's a particularly amusing vision since over this side of the water, suspenders mean the frilly lingerie women wear to hold up their stockings.

I now have this indelible image of Aenlic as a grumpy old man dressed like something out of the Rocky Horror Picture Show harrassing small children. My therapist thanks you.

I hope you don't fly British Airways any time soon. :wink3:

---

Don't make me come over there, young man! Over here suspenders are the springy straps which cross over your shoulders and clip to your pants to hold them up. The frilly lingerie thingies to hold up stockings are called garters over here. Bah! :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

Don't make me come over there, young man! Over here suspenders are the springy straps which cross over your shoulders and clip to your pants to hold them up. The frilly lingerie thingies to hold up stockings are called garters over here. Bah! :wink:

---

This caused no end of amusement in my youth. My American girlfriend of the time (the days when US marketing chaps used to wear outrageous braces - the English for suspenders :tongue:) came home with me to visit here in Ireland. She found a gentleman's tailors where she conceived of the idea to buy me some nice sober braces as a present.

The look of horror on the venerable tailor's face when she asked for "suspenders for my boyfriend" must have been priceless to witness first hand. I could not do so, as this kind of thing was not well thought of in rural Ireland of the time, and I had to leave the country for two decades.

:embarassed:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

I'm against this law (another big surprise... Not!). Too open to abuse.

From the article you posted:



So, let's review:

1) These intruders were not even in his house
2) Yes, they were trespassing and stealing, but they were not offering any threat of violence

What a reasonable person would have done to protect his family:

Called the police and then stationed himself at the door to the garage with his gun in hand, ready to open fire if the crooks try to enter the house.

Result: Crooks go to jail, nobody dies.

What this gun-happy yahoo did:

Opened door then fired a blind shot into the dark, thereby putting everybody in more danger.

Result: Family was in more danger because he opened the door and stepped out, giving the crooks a target if they are armed, and easy access to the house if they can kill him. 19 year old kid receives de facto death sentance for petty burglary.

The Dr. in this case is at best a very unsafe individual who should not be allowed to own a gun, and at worst a murderer. At the very least, he should be put on trial. I'm not saying he should be convicted, but he should be tried. Just as anybody who shoots somebody else should be tried, no matter where the shooting takes place.

---

I share your concerns but consider the benefits of such a law to far outweigh the hazards. As a homeowner I think it is critical that I have the authority of the law to protect my home/family. The fact that this is a widely known law, allows any would be thief or attacker the knowledge that they could be in deadly danger if they come into someone’s house uninvited. The drop in crime rates show that people were aware of it.

You know if you jam a fork in the electric socket something bad might happen, same thing when entering a house that is not yours, and if something bad does happen it is not the electric sockets fault (or the sleepy gun wielder you have scared into action), it’s the idiot that stuck the fork in. The law shouldn’t protect him more than the homeowner.

As to your assessment of the situation in the article. Hindsight is 20/20 and there are several different/better ways the homeowner could have handled it, but IMO he shouldn’t be expected to and I wouldn’t want to be judged on my actions in a similar situation. I would hope I would handle myself better than the guy in the article but in the heat of the moment anything can happen and if I were to have made a foolish decision I don’t think I (or anyone in the situation) should be to blame for an action I was instigated into making by someone who has invaded my property and threatened my families safety, they may have been in the garage but their next stop could have been my kids bedroom. Coincidentally my thought when reading the article was similar to what you suggested, and exposing myself could have left my family unprotected, I would not have gone out there, but reading and reacting is far different than seeing and acting).

It is one of my (and my wife’s) greatest fears to have our home, our sanctuary invaded and our child threatened. Just knowing what could happen I would rather shoot first than take the chance. Sounds scary? Good, stay out of my house. :bow:


Crazy ol Yesdachi has a gun, RUN!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

This caused no end of amusement in my youth. My American girlfriend of the time (the days when US marketing chaps used to wear outrageous braces - the English for suspenders :tongue:) came home with me to visit here in Ireland. She found a gentleman's tailors where she conceived of the idea to buy me some nice sober braces as a present.

The look of horror on the venerable tailor's face when she asked for "suspenders for my boyfriend" must have been priceless to witness first hand. I could not do so, as this kind of thing was not well thought of in rural Ireland of the time, and I had to leave the country for two decades.

:embarassed:

---

Oh, priceless! That's one to trot out on occasion just to make sure the grandkids have the proper amount of abject horror and embarrassment at being descended from you. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

This caused no end of amusement in my youth. My American girlfriend of the time (the days when US marketing chaps used to wear outrageous braces - the English for suspenders :tongue:) came home with me to visit here in Ireland. She found a gentleman's tailors where she conceived of the idea to buy me some nice sober braces as a present.

The look of horror on the venerable tailor's face when she asked for "suspenders for my boyfriend" must have been priceless to witness first hand. I could not do so, as this kind of thing was not well thought of in rural Ireland of the time, and I had to leave the country for two decades.

:embarassed:

---

This type of scenario is the best thing about “multiculturalism”. :laugh4:

I have a great story about an English friend of mine who was asking people in the office for a rubber. She was a bit surprised when one fella gave her one and it was not attached to the end of a pencil like she thought it would be. I have also found that it is easier to find a rubber than an eraser in an office nowadays. ~D