Warning: A non-numeric value encountered in /home/christo1/public_html/wp-content/plugins/paper-template/papertemplate.php(15) : eval()'d code(3) : eval()'d code on line 336
As you probably recall, the other day I wrote about Sarah Dawn McKinley, the young widow whose husband died on Christmas day, and then on the day she buried him, two morons tried breaking into her home to attack her and her 3-month-old son.
She did everything right, including shooting one of her attackers dead inside her front door. The dead man’s accomplice, 29-year-old Dustin Louis Stewart was charged with the felony murder of his dead cohort, Justin Shane Martin.
That’s the beautiful thing about the law in Oklahoma and many other American states. If you commit a crime and someone dies, you are held responsible for that death, whether you personally caused it or not. It simply makes sense. Better yet is the Castle Doctrine that gives someone inside their home the legal authority to stop a home invader by whatever means are necessary, up to and including lethal force.
If Stewart and Martin hadn’t been trying to break into Sarah McKinley’s home, she wouldn’t have been forced to shoot him dead. Their actions alone were what caused Sarah to take the actions she did, so they should be held accountable.
Now, while it’s great news that one home invader is dead and the other is facing murder charges, the story isn’t all good.
Stewart has been released on bail pending his next court appearance. He’s been ordered to stay away from McKinley, but since we know he’s a criminal willing to invade someone else’s home, it’s anyone’s guess whether he will actually okay that order.
That leaves the young widow and her son to fend for themselves while the court system takes it’s time to deal with Stewart.
Then there are the ridiculous and frankly disgusting commentary coming from lunatics the world over. Britain has an especially high rate of stupidity if comments made on some of Britain’s newspaper websites are anything to go by.
”Barry”, a confirmed moron, said this:
A warning shot would have sent them running, but she seemed hell bent on shooting someone. The word ambush springs to mind.
- Barry, United Kingdom, 06/1/2012 19:37
I call “Barry from Britain” a “confirmed moron” because he clearly believes a young widow inside her own home is “ambushing” the criminals who killed her dogs and spent half an hour terrorizing her before finally breaking into her home.
Yeah, that's some ambush, Barry!
In his depraved mind, Barry believes that defending the lives of both her baby and herself equate to Sarah being “hell bent on shooting someone.”
Truth be told, moronic Barry might be just right, if only to a very small degree.
Sarah was “hell bent on shooting” whoever was stupid enough to break into her house and threaten her and her son… AFTER she barricaded the doors and then hid in the bedroom, shotgun in one hand, 911 operator on the phone in the other.
I will never comprehend folks like “Barry from Britain” who believe that it is better for a woman to be raped and dead, rather than be standing over her dead attacker’s body, smoking gun in hand.
Anyone who believes that the life of a violent criminal is worth more than a young mother and her son are clearly not the sort of folks I want anything to do with.
I’ll take the woman with the smoking gun and the dead criminal any day of the week.
I’m clearly not alone in that thinking, either.
Good job this was in the US. In good ole Britain she would have been hauled away on a murder charge by now. The child placed in care and the other guy claiming compensation for pain and suffering having watched his buddy get killed. Never mind the fact that they shouldn't have been there in the first place trying to break in. Good for you girl! At least America's justice system still considers the victim.
Lena has it right.
In Britain Sarah would be the one facing murder charges and the family of the dead criminal would sue her for “pain and suffering” for the loss of their criminal relative, as another commenter made so clear.
In this country she would have violated the intruder's human rights.
What she should have done was to assess the situation calmly and inform the intruders that they are violating the law by entering her home and that while they have the right to not be attacked themselves under Human Rights legislation they might not necessarily recover damages unless they intrude into the house with reasonable care.
If the woman then assesses that the intruders have not exercised an acceptable level of care when entering a second warning should be given that she would use only reasonable force to protect her child first, and only if the intruders intimated they might threaten the child and mother physically, may she then give a final warning that she will protect herself. However, she may only protect herself to the degree that the intruder's human rights are not infringed.
In this country, a judge will often uphold the human rights of the intruder unless all of the above steps are taken.
- Real Istbear, Brighton UK, 5/1/2012
That is truly the insanity of life across the pond. Britain seems to have forgotten (perhaps forsaken is a better word) the very freedom it gave to the immigrants to that strange new land that we know today as the United States of America.
The US Constitution was built upon the foundation of British law that guaranteed the liberty of British subjects, something they have long since abandoned in their headlong flight to Nanny-Statism.
Then there are those in some asinine circles making much about the age difference between Sarah and her recently-deceased husband.
What does that matter?
So what that he was older than her? She clearly loved him very much and still loves him today. She had to watch him wither and die from cancer, something that I can guarantee you from personal experience is no treat.
Her husband died on Christmas Day, which alone guarantees that every Christmas for the rest of her life will be, at best, bittersweet.
Ms McKinley had kept the 12-gauge gun with which she shot Martin, as well as a pistol, after selling the rest of her husband’s guns to help pay for his funeral.
Mr McKinley had taught her how to shoot, she said. Though he was 40 years her senior, she says she’s not ashamed she married him.
‘I still love him with everything I am,’ she said.'
Love comes in all shapes, sizes and ages, and Sarah McKinley is clearly anything but your typical 18-year-old, as her actions in the wake of her husband’s death show all too clearly.
Anyone who has watched how Sarah McKinley has handled herself inside the media spotlight in the wake of protecting both her son’s and her life on New Year’s Eve and does NOT come away thoroughly impressed with this young woman has more than a few screws loose.
‘It was either going to be him or my son. And it wasn’t going to be my son.’
Sarah McKinley is one very competent and tough young woman… one that we would all do well to emulate.
Anyone who thinks the wrong person is dead... well... I don't even know what to say to that sort of stupidity.