Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 43 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Right off, I'm not a Nazi, and I don't sympathize with Nazi beliefs or any of the stuff that goes along with those guys. But, I am curious about some of the legal aspects of today's shooting in Oklahoma - a female at a party across the street, allegedly on a dare, attempted to steal one of a guy's several Nazi flags displayed in his front yard - she ran away with the flag, and he shot her with an AR-15 as she was running away - or so the news story says - Woman shot in back while trying to steal man's Nazi flag, authorities say. The shooter was arrested - ADW - $500,000 bond. I live in Texas where homeowners have very strong legal rights when it comes to defending their property, and Oklahoma seems to have similar gun laws - Stand Your Ground, Castle Doctrine, defense of property, etc. What I'm wondering is why was the guy arrested - I'm not an attorney, but it seems like it was clearly a defense of property situation. I'm not interested in discussing anything about "was a flag worth shooting someone over" or "it was a NAZI flag, for gosh sake", or any of that stuff - what I am interested in is why was the guy arrested? Seems like he could easily make the case that he was defending his property that the gal was attempting to steal, and she was running away. Please enlighten me, in a friendly way . . .
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
16,147 Posts
I am not familiar with Oklahoma law but I do not believe they have a law allowing you to protect property using deadly force. The problem I see is she was fleeing the scene and did not present a direct threat to him.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
237 Posts
I'm not interested in discussing anything about "was a flag worth shooting someone over"
Well, like it or not, that is the bottom line. This was a flag and nothing of any substantial value, unlike a car, lawn mower, motorcycle, 4-wheeler, etc....He could have just called the PD and filled charges, he would have most likely got his property back, it was just across the street. Plus there was no direct and present danger to him, she was not armed or did not make any threats, just ran over and snatched a flag. Sorry to say, he will go down hard for his actions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,966 Posts
The thief gets no sympathy from me, but stupid decisions were made on both ends of the bullet. The only way to win the stupid game is not to play.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,350 Posts
She won’t steal again. Parents should have taught her better.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,345 Posts
Pulled up the Oklahoma self defense statute...

Herr Feaster iss in zee heapzen zee troublezen!



2019 Oklahoma Statutes
Title 21. Crimes and Punishments
§21-733. Justifiable homicide by any person.



Universal Citation: 21 OK Stat § 21-733 (2019)

A. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to commit any felony upon him, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is;
2. When committed in the lawful defense of such person or of another, when the person using force reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to terminate or prevent the commission of a forcible felony; or
3. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed; or in lawfully suppressing any riot; or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.
B. As used in this section, "forcible felony" means any felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any person.
 

·
Registered
Various
Joined
·
15,545 Posts
I am not an attorney and don't know Oklahoma statutes, but I have stayed in a Holiday Inn. It seems to me shooting someone in the back running away with piece of your cloth would get you in trouble most anywhere.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,345 Posts
Now, to answer your question*: "Why was the guy arrested? Seems like he could easily make the case that he was defending his property that the gal was attempting to steal, and she was running away."

If any provision might apply, it would be 21-733(A)(3): When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed; or in lawfully suppressing any riot; or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.

That's a shot in the dark....for all I know, this provision has been construed to not cover the situation here.

Now go to 21-643: To use or to attempt to offer to use force or violence upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:...3. When committed either by the person about to be injured, or by any other person in such person's aid or defense, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against such person, or any trespass or other unlawful interference with real or personal property in such person's lawful possession; provided the force or violence used is not more than sufficient to prevent such offense;

A gal stealing a flag from a yard, and running away - I'd say that shooting her in the back as she flees is not "lawful ways and means" under the Oklahoma code (if the guy tries to shoehorn an argument under 733(A)(3)).




*(I'm not a criminal lawyer, I don't practice in Oklahoma, this is not legal advice that you or anyone should rely on, and if anyone thinks this is actual legal advice, well that person is a complete idiot)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,093 Posts
Pretty strong protections for homeowners here in Missouri too, with Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground. However, if a petty thief is running away, shooting is a no-no unless they are aiming a weapon at you as they are running way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,092 Posts
Just MHO. Regardless of the law, you don't take human life over property, period. Unless it's your dog, although some states would not agree with that. You especially don't take a life over something as inconsequential as a flag. People who own guns for defense should do it out of respect for human life, not an indifference to it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
959 Posts
I'm confused why anyone would be confused why this guy would be arrested.
He shot her in the back ? Running away ? Killed her ? Over a flag ? Running away ? Why the confusion ?

This is an opportunity to discuss some basic rules for deadly self defense. No where in this story as posted do I see this woman presenting the Ability, Opportunity or Jeopardy to justify her being shot in the back running away with a frivolous possession of the shooter.
A.O.J.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
672 Posts
She was wrong, but not as wrong as he was. No justification can be made for self defense and the value of the property was negligible. No threat, no justification for defense of property given the value. They both lose, she her life, him, his freedom.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
143,369 Posts
He will have a ton of time to think about it where he will end up.
If there is a jury trial...he is a "so long sandwich on burnt toast."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Thanks for the friendly responses - like OldVet said, there were bad decisions on both ends of the bullet. This discussion has caused me to revisit and thankfully revise some of my prior assumptions and understandings of the specifics of the Texas laws. One thing that I've learned over the years since I got my Texas LTC (back when it was a CHL), is that even when you're absolutely in the right, legally, you're still in for a significant battle if ya shoot someone. In this case, the part that I was missing was TPC 9.42, Deadly Force to Protect Property, section 3 B - "the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury." (my emphasis). As kenboyles72 said "there was no direct and present danger to him, she was not armed or did not make any threats". The criminal, while guilty of theft, in the nighttime, didn't pose a threat to the Nazi - so he wasn't justified in shooting. Thanks for the explanations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
341 Posts
If, and that is a big IF, he is found not guilty or not prosecuted, you will see lots of people wanting laws to change. Most people in the US will not think that shooting someone in the back over a piece of cloth is justifiable. Does not matter if it is the US flag or Nazi flag or a dog bone left in the yard.

IMO that is not a moral or ethical act.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
One thing that I've always thought was odd, was that, in my understanding, the Texas law does not make any statement about the VALUE of the stolen property - certainly, someone stealing a kids toy from your yard should be viewed differently (and likely would be to a jury) than if they had been stealing something worth a lot more, but the law doesn't seem to differentiate. With a lot of drug laws, the quantity of the drugs seized impacts the charge and the resulting penalty. I believe that what the lawmakers were trying to do was to take any evaluative wiggle room out of the law - because black and white, yes \ no decisions are a lot easier to understand than "reasonableness" stuff. What I find troubling is that a theft crime committed goes unpunished and the criminal escapes, unless the criminal exposes you, the victim, to the risk of death or serious injury - theft is theft.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
341 Posts
One thing that I've always thought was odd, was that, in my understanding, the Texas law does not make any statement about the VALUE of the stolen property - certainly, someone stealing a kids toy from your yard should be viewed differently (and likely would be to a jury) than if they had been stealing something worth a lot more, but the law doesn't seem to differentiate. With a lot of drug laws, the quantity of the drugs seized impacts the charge and the resulting penalty. I believe that what the lawmakers were trying to do was to take any evaluative wiggle room out of the law - because black and white, yes \ no decisions are a lot easier to understand than "reasonableness" stuff. What I find troubling is that a theft crime committed goes unpunished and the criminal escapes, unless the criminal exposes you, the victim, to the risk of death or serious injury - theft is theft.
I agree with the thought, but IAW with TX law, if the kid's toy was stolen at night, in the house, then it should never get to a jury. In the yard would be considered "interference" which means force can be used, but not deadly force. That is when people use stupid judgement end up getting laws changed and screw the rest of people that have the ability to use common sense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,886 Posts
You say you don't want to hear "it was a nazi flag" but that's all that's going to matter in a trial. You could possibly get sympathetic jurors if she stole a US flag or a BLM flag right now but a nazi flag? They'll throw the book at him.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
33,776 Posts
Let's crank up the question a bit. Say it's my Jewish wife who entered into the game of three stupids on the dare. I'm sitting on the porch across the street at the party, observing her on her dare. I see Gauleiter Feister raise his rifle as if to fire on my now fleeing, misdemeanor-committing wife. In response, I draw my own firearm and put rounds into him until he is no longer a threat to my wife. Are my actions justified, and legal?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoganbeg

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,173 Posts
2019 Oklahoma Statutes
Title 21. Crimes and Punishments
§21-733. Justifiable homicide by any person.

...
...He shot her in the back ? Running away ? Killed her ?...
...They both lose, she her life, him, his freedom.
Fortunately for her (and the Nazi whackjob), she survived:
The woman was in good condition at OU Medical Center and expected to survive her wounds, officials said.
The shooter was charged with "assault and battery with a deadly weapon and shooting with intent to kill" - not murder. Just guessing, but from this peculiar comment from the Deputy, it sounds like they'll be invoking some sort of "Lying in Wait" statute as well:
"There was a large ashtray containing several cigarette buts, and a handcuff pouch containing handcuffs on a box next to the chair," Woodson wrote in his affidavit. "It appeared that Mr. Feaster was anticipating an incident to take place and had been watching from that spot."
In any case, he'll be out of circulation for a while.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arejay
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
Top