Is This Supposed to be Controversial?

I suspect this Drudge headline is supposed to be controversial: “REPORT: 911 operator tells woman it’s OK to shoot intruder…

Then, you click on the story. Perhaps it’s because I’m from Oklahoma, but I don’t see anything remotely controversial about the actual report.

McKinley told ABC News Oklahoma City affiliate KOCO that she quickly got her 12 gauge, went into her bedroom and got a pistol, put the bottle in the baby’s mouth and called 911.

“I’ve got two guns in my hand — is it okay to shoot him if he comes in this door?” the young mother asked the 911 dispatcher. “I’m here by myself with my infant baby, can I please get a dispatcher out here immediately?”

The 911 dispatcher confirmed with McKinley that the doors to her home were locked as she asked again if it was okay to shoot the intruder if he were to come through her door.

“I can’t tell you that you can do that but you do what you have to do to protect your baby,” the dispatcher told her. McKinley was on the phone with 911 for a total of 21 minutes.

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

In other words, the 911 dispatcher didn’t tell her to kill the intruder, the dispatcher ran through things that could delay the intruders until police arrive, and just told the mom that she could do what she needed to do to protect her baby. And this is worthy of a headline why?

19 thoughts on “Is This Supposed to be Controversial?”

  1. You have to understand that the outcome was very counterproductive to the Left represented by the media. First, the successful defense of her baby and property caused a work shortage for rape counselors, grief counselors, didn’t allow her to rack up medical bills that would force her to public assistance thus declaring her a life long Democrat. It also caused a drop in production for public defenders, correction officers, parole officers, career counselors, and whatever other draining programs one gets on in prison. All in all she has proven to be very much not in the spirit of keeping the police state economy rolling.

  2. I don’t know that it’s controversial (save for people not worth arguing with) but it is news, welcome news. How many times have we heard 911 operators telling terrified callers not to shoot?

    This is a refreshing change, and a good call by everyone save the dope with the knife.

  3. What are the comments like on drudge because the comments on Yahoo are refreshingly supportive.

    There are even ones questioning why a woman in that situation felt that she needed to ask permission to protect herself and her child.

    More eyes opening, hopefully, to how insane this nation is getting.

    1. Hmmm, as I read the article, in the relevant quote of her it’s a use of lethal force question, can she shoot as the intruder enters through a door. I don’t think that’s legal in every state, and to show just how confusing this can get, as I understand it in my neighboring Missouri it’s clear you can shoot someone as they are entering your dwelling but after that it’s not clear if we have a Castle Doctrine vs. the usual “reasonable fear about someone’s life” standard.

      And this nation, or at least parts of it, have been insane for a long time. In Massachusetts at various times she would be facing murder charges for not retreating (and the last time I checked if she wasn’t an owner or didn’t have her name on the lease that would be the case), and if she was in one of the most populous counties she’d automatically be charged with first degree murder. “Let the jury decide” was the policy of that very abusive DA who later became the state AG.

      One final note: outside of such benighted places it’s pretty safe for a law enforcement officer to tell someone “you do what you have to do to protect your baby”, there not going to get criticized for something that stark.

      But again, in Massachusetts, she might be headed for prison; in the early ’80s I watched in the newspaper a similar case where a father was convicted for not retreating out of his house and leaving his young daughter sleeping in her bedroom to the tender mercies of the invading criminal. I swear I am not making this up … knowledge that I would be automatically crucified if I defended myself in my home was one of the reasons I left the state for Virginia.

      1. Here in North Carolina, it’s perfectly legal to shoot through the door. It’s been that way for a long time. Our Castle Bill that went into effect on December 1 only changed the presumption inside your house. The presumption before then was that if the intruder was “in the process” of entering forcibly and unlawfully was that you were in danger of death or serious bodily injury. That means that once he was actually inside, and not “in the process” of entering, you had to be able to explain why you felt that you were in danger of death or serious bodily injury. It was a stupid distinction.

        Now, if you are in my house, on my porch, or on the homes cartilage (that part of your land immediately around your house) “forcibly and unlawfully” I can use deadly force. I can stand on the porch and shotgun your brains all over the begonias and no one can tell me that I have to retreat first.

        In practice, unless the attacker has a ranged weapon like a firearm, or a Molotov cocktail, I’m going to go inside and lock the door if I can, but it’s nice to know that I don’t have to if I don’t want to.

  4. It would only be controversial on the Right and Left coasts, not in the heartland. An Aunt, in Oklahoma, once surprised a man in her house after she came out of the shower in the morning, and when my Uncle was not at home. She managed to scare him off, and called the sheriff to report the intrusion.

    After taking the report the deputy said words to the effect: “Ma’am, next time just shoot him: it would be safer for you and less hassle for us.”

    Small town and rural sheriffs know who they work for, and support their citizens. Wish it was same on the Left Coast.

  5. 1) Hearing protection for the baby.

    2) “I’ve got two guns in my hand” With speakerphone, you too can be John Woo.

  6. Absolutely worthy of headlines. (Just not an incorrect sensational one.)

    This is a great step forward from the typical “Ma’am, don’t take the law into your own hands. Please wait for the officers to arrive.” BS that 911 usually seems to spout off.

    Granted, The Onion will probably run it as “9-1-1 dispatcher tells woman to blow the m*******’s head off.”

    1. How is it a great step forward? It’s Oklahoma, I’ve never known that mindset you refer to as existing there. Hell, I didn’t even know that gun control was a serious debate until after I left the state. And before you assume that’s just because I was raised in a rural area, I wasn’t. I grew up in the most metropolitan areas of Oklahoma.

      I get that it’s a step forward from the cultural expectations of other areas, but I do think we have to consider where this happened.

  7. I don’t know the laws in OK (Castle doctrine, Stand your ground, etc.), but in almost any state the dispatcher could have gotten in trouble for instructing the woman to shoot. That’s giving legal advice, and the dispatcher is not qualified to do that. The dispatcher did the right thing, and so did the householder.

    1. Looks like you’re right. From CNN:
      “The dispatcher told HLN’s Jane Velez-Mitchell on Wednesday she learned in training that she could not tell a caller to shoot someone, “(but) as a mother, I wanted her to protect her baby.””

      1. Yeah, and it’s a necessary policy. Only people on the spot can make correct shoot/don’t shoot decisions, certainly not a dispatcher who’s only hearing one side of the story from a seriously stressed and not necessarily articulate individual. And for “setups” (calls made under false pretenses), you can’t have a state actor at such a remote giving sanction to shoot, it could and would be used to give cover to murder.

        Whereas as I noted above, a … platitude? like “you do what you have to do to protect your baby” is on pretty safe ground. The dispatcher was leaving in the hands of the caller the decisions only she could make, e.g. what was necessary “to do to protect [her] baby”. Moral support, not anything that could be construed as a legal opinion beyond the non-controversial in Oklahoma one that you have a right of self- and family defense.

  8. “McKinley was on the phone with 911 for a total of 21 minutes.”

    That’s some pretty terrible police response time. Hopefully she lives in the country, but still…if police can’t get to you within 21 minutes–or longer apparently–911 operators SHOULD tell you to shoot intruders.

    If things went down even remotely like they’re described in the article, no sane person could claim this was anything but a justified shooting: young woman alone in an isolated home with a baby up against two intruders who kick in the front door and a bedroom door wielding a knife. On your concealed carry practical that’s what you call a “gimme question.”

  9. If anything, the local news deconstruction after the fact was in error, as it was said by the local LEO that she had to wait for the intruder to come through the door. In fact, in OK you can shoot if they are “in the process of entering” your dwelling, etc. The law is quite clear in this, even if local interpretations of it are not.

    In Oklahoma, we have Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground, ALL that stuff.

  10. Nothing has been mentioned about the age of this person being under 21 in lawful possession of a weapon in her home. Once she steps outside her house can she legally carry a (concealed) weapon? Probably not.

  11. The Instapundit linked to the HuffPo article on this and the comments are … fascinating. Lots of support from liberals or worse, often with the usual “buts” (e.g. shotguns good, handguns bad, using an AK-47 would have been beyond bad, the NRA is irredeemably evil and worse, motivated by gun manufacturer profits (you know, there’s a reason they keep bring that up), etc.), but then there’s comments like this one from a high level “HUFFPOST SUPER USER” (evidently there’s more than one level), which ends with:

    There isn’t a left or right perspectiv­e (at least a sane one) on this….

    To which the immediate reply was:

    Wrong. The “left perspectiv­e” takes over long before the crime ever happens, by denying that mom access to the weapons that saved her life that night.

    Somehow no matter how often this question kept coming up in the discussion the liberals on the site had no real answer (well, one that would have left her alive after the criminals broke past her door and the couch she put behind it).

    Side note: since her husband died on Christmas of cancer and the robber who was killed started stalking her at the funeral, it’s theorized (and/or the accomplice has talked, that’s implied in another article I’ve read) that they thought there were still some prescription pain killers left in their dwelling. Talk about low, although in my mind not hardly as low as all those who would have left her defenseless.

    Especially the “reasonable restrictions” types; 18 years old with a 6 month old baby, some reports she lived in a trailer, lots of expenses and distractions from her husband dying, there are few regimes they come up with where she would still be armed after her husband died. (And not in NY State, right?) Heck, she can’t even herself buy a handgun until she’s 21.

Comments are closed.