The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

What's the deal with the violent crime lately?  And what are you supposed to do if one of these thugs comes in your place?

Quote from: Gold on July 07, 2010, 07:13:58 AM
And what are you supposed to do if one of these thugs comes in your place?

You shoot them.   Until they stop moving.

Enough of that and violent crime will go down.

I thought about shooting, but if your guns are locked up, what then?

Quite a few of these folks are getting shot lately too.  Good thing we don't live in Chicago or New York where it's illegal to defend yourself.

I've noticed that several of the latest invasions are happening in South Tulsa.

The police have it fairly easy in catching these guys.  They just drive over to the Sand Dollar and look for the get-away car. 

Sounds like it's time for another sweep of the Sand Dollar.
(http://tpdblog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c5bd69e20105365b7e5d970c-320wi)

Quote from: Gold on July 07, 2010, 08:39:41 AM
I thought about shooting, but if your guns are locked up, what then?

Well, at risk of sounding like a wise-donkey, why would you buy a gun for self defense and make it inaccessible to yourself?  It doesn't have to be that way.

Quote from: buckeye on July 07, 2010, 10:54:59 AM
Well, at risk of sounding like a wise-donkey, why would you buy a gun for self defense and make it inaccessible to yourself?  It doesn't have to be that way.

Some people have children or only use their weapons for hunting, and some people also want to make sure that someone doesn't break into their house during the day and steal their guns, so many people store their gun in a locked safe.

Ignoring the fact that it is not illegal to defend yourself in either Chicago or New York, the problem is that both NYC and Chicago have a lower murder rate per capita than Tulsa. New York's was far lower.  According to the preliminary published data for 2009 from the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, Tulsa, with a population of 384,851 had 68 murders, for a rate of 17 murders per 100,000.  NYC, with a population of 8,400,907, had 471, or 5.6 murders per 100,000.  So NYC in 2009 was roughly three times safer than Tulsa.  Chicago, with a population of 2,848,431, had 458 murders last year, for a rate of 16 murders per 100,000.  That was very close to Tulsa's rate, but still a bit short.  

For a interesting contrast, El Paso, TX, which is majority Hispanic and has a population of 618,812, had only 12 murders last year in spite of the horrendous drug war across the river in Ciudad Juarez.  That is a rate of 2 murders per 100,000, or 8.5 times safer than Tulsa.  The low murder rate in El Paso is not an anomoly.  They traditionally have very few murders and other types of violent crime.  Property crimes are another matter.  Perhaps we don't have enough Hispanics here.

Tulsa has a raging gang war that is out of control and no clue about how to get a handle on it.  City officials apparently believe it is more productive to argue about busting the FOP.

Quote from: Gaspar on July 07, 2010, 09:37:37 AM
Quite a few of these folks are getting shot lately too.  Good thing we don't live in Chicago or New York where it's illegal to defend yourself.

I'm begining to think I need to wear a gun around at all times.  I hate that I actually look towards my front door at night and plan how I will get from the couch to the bedroom to get the gun if someone comes in.  This is a real threat right now, I hope it gets under control soon.

Gun safety is a big deal.  

After reading some of these home invasion stories, it just seems like even if you had a weapon out, there is minimal reaction time.  My home is small and if someone really wanted in, there just isn't much I could do. Heck, even the story about Rodolf made the point that a guy with a bunch of weapons couldn't do a whole lot if they drew first.  

So, again, the question is, if this happens to you, is there a preferred course of conduct?

Door locked at all times.
Alert neighbors.
Large dog.
.357 loaded with 38+Ps.
Wife and self know how to shoot.
Kids know better than to answer the door.
Alarm system with panic button next to the door.

What else can you do?

If someone pounds on your door or busts through, be ready to shoot.

Reinforce your doors and you won't have to worry about it. ;)

If some idiot decides to break a window, it'll take 'em a while to crawl in, thus leaving you with the advantage.

In my case, I grabbed the gun at the first sign of something going wrong.  I still play that day through my head a lot.  In fact my gun is sitting on the table next to me right now.  While I'm still having anxiety from the invasion, that isn't why I have it next to me, that is just where I layed it down when I came home just a bit ago.  That is how I keep it safe when I'm not home, I take it with me.  As far as when the kids are here, they have been taught about gun safety, and I keep it in a quick access safe next to the bed when it's not on my person.

Since I can't always have my gun at hand, I have gone through the trouble of placing a few ballbats around the house at strategic locations.  The only place that I don't have one at close reach is in the kitchen/dining room, and I figue the really big knives there might do the trick.  However, if anyone else does this, I would advise really getting familiar with using a ballbat as a weapon since it really sucks when someone takes it from you and uses it themsleves. 

Oh, and as far as reinforcing your doors, they are only as strong as the frame that holds them, and that generally isn't very strong.  When doors are kicked in, you will see that it is the frame that breaks.  Unless you are barricading the door in some way (like the door club, or my grandmother has a bar with a ring on it that allows her to wetch it under the doorknob), it won't really matter unless you have a really strong frame.  Of course, too many of us have the nice, glass sliding doors that make for an easy entrance.

Quote from: custosnox on July 07, 2010, 12:11:08 PM
Oh, and as far as reinforcing your doors, they are only as strong as the frame that holds them, and that generally isn't very strong.  When doors are kicked in, you will see that it is the frame that breaks.  Unless you are barricading the door in some way (like the door club, or my grandmother has a bar with a ring on it that allows her to wetch it under the doorknob), it won't really matter unless you have a really strong frame.  Of course, too many of us have the nice, glass sliding doors that make for an easy entrance.

In my experience, it's the door that breaks, at least when they use a crowbar. Mine split around the deadbolt mechanism. It was a steel clad foam core door. In any event, for under $200 you can get a kit to reinforce the door and frame. Obviously, you have to take the door and trim off to do it, but it's not particularly difficult. Could be a little ugly if you've got a wooden door, though.

Edited to add: Of course, then you get into the fact that your lock can probably be opened in under five seconds with a bump key, so you spend another couple hundred on a new lock set... And then you fix the window problem by going to Lexan or laminated tempered glass... And then if your house isn't brick, you have to consider that they can cut through your wall pretty darn easy with a sawzall...

It's easy to get into utter paranoia if you worry too much...

I consider my neighborhood to be pretty innocuous when it comes to being a crime target, but like any other square mile in the city, it's not immune from burglary, home invasions, auto theft, and the rare but occasional murder. 

There's three rooms in my house I occupy most frequently.  If posted warnings for my security system are not enough of a deterrent, I've got a firearm within easy reach in any of the three rooms I usually occupy in my house.  They are not located in an obvious place that someone could spot them easily if they did a quick plundering of my house. 

I have no children at home, my 5 lb Yorkie doesn't care for guns, and my GF has her SDA so any shootings in my house won't be accidental, just a rude awakening for unwanted intruders.  I'm not paranoid, I simply see no reason to be a victim.  I keep my front door closed and locked when I'm home.  I don't even leave it un-locked when I mow as the current crop of invaders seems pretty damn brazen.

Quote from: nathanm on July 07, 2010, 12:18:55 PM
In my experience, it's the door that breaks, at least when they use a crowbar. Mine split around the deadbolt mechanism. It was a steel clad foam core door. In any event, for under $200 you can get a kit to reinforce the door and frame. Obviously, you have to take the door and trim off to do it, but it's not particularly difficult. Could be a little ugly if you've got a wooden door, though.

Edited to add: Of course, then you get into the fact that your lock can probably be opened in under five seconds with a bump key, so you spend another couple hundred on a new lock set... And then you fix the window problem by going to Lexan or laminated tempered glass... And then if your house isn't brick, you have to consider that they can cut through your wall pretty darn easy with a sawzall...

It's easy to get into utter paranoia if you worry too much...

Meh, buy a gun and an MFD.

Quote from: Conan71 on July 07, 2010, 12:24:22 PM
I consider my neighborhood to be pretty innocuous when it comes to being a crime target, but like any other square mile in the city, it's not immune from burglary, home invasions, auto theft, and the rare but occasional murder. 

There's three rooms in my house I occupy most frequently.  If posted warnings for my security system are not enough of a deterrent, I've got a firearm within easy reach in any of the three rooms I usually occupy in my house.  They are not located in an obvious place that someone could spot them easily if they did a quick plundering of my house. 

I have no children at home, my 5 lb Yorkie doesn't care for guns, and my GF has her SDA so any shootings in my house won't be accidental, just a rude awakening for unwanted intruders.  I'm not paranoid, I simply see no reason to be a victim.  I keep my front door closed and locked when I'm home.  I don't even leave it un-locked when I mow as the current crop of invaders seems pretty damn brazen.

As far as the security warnings, we had stickers on the house at the time.  However, the alarm wasn't working at the time either so it was just a sticker then. 

Also, we tend to let the shepard hang out inside a lot more now.  Though I do worry about him bitting another cop if we have another breakin...

Quote from: Conan71 on July 07, 2010, 12:25:37 PM
Meh, buy a gun and an MFD.

Eh, I'd rather keep them out in the first place. Saves me from dealing with the hassle of shooting someone and the expense of owning a gun. Neither guns worth owning or ammo worth using are cheap.

Quote from: custosnox on July 07, 2010, 12:36:57 PM
As far as the security warnings, we had stickers on the house at the time.  However, the alarm wasn't working at the time either so it was just a sticker then. 

Also, we tend to let the shepard hang out inside a lot more now.  Though I do worry about him bitting another cop if we have another breakin...

I don't think these guys give a crap about stickers.  They know they're in and out before an alarm will do any good.

Most of the crime that does take place in our area ends up being traced back to the 61st and Riverside/Peoria area.  Two years ago my wife had her car stolen, and that's were it was recovered.  We had several robberies this year, and the criminals were traced back to Sand Dollar.  A home invasion a couple of streets down from us about three weeks ago was traced back there, and the getaway car from "Crack-n-grab" invasion yesterday was recovered there.

In fact, I don't think a week has gone by lately when I haven't heard report of some crime/shooting/robbery/rape being reported or traced to the 61st and Riverside/Peoria area.

We have these concentrated havens for criminal activity where organized and unorganized gangs can operate and obtain drugs.  When the cash runs out they fan out and commit crime to support their lifestyle.  

Every few years the cops raid the apartments in that area and return with a jail full of felons.  

Looks like it's time again.  Might be a good way for Bartlett to help turn around his image.

Quote from: nathanm on July 07, 2010, 12:58:11 PM
Eh, I'd rather keep them out in the first place. Saves me from dealing with the hassle of shooting someone and the expense of owning a gun. Neither guns worth owning or ammo worth using are cheap.

I don't think anyone should own a gun if they don't like guns.  It makes them more of a liability.  With the right to bear arms comes the right to not bear arms.

Not to be confused with Bear-arms.
(http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii69/MrR2009/bear-arms.jpg)

Quote from: nathanm on July 07, 2010, 12:58:11 PM
Eh, I'd rather keep them out in the first place. Saves me from dealing with the hassle of shooting someone and the expense of owning a gun. Neither guns worth owning or ammo worth using are cheap.

If your home entry wasn't designed that way in the first place, chances are the entire assembly can be kicked in pretty easily as it will separate from the framing.

A cheap pump shotgun is all you need, and a better defense than one of the reinforced door kits and about the same cost.  They also double well for a ball bat- a well-weighted one at that. That "cha-chack" sound is unmistakable and birdshot is a pretty safe home-defense round.

Crime in Tulsa is about control of the drug trade. This area is the southern node for distribution/consumption.

Johnson Park at 61st and Riverside should be expanded Eastward to Peoria and the apartments south of 61st should be flattened and replaced with an Amusement Park. Since the dam at Jenks is going to create a lake, this would be a great point at which to divide the park with a canal and install a port as well.

IOW, do what they did to the north side of downtown in the 70's. Only this time do it with a plan and cooperation of the surrounding area. Excise the tumor and rebuild the area.

Quote from: waterboy on July 07, 2010, 01:24:27 PM
Crime in Tulsa is about control of the drug trade. This area is the southern node for distribution/consumption.

Johnson Park at 61st and Riverside should be expanded Eastward to Peoria and the apartments south of 61st should be flattened and replaced with an Amusement Park. Since the dam at Jenks is going to create a lake, this would be a great point at which to divide the park with a canal and install a port as well.

IOW, do what they did to the north side of downtown in the 70's. Only this time do it with a plan and cooperation of the surrounding area. Excise the tumor and rebuild the area.

Then you simply are exporting the problem to other areas of the city when the trouble makers are re-located.

Build a moon base for the troublemakers.

Ok, back to my question, if you don't get to your weapon and or don't want a shootout, what do you say to thes guys?

Quote from: Gold on July 07, 2010, 01:48:30 PM
Build a moon base for the troublemakers.

Ok, back to my question, if you don't get to your weapon and or don't want a shootout, what do you say to thes guys?

Take my money and rape me but please be gentle.

Quote from: Gold on July 07, 2010, 01:48:30 PM
Build a moon base for the troublemakers.

Ok, back to my question, if you don't get to your weapon and or don't want a shootout, what do you say to thes guys?

Yeah, my mistake. I thought you guys wanted a discussion. Why and how to ameliorate the problem. Turns out you just want to talk guns and shoot em ups. Ok, trap doors, electric tazers, swords, ball bats and derringers strapped to your wrist. Then just say good bye butt wipe.

Seriously, you get rid of colonies of ants and termites by changing their environment and using bug spray. But you never really get rid of them. You direct them to more hospitable surroundings. It is silly to think that everyone strapping on a gun full time  solvesthe problem. You simply escalate the level of violence.

Quote from: waterboy on July 07, 2010, 02:07:28 PM
Yeah, my mistake. I thought you guys wanted a discussion. Why and how to ameliorate the problem. Turns out you just want to talk guns and shoot em ups. Ok, trap doors, electric tazers, swords, ball bats and derringers strapped to your wrist. Then just say good bye butt wipe.

Seriously, you get rid of colonies of ants and termites by changing their environment and using bug spray. But you never really get rid of them. You direct them to more hospitable surroundings. It is silly to think that everyone strapping on a gun full time  solvesthe problem. You simply escalate the level of violence.

Solving the problem isn't as simple as up-rooting the people causing 90% of the crime.  Where do you re-deposit them in hopes they won't coalesce back up as another crime pocket?  What do you mean by bug spray?  I'm interested in discussion just trying to figure out how you re-distribute so that you don't create another ghetto and racism isn't claimed if they are all sent back up to the north side.

A gun is a good deterrent.  99% of the criminals would far rather face an un-armed victim, I assure you.  They are like water, follow the path of least resistance.

You are correct, guns don't solve problems.  They kill them, or make them run away.

Criminals prey on the weak.  They seek to take from those less likely to resist.  When they encounter resistance they move on.  They don't want to get shot or go to jail.

As for location, we have several places that are sanctuaries for criminals.  Many of the people we end up catching in these places are already felons with existing warrants.  It seems to me that we are not doing a good enough job of rounding up our existing documented and wanted criminals.  It also seems to make sense that sweeping some of these sanctuaries (as we have done in the past) would go a long way to deter crime, and make criminals feel less welcome in these neighborhoods.

Coordinated sweeps like the ones we've done previously at Sand Dollar take dozens of criminals off the streets, and are far more cost effective than individual efforts to target and capture wanted felons. 

If we do that Waterboy, then we won't have to shoot them.  ;D  See, Win/Win.

But, now we have to have the point proved to us by the FOP that we screwed ourselves in laying off officers because now we don't have time to do sweeps like that.  Kind of a weak excuse though, considering I don't remember hearing about any sweeps recently before the cops were laid off. 

Quote from: Conan71 on July 07, 2010, 03:01:31 PM
But, now we have to have the point proved to us by the FOP that we screwed ourselves in laying off officers because now we don't have time to do sweeps like that.  Kind of a weak excuse though, considering I don't remember hearing about any sweeps recently before the cops were laid off. 

Nah, I think the last big one was about 5 or 6 years ago.  If I remember correctly it nabbed 21 known felons and several undocumented who were let go.  I have a friend who was one of the cops on that raid.  He says all they did was walk through the complex and ask people standing around for some id.  If they started running, they arrested them.  There were plenty of people that just stayed in their apartments, so I would assume that the 21 (from memory, it may have been more) they caught were just the tip of the iceberg.  They also recovered several stolen vehicles and vehicles used in the commission of crimes.

Quote from: Conan71 on July 07, 2010, 02:41:25 PM

Solving the problem isn't as simple as up-rooting the people causing 90% of the crime.  Where do you re-deposit them in hopes they won't coalesce back up as another crime pocket?  What do you mean by bug spray?  I'm interested in discussion just trying to figure out how you re-distribute so that you don't create another ghetto and racism isn't claimed if they are all sent back up to the north side.

A gun is a good deterrent.  99% of the criminals would far rather face an un-armed victim, I assure you.  They are like water, follow the path of least resistance.

Actually, uprooting worked in the area just north of downtown in the 1970's. It too was overun with drugs, gambling, prostitution and crime. And just like now, it was fueled by the rest of the city and the crime was starting to spread into downtown, Maple Ridge and Brookside. Many Maple Ridge homes still have bars on them from that time period. The city simply used federal funds designed for urban renewal and wiped the area clean in hopes it would make a buffer zone and be worthy of redevelopment by area institutions. It worked just like it had before. Second street was also known as skid row in the 60's. Same thing happened then. We developed the area into banks, PAC and hotels.

Unfortunately, we had some serious economic problems in the early 70's that were a result of the oil "shortages". So the area didn't take off like they had hoped. Leadership changed, politics changed and funding changed.  And yes, the destruction was racist in its execution. The owners of those properties didn't have much representation. We can do better now.

You don't redeposit those people. Most of them don't even live in the area. They are strong arming family and friends for a place to do business. They don't own any property, they don't rent, they use the area. In fact, many of these new aggressive criminals are displaced from southern Louisiana because of Katrina. Once the area is no longer valuable they will disperse to other more hospitable areas, they will leave for other cities or they will get arrested and jailed. Its an ongoing battle, much like the war on terrorism. Its not that complicated, its nature. They are small businessmen with no morals or integrity looking to sell a product to a gullible market. Sort of like fake estate sales. ;) When their market place isn't producing they move on.

Guns and other defenses are the "bug spray". Cops and jails are the "bug spray". I have no problem with bug spray. But they are a temporary diversion for the ants and termites. They will keep coming back as long as the environment is attractive to them.

Quote from: Conan71 on July 07, 2010, 01:16:18 PM
If your home entry wasn't designed that way in the first place, chances are the entire assembly can be kicked in pretty easily as it will separate from the framing.

A cheap pump shotgun is all you need, and a better defense than one of the reinforced door kits and about the same cost.  They also double well for a ball bat- a well-weighted one at that. That "cha-chack" sound is unmistakable and birdshot is a pretty safe home-defense round.

Years ago a friend of mine showed me his illegal sawed off shotgun. He lived in a apartment. I asked him why he had a shotgun and his response was, "cha-chack" Even if your intruder doesnt speak English. That sound is a universal language. I have never forgot that.

On another note. A Police Officer told a group of employee's that I was a part of. If you are ever going to post a Bad dog or security dog on site sign. Make sure it has a picture of a mean looking dog on it, because there again. Not all of your intruders are going to speak English. I never forgot that one either.

Quote from: Gaspar on July 07, 2010, 01:49:59 PM
Take my money and rape me but please be gentle.

Quoted for truth.

If you can't be bothered to defend yourself, you should expect the worst.   And hopefully your wife/kids aren't home.

Quote from: waterboy on July 07, 2010, 03:11:02 PM
Actually, uprooting worked in the area just north of downtown in the 1970's. It too was overun with drugs, gambling, prostitution and crime. And just like now, it was fueled by the rest of the city and the crime was starting to spread into downtown, Maple Ridge and Brookside. Many Maple Ridge homes still have bars on them from that time period. The city simply used federal funds designed for urban renewal and wiped the area clean in hopes it would make a buffer zone and be worthy of redevelopment by area institutions. It worked just like it had before. Second street was also known as skid row in the 60's. Same thing happened then. We developed the area into banks, PAC and hotels.

Unfortunately, we had some serious economic problems in the early 70's that were a result of the oil "shortages". So the area didn't take off like they had hoped. Leadership changed, politics changed and funding changed.  And yes, the destruction was racist in its execution. The owners of those properties didn't have much representation. We can do better now.

You don't redeposit those people. Most of them don't even live in the area. They are strong arming family and friends for a place to do business. They don't own any property, they don't rent, they use the area. In fact, many of these new aggressive criminals are displaced from southern Louisiana because of Katrina. Once the area is no longer valuable they will disperse to other more hospitable areas, they will leave for other cities or they will get arrested and jailed. Its an ongoing battle, much like the war on terrorism. Its not that complicated, its nature. They are small businessmen with no morals or integrity looking to sell a product to a gullible market. Sort of like fake estate sales. ;) When their market place isn't producing they move on.

Guns and other defenses are the "bug spray". Cops and jails are the "bug spray". I have no problem with bug spray. But they are a temporary diversion for the ants and termites. They will keep coming back as long as the environment is attractive to them.

That makes some good sense.
We can make the environment unattractive by making it more difficult for them to find sanctuary there. It's a law enforcement issue.  Unfortunately when an area gets as bad as 61st and Riverside/Peoria it's difficult to enforce the law without risking the lives of officers and putting the PD in at a significant liability for everything from profiling to racism to misconduct.

Quote from: DolfanBob on July 07, 2010, 03:11:24 PM
Years ago a friend of mine showed me his illegal sawed off shotgun. He lived in a apartment. I asked him why he had a shotgun and his response was, "cha-chack" Even if your intruder doesnt speak English. That sound is a universal language. I have never forgot that.

On another note. A Police Officer told a group of employee's that I was a part of. If you are ever going to post a Bad dog or security dog on site sign. Make sure it has a picture of a mean looking dog on it, because there again. Not all of your intruders are going to speak English. I never forgot that one either.

Conan, your dog is probably not adequate.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_KlE4PNnEzUk/Rx4J9oaXYsI/AAAAAAAAAnI/JTe5CgtWlic/s400/yorkies.jpg)

Quote from: Gaspar on July 07, 2010, 02:55:33 PM
You are correct, guns don't solve problems.  They kill them, or make them run away.

Criminals prey on the weak.  They seek to take from those less likely to resist.  When they encounter resistance they move on.  They don't want to get shot or go to jail.

As for location, we have several places that are sanctuaries for criminals.  Many of the people we end up catching in these places are already felons with existing warrants.  It seems to me that we are not doing a good enough job of rounding up our existing documented and wanted criminals.  It also seems to make sense that sweeping some of these sanctuaries (as we have done in the past) would go a long way to deter crime, and make criminals feel less welcome in these neighborhoods.

Coordinated sweeps like the ones we've done previously at Sand Dollar take dozens of criminals off the streets, and are far more cost effective than individual efforts to target and capture wanted felons. 

If we do that Waterboy, then we won't have to shoot them.  ;D  See, Win/Win.

These guys prey on the inattentive, the weak, the armed or just about anyone who has something they want. They went through a guy's garage, tied up his family and stole his guns. These are crazy mf's.

However, I don't totally disagree with you. Sweeps are good, but they are merely bug bombs. They'll work temporarily then you have to apply again. And, they are costly to the taxpayer and weigh down the system.

Yes, Johnson Park is only one of the nodes of business in the city. How many sweeps we can handle is unknown to me, but we could target at least 5 that I know of (Boulder Plaza, Northwest Tulsa between Chas Page and 244, 31st and Garnett, Johnson Park, Far North and 41st and Darlington) and they would scurry away and return within weeks.

There is an unholy alliance among landlords, lawyers, dealers, importers and gangs. It is systemic. Ever see the Untouchables? Unless you are able to out weapon your enemy, don't start escalating the battle. Right now these criminals are as well or better armed than those who hate them. And they will endeavor to keep that balance.

Take their markets away from them and no amount of weaponry will matter. They will move on or dissipate within the community where they lose their power.

See, this is a problem I have in dealing with crime: we don't want crime, but when it's time to figure out tangible solutions, it seems to revolve around black communities or Hispanic communities and it eventually is called racism.

I remember the Main & Haskell area was still populated with whore houses and juice joints in the early/mid 1980's before that was finally flattened for urban renewal, so it was a little later when the problem was finally dealt with closer to downtown and there's still a few blocks east of Denver north of the tracks which are still seedy at best.  That was a black neighborhood and it was crime-riddled.  I really don't see how razing this skank pit really improved anything.  Section 8 housing was created in the 61st & Peoria area and the legacy lives on there.  Another section 8 area will need to be provided if we nuked and paved this strip you originally mentioned.

One difference I can think of between 1980 Main & Haskell and 2010 61st & Riverside is back then, you might hear of an occasional stabbing which resulted from a drunken dice or card game or perhaps a dead-beat junkie being beaten to death over unpaid drugs.  You didn't hear as much about 16 year old kids shooting 16 year old kids and we didn't seem to have the street gang problem as we have now.

Quote from: waterboy on July 07, 2010, 03:28:38 PM

Take their markets away from them and no amount of weaponry will matter. They will move on or dissipate within the community where they lose their power.

I guess that brings up the whole "legalization" argument.   If you bring the price of their product down to where it isn't profitable, you reach the same result without filling prisons and needing an ever increasing police force.

Is it really escalated, or is crime just reported more than it used to be?  I've always considered most neighborhoods in Tulsa to be relatively safe.  I don't own a gun but keep my doors locked and turn my alarm on at night.  I've been robbed once, when I lived in Denver.  Thieve(s) broke down the door and stole electronics while I was at work.  My friends there say it has only gotten worse.  I think if I did buy a gun and the alarm went off I would go to the bathroom, lock the door, and if they really want to get me I would shoot once they barge through.  

Quote from: Gaspar on July 07, 2010, 03:22:08 PM
Conan, your dog is probably not adequate.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_KlE4PNnEzUk/Rx4J9oaXYsI/AAAAAAAAAnI/JTe5CgtWlic/s400/yorkies.jpg)

Yeah, but Butch thinks he's tough  ;)

You don't think this would scare someone out of their wits...well okay, me either but he's a great companion.

(http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q55/71conan/TN/003-1.jpg)

As of last week they've been stealing catalytic converters at residences and businesses around the 61st and Peoria area.

That's an adorable cat you have Conan.

Quote from: Conan71 on July 07, 2010, 03:33:19 PM
See, this is a problem I have in dealing with crime: we don't want crime, but when it's time to figure out tangible solutions, it seems to revolve around black communities or Hispanic communities and it eventually is called racism.

I remember the Main & Haskell area was still populated with whore houses and juice joints in the early/mid 1980's before that was finally flattened for urban renewal, so it was a little later when the problem was finally dealt with closer to downtown and there's still a few blocks east of Denver north of the tracks which are still seedy at best.  That was a black neighborhood and it was crime-riddled.  I really don't see how razing this skank pit really improved anything.  Section 8 housing was created in the 61st & Peoria area and the legacy lives on there.  Another section 8 area will need to be provided if we nuked and paved this strip you originally mentioned.

One difference I can think of between 1980 Main & Haskell and 2010 61st & Riverside is back then, you might hear of an occasional stabbing which resulted from a drunken dice or card game or perhaps a dead-beat junkie being beaten to death over unpaid drugs.  You didn't hear as much about 16 year old kids shooting 16 year old kids and we didn't seem to have the street gang problem as we have now.

timing was spread out. The effort started in the 60's with the 1st and second street area. They then moved into the near north area. Perhaps it was the early eighties when they finished razing everything. But it was effective. Believe me, once that area had no empty houses to operate from the problem subsided. (or moved on) I had lawyer friends who owned some of those properties. They would rent them weekly with a week in advance because they knew they would get 5-6 weeks a month. Either the tenant would OD, be knifed or shot and they could rent it again immediately. Always for cash of course.

We had a different attitude about gangs then too. It was controversial. Some folks denied they existed which was silly. Now, there is no denying it.

It was racist then because the areas were more minority oriented and they simply had no representation. It just can't be denied. Now it is more about poverty and low moral values than race. It just happens to be true that the section 8 housing is full of minority tenants. At least they have some power to vote on their destiny however. 

To me the problem is an erosion of ethics and integrity. Everyone is stealing from everyone else. Bankers, lawyers, oil companies, auto dealers, mechanics, roofers, gangsters and businessmen. The black guys and hispanics using guns are much more visible though. I can't tell you how depressing it is to see people stuffing their clothes with product where I work. They steal software that is designed to keep hackers from stealing their computer files! They steal counterfeit pens! They steal rental forms, contracts and hard drives! These are not common criminals, they are landlords and small business people. Its depressing to me and to other decent minority folks who are their victims.

Anyway, we can decide as a community to find other ways besides section 8 housing to help less fortunate. It isn't a requirement.

Quote from: waterboy on July 07, 2010, 04:29:19 PM
Anyway, we can decide as a community to find other ways besides section 8 housing to help less fortunate. It isn't a requirement.

What is the funding source for the Tulsa Housing Authority?  Federal, state, local?  A mix?  It seems if city funds are going towards public housing that would be a good way to save money.  Get rid of the housing projects and the people who live there either move to another city or into market-rate housing.  Not saying everyone who lives in government housing is a criminal but there are better ways to spend taxpayer money, IMO. 

Quote from: TeeDub on July 07, 2010, 03:35:01 PM
I guess that brings up the whole "legalization" argument.   If you bring the price of their product down to where it isn't profitable, you reach the same result without filling prisons and needing an ever increasing police force.

Though that looks appealing, I don't want to lower the moral level of the entire population by legalizing drugs that have a history of deleterious effects on humanity, in an effort to decrease crime. You in effect merely re-define what is a crime by raising its threshold. I could however support a system that forces rehabilitation like we do with DUI's or traffic tickets. A first arrest for drugs could result in a simple fine. Now that we know you have bought before, your second ticket involves forced monitoring, rehab or public service.  

Their product will always be profitable, just like offshore drilling, but may be more troublesome in some cities or some areas than others. We make it so easy for them by providing these "centers of commerce". Force them into the light and they will scurry away.

Quote from: Conan71 on July 07, 2010, 01:16:18 PM
If your home entry wasn't designed that way in the first place, chances are the entire assembly can be kicked in pretty easily as it will separate from the framing.

The whole point is that the steel wraps around the framing members surrounding the door, reinforcing them. Short of breaking down the entire wall or the door itself splitting in half, it isn't coming open without a key. Well, unless they buy a battering ram and 3 burly cops from the surplus auction.

Granted, it does mean much more damage if they're successful, but it also works when I'm not home. I figure a broken foot will be a good lesson to them.

Quote from: nathanm on July 07, 2010, 11:29:45 PM
The whole point is that the steel wraps around the framing members surrounding the door, reinforcing them. Short of breaking down the entire wall or the door itself splitting in half, it isn't coming open without a key. Well, unless they buy a battering ram and 3 burly cops from the surplus auction.

Granted, it does mean much more damage if they're successful, but it also works when I'm not home. I figure a broken foot will be a good lesson to them.

Personally, I would like to test one of those setups to see if they work as well as they claim.

Here is a news story on some "door armor"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEUcQkM3TMQ

Quote from: TeeDub on July 08, 2010, 08:47:57 AM
Here is a news story on some "door armor"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEUcQkM3TMQ

The glass window a few feet to the left is next. Sad but they will get in.

Quote from: custosnox on July 08, 2010, 07:48:17 AM
Personally, I would like to test one of those setups to see if they work as well as they claim.

I've got a friend who did that a couple of months ago. He wouldn't let me try to kick his door in unless I wanted to figure out a way to get the dents out of the door cladding and clean off the scuff marks. The armor is tested by somebody or other, though. (ASME, perhaps?)

Quote from: TeeDub on July 08, 2010, 08:47:57 AM
Here is a news story on some "door armor"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEUcQkM3TMQ

I am now impressed.  Of course, nothing will stop someone who is bound and determined, but it might be enought to disuade most.  Okay Nathan, I'll give ya this one (still not getting rid of the gun though)

Armored doors would have made no difference in either one of the latest mid-town home invasions......We all let our guard down at sometime or another.....

Quote from: Breadburner on July 08, 2010, 01:52:30 PM
Armored doors would have made no difference in either one of the latest mid-town home invasions......We all let our guard down at sometime or another.....

And that is why I still won't give up my gun

Quote from: custosnox on July 08, 2010, 01:56:13 PM
And that is why I still won't give up my gun

Yup.... ;D

The key anywhere is to keep your garage door down and front/back door locked.  Keep an eye on your neighborhood.  If you see cars parked that don't belong watch them and call police if something looks suspicious.  Remember you are probably more likely to get in a car accident driving home from work than having your house robbed.

Quote from: nathanm on July 08, 2010, 09:16:37 AM
I've got a friend who did that a couple of months ago. He wouldn't let me try to kick his door in unless I wanted to figure out a way to get the dents out of the door cladding and clean off the scuff marks. The armor is tested by somebody or other, though. (ASME, perhaps?)

Steel doors don't matter when the BATF shows up anyhow...LOL
(http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGC/StaticFiles/Images/Show/25xx/253x/2537_finalreport_waco-tragedy-1_04700300.jpg)

Nothing made of wood can be real secure, as long as the door frame, and door framing are made of wood it can be busted thru. What would be needed is a steel door frame bolted to something like channel steel, in the example on the video the window would be a easy target to break in from. In real life a side door is a easy break-in point. Good neighbors can be the best protection in the long run.

As long as you have glass windows, soft roofing and vents, there is a way into your home. Just takes different tools. I guess you could build underground and live in a bomb shelter environment. Worked for the German high command.

If you do keep guns for home protection, make sure you talk to your local gun dealer and get good advice on ammo.  You want to kill the guy breaking in, not your friends and neighbors.

Your loads should be hollow point.  There are several brands made especially for home protection that will not pass through a wall or lose most of their momentum after encountering a target.  Don't use cheap ammo.  Use hollow point police loads (+P) for your weapon.  If using a .357, load it with 38cal +P. They are effective killers, but won't travel through your house and harm others. 

You don't need a Desert Eagle or Dirty Harry's (Callahan, not Reid) 44 to protect yourself.

Be safe when blowing the guts out of intruders.  ;D

(http://www.martingordon.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/the_more_you_know.jpg)

Corbon DPx .38 spl+P 110gr here..... ;D

Quote from: Gaspar on July 13, 2010, 02:09:39 PM
Use hollow point police loads (+P) for your weapon. [/img]

The +P actually stands for an over-pressured (extra powder) round.   Never put +P or +P+ rounds into a gun not designed for them or bad things could happen.

Quote from: TeeDub on July 13, 2010, 04:15:51 PM
The +P actually stands for an over-pressured (extra powder) round.   Never put +P or +P+ rounds into a gun not designed for them or bad things could happen.

I use them in a .357 designed for a 158 grain max.  I believe they are only 110 grain.

I've tried standard 38 hollow points but they always shoot left.  I guess the load is too slow for the long barrel or something.

Want to teach your kids respect for firearms?  Take them to the range and let them shoot a .357 with a magnum load.  Takes about 2 days for the surprised look to leave their face.

After one shot, my wife just put it down and walked back to the lobby.  She said that her 9 felt like a squirt gun after that.

Quote from: Gaspar on July 13, 2010, 02:09:39 PM
If you do keep guns for home protection, make sure you talk to your local gun dealer and get good advice on ammo.  You want to kill the guy breaking in, not your friends and neighbors.

Your loads should be hollow point.  There are several brands made especially for home protection that will not pass through a wall or lose most of their momentum after encountering a target.  Don't use cheap ammo.  Use hollow point police loads (+P) for your weapon.  If using a .357, load it with 38cal +P. They are effective killers, but won't travel through your house and harm others. 

You don't need a Desert Eagle or Dirty Harry's (Callahan, not Reid) 44 to protect yourself.

Be safe when blowing the guts out of intruders.  ;D

(http://www.martingordon.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/the_more_you_know.jpg)

And what is wrong with my Desert Eagle?  It has worked great for home defense in the past.  Okay, I'll admit it, it's a baby eagle 9mm.  Loaded with Hydroshock rounds.  They'll take someone down quick, but not likely they will exit, or even make it through two layers of gypsum. 

The question I have for gun owners is what do you do when they enter your home?  Do you play defense and wait for them to come to you or do you pursue them?  What do you do if there are multiple armed robbers?  I am considering buying a gun and learning how to shoot it but these thoughts keep going through my mind.  I hate that I even need to think about it. 

I can definitely understand why some choose to live in the suburbs because of perceived safety.  While the majority of Tulsa neighborhoods are very safe the perception that the entire city is dangerous comes from the local media sensationalizing every story about a shooting, homicide, or robbery even though most are on the far north side, east side around 21st & Garnett, or in the subsidized housing ghetto around 61st & Peoria.  These 'hot spots' though are not far from midtown (they surround it) and large parts of the city except the far south and southwest parts.  I worry more damage will be done by the media and people selling their homes in the city to flee a problem that really isn't that bad than the actual 'threat' of home invasions.  It's amazing how many people I talk to who express these views.  Your thoughts?

Don't buy a shiny bright gun.  Get something dark and matt finished.  A friend almost learned the hard way that a pretty gun is easy to see by the bad guys.  Fortunately for my friend, the "intruder" was an armed security guard investigating my friend's open front door.

Quote from: SXSW on July 14, 2010, 11:59:02 AM
The question I have for gun owners is what do you do when they enter your home?  Do you play defense and wait for them to come to you or do you pursue them?  What do you do if there are multiple armed robbers?  I am considering buying a gun and learning how to shoot it but these thoughts keep going through my mind.  I hate that I even need to think about it.  

I can definitely understand why some choose to live in the suburbs because of perceived safety.  While the majority of Tulsa neighborhoods are very safe the perception that the entire city is dangerous comes from the local media sensationalizing every story about a shooting, homicide, or robbery even though most are on the far north side, east side around 21st & Garnett, or in the subsidized housing ghetto around 61st & Peoria.  These 'hot spots' though are not far from midtown (they surround it) and large parts of the city except the far south and southwest parts.  I worry more damage will be done by the media and people selling their homes in the city to flee a problem that really isn't that bad than the actual 'threat' of home invasions.  It's amazing how many people I talk to who express these views.  Your thoughts?

A lot of people will say as long as they are in your home, kill em.  Just remember that if the issue is pushed, it may come down to the question of "was there reasonable expectation of danger?"  While in general this wouldn't come to mind when defending your house, if the cops find the guy, unarmed, shot 10 times in the back, heading towards the exit, there might be a question of justified shooting.  That being said, it is called home defence, not home offence.  Most of the time it will be reaction, no waiting or going.  They come in, you get to the gun, you shoot.  However, there are times when you have a moment to consider a strategy.  If you can, you want to make sure you can be someplace that limits their ability to get to you. Think of it this way, only one person can get through a door way at a time.  If you have multiple, armed attackers than positioning yourself where they have to go through a doorway that you have full visibilty to, but they have to go through to get to you, then they can only attack one at a time.  Of course, if they are trying to come through the front door, you can easily wait a bit back from it.  This will limit their acces, and they are distracted by trying to get through the door.  This all is just simple strategy, and will likely never get put into place (chances of having a home invastion are slim, and the chances of having a home invasion in a manner that you have a chance to prepare are extremely slim), but it might be a good idea just to visualize good defense points in your home so that if you have even a fraction of a moment to do something, you already know where to be.   As far as pursuing them, I would advise let them leave if they are trying to leave.  At that point you are no longer in danger.  It is hard to not chase though once the adrinaline is flowing and you know you have the upper hand.  At most, I would recommend going as far as to see outside to try and find anything that might help the police catch them, like a license plate, but in the end your safety is the largest concern.

As I said, the chances of someone invading your home, much less while you are home, is slim.  I do think of it as a "better to be prepared to defend and not have to than have to defend and not be prepared" situation.  I live at 31st & Garnett, so I am right at one of the "hot spots".  Still, it's not as bad here as is made out to be in the media.  Make your home and yourself a less desirable target and you will be safer for it.  Lock your car up, park in the drive, install motion sensor lights, get an alarm.  Simple things that don't take much, and you don't have to turn your home into a fortress to make a differance.  That being said, the flight from the "threat" is very prevailent.  I refuse to leave the area out of pure stubborness (I won't let criminals force me to leave), but there are plenty that are leaving.  Homes are constantly being put up for sale, often because the owner wants a "safer" neighborhood.  A lot of times they rent out the home, which brings in more problems. As the good people leave, looking for safer pastures, those who don't care (and are often the source of the crime) come in to fill the void.  

Quote from: SXSW on July 14, 2010, 11:59:02 AM
The question I have for gun owners is what do you do when they enter your home?  Do you play defense and wait for them to come to you or do you pursue them?  What do you do if there are multiple armed robbers?  I am considering buying a gun and learning how to shoot it but these thoughts keep going through my mind.  I hate that I even need to think about it. 

I can definitely understand why some choose to live in the suburbs because of perceived safety.  While the majority of Tulsa neighborhoods are very safe the perception that the entire city is dangerous comes from the local media sensationalizing every story about a shooting, homicide, or robbery even though most are on the far north side, east side around 21st & Garnett, or in the subsidized housing ghetto around 61st & Peoria.  These 'hot spots' though are not far from midtown (they surround it) and large parts of the city except the far south and southwest parts.  I worry more damage will be done by the media and people selling their homes in the city to flee a problem that really isn't that bad than the actual 'threat' of home invasions.  It's amazing how many people I talk to who express these views.  Your thoughts?

The sound of a gun can be enough of a deterrent to get someone to back out and leave.  I don't relish the idea of shooting anyone, but I refuse to be a victim.  The sound of a shell being jacked into the chamber of a shotgun or an automatic pistol is unmistakable, as is the sound of a shot being fired.  It's possible firing a round into a wall or ceiling might make someone run, then again, it might not.  I'd fire on someone in my home or trying to force their way in, if they were already running off the property, I would not.

Some simple rules: never point a wepon unless you intend to fire it.  Never fire at someone unless you intend to kill them.

Custo: I would assume that your home invasion situation turned out as good as could be, they fled your property and you didn't have to deal with a whole investigation by our DA who doesn't seem to understand justifiable self-defense.  Have you ever wondered what would have happened had you shot your intruder?

Quote from: SXSW on July 14, 2010, 11:59:02 AM
The question I have for gun owners is what do you do when they enter your home?  Do you play defense and wait for them to come to you or do you pursue them?  What do you do if there are multiple armed robbers?  I am considering buying a gun and learning how to shoot it but these thoughts keep going through my mind.  I hate that I even need to think about it. 

I can definitely understand why some choose to live in the suburbs because of perceived safety.  While the majority of Tulsa neighborhoods are very safe the perception that the entire city is dangerous comes from the local media sensationalizing every story about a shooting, homicide, or robbery even though most are on the far north side, east side around 21st & Garnett, or in the subsidized housing ghetto around 61st & Peoria.  These 'hot spots' though are not far from midtown (they surround it) and large parts of the city except the far south and southwest parts.  I worry more damage will be done by the media and people selling their homes in the city to flee a problem that really isn't that bad than the actual 'threat' of home invasions.  It's amazing how many people I talk to who express these views.  Your thoughts?

Take a class at Tulsa Firearms.  If someone breaks in, be aware that your adrenalin is going to shoot through the roof.  Your muscles will tense and your vision will narrow (all part of the adrenalin rush).  It is important that you practice the scenario in your home with your gun, so that you know the obstacles.  This will make you safer and more comfortable if the unfortunate event occurs.  The intruder does not know your home like you do and his senses will be on high alert.  Both of you will be in "fight or flee" mode and people handle that differently.

My opinion is that you shoot and ask questions later, but that is up to you.  Yelling "I have a gun" is only an option if the person has not yet gained entry.  He can't see you at that point, and that may be all it takes to scare him away.  If he is in your house and you give a warning or even a warning shot you may cause him to attack rather than flee, and chances are he is better prepared for that than you are, because he has anticipated the scenario already.

After you buy a gun, fire it several times at the range at different distances.  If you are new to handguns you will be amazed at how inaccurate you are even at short distances.  Once you gain a comfort level for your ability to hit a target using the sites, run a few clips through it without using your sites.  Focus on the target, point the weapon (not using the sites) and fire.  Do this several times and you will dial in your ability to hit the target. 

Both my wife and I can pick up a gun and hit a target at 25 feet without ever looking down the barrel.  That's not hard to do if you hit the range at least one or two times a year to get the feel of it. 

Gun ownership is scary, and it should be.  The fear is directly tied to respect for the damage that the tool can inflict.  The more comfortable you become, the safer for everyone around you and the more of a threat you pose to the criminal.  I think you can still get the C&C license through Tulsa Firearms for about $75.  The classes are invaluable even if you don't intend to carry a weapon.

Quote from: Conan71 on July 14, 2010, 12:44:00 PM
Custo: I would assume that your home invasion situation turned out as good as could be, they fled your property and you didn't have to deal with a whole investigation by our DA who doesn't seem to understand justifiable self-defense.  Have you ever wondered what would have happened had you shot your intruder?

I have wondered that many times.  I'm sure that if the DA really wanted to push it, it would have been presented that I had "ambushed" the intruders.  Of course, I have also had to consider that these guys are still holding a grudge, so there is that end of it.  Then there is that if I had shot them, I would have to worry about their family or homies coming to get even.  Just a never ending nightmare of whatifs.  The best thing I can do is be glad I didn't have to kill anyone (I still see the guys eyes when I think about it) and do what I can not to worry over what could have happened too much.

Quote from: custosnox on July 14, 2010, 12:26:05 PM
That being said, the flight from the "threat" is very prevailent.  I refuse to leave the area out of pure stubborness (I won't let criminals force me to leave), but there are plenty that are leaving.  Homes are constantly being put up for sale, often because the owner wants a "safer" neighborhood.  A lot of times they rent out the home, which brings in more problems. As the good people leave, looking for safer pastures, those who don't care (and are often the source of the crime) come in to fill the void.  

That worries me more than anything.  We can't build up Tulsa if people are scared to live here.  My wife isn't from here and sees the shootings and robberies on the news and even though it's not in our neighborhood she is on edge like I've never seen here.  That is what pisses me off. 

In Oklahoma since the enactment of the "Make My Day" law (21 O.S. Sec. 1289.25), the use of deadly force within one's home against an intruder is much simpler and free from the sort of second-guessing custosnox mentions.  The statute, within certain limitations mainly having to do with whether the "intruder" had the legal right to be there and whether the occupants of the residence were doing something illegal, anyone who breaks in, tries to break in, or tries to forcibly remove someone from the residence against their will can be killed.  The current version of the law not only establishes a legal presumption that the occupants of the home were put in reasonable fear for their lives, but grants immunity from prosecution rather than the previous affirmative defense.  Immunity is a very big thing.  It is not just immunity from conviction, it is immunity against the charge ever being brought. 

Quote from: custosnox on July 14, 2010, 12:26:05 PM
A lot of people will say as long as they are in your home, kill em.  Just remember that if the issue is pushed, it may come down to the question of "was there reasonable expectation of danger?"  While in general this wouldn't come to mind when defending your house, if the cops find the guy, unarmed, shot 10 times in the back, heading towards the exit, there might be a question of justified shooting.  

Quote from: SXSW on July 14, 2010, 01:28:19 PM
That worries me more than anything.  We can't build up Tulsa if people are scared to live here.  My wife isn't from here and sees the shootings and robberies on the news and even though it's not in our neighborhood she is on edge like I've never seen here.  That is what pisses me off. 

I recall hearing about murders and assaults just about as frequently as when I was traveling a lot to Denver, KC, Wichita, Dallas, Little Rock, Memphis, etc.  Without stopping and comparing the murders per capita from those cities, the point is larger cities have these problems.  Is she from a rural area originally?  You are going to have that anywhere.   I spend equal amounts of time in Tulsa and Midwest City these days and I always feel perfectly safe.  I take some precautions and assume that crime can be sudden and random no matter where I go but I feel like Tulsa and OKC are both relatively safe places to be.  I don't go around places I should not be, especially late at night.  I can understand how you guys might feel a little jangled after the home invasions not terribly far from where you bought a house but those are a rare occurance by any measure in Tulsa

Quote from: cynical on July 14, 2010, 03:30:27 PM
In Oklahoma since the enactment of the "Make My Day" law (21 O.S. Sec. 1289.25), the use of deadly force within one's home against an intruder is much simpler and free from the sort of second-guessing custosnox mentions.  The statute, within certain limitations mainly having to do with whether the "intruder" had the legal right to be there and whether the occupants of the residence were doing something illegal, anyone who breaks in, tries to break in, or tries to forcibly remove someone from the residence against their will can be killed.  The current version of the law not only establishes a legal presumption that the occupants of the home were put in reasonable fear for their lives, but grants immunity from prosecution rather than the previous affirmative defense.  Immunity is a very big thing.  It is not just immunity from conviction, it is immunity against the charge ever being brought.  

In theory, yes the make my day law will cover you.  That doesn't mean that a DA won't go after you when you shoot someone 10 times in the back while they are heading towards the door.  Also doesn't mean that the Judge won't rule against you.  It also doesn't protect you from civil suit.  Keep in mind that it is a rare thing for someone to shoot an intruder in their home, so this law hasn't really been tested.

Quote from: custosnox on July 14, 2010, 03:36:15 PM
In theory, yes the make my day law will cover you.  That doesn't mean that a DA won't go after you when you shoot someone 10 times in the back while they are heading towards the door.  Also doesn't mean that the Judge won't rule against you.  It also doesn't protect you from civil suit.  Keep in mind that it is a rare thing for someone to shoot an intruder in their home, so this law hasn't really been tested.

And, of course, the civil suit reminded me of what several people have told me: "Dead people make lousy witnesses"

Owning a gun and being willing to use it are major responsibilities for sure.

I should add that I think the "make my day" law is a good thing, and I am glad it is there.  It should just be noted that it's nature is to allow the homeowner to defend themself, not a license to kill without prejudice.  So far the only homeowner shooting an intruder that I am aware of under the law (in oklahoma) was recently when the guy was coming at the homeowner with a sword.  This would have warrented a self-defense shooting regardless, so it still hasn't really tested the law.  I'm sure there are others that have occured that I'm not aware of.  A better case to think of on this would be the OKC pharmacy shooting where the store owner shot the robber, then came back to shoot him again.  If he would have left it with the original shooting of the robber he would have been fine, but he came back and popped a few more in him for good measure.  He is now in jail (if I'm not mistaken)

But it has been tested.  Several times.  The cases are there.  The courts have supported the act.  One case, for example, arose before the law was amended to clarify that "occupied" included visitors and before the immunity provision replaced the affirmative defense.  Even though the statute at that time didn't define "occupied dwelling" to include visitors, the Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that visitors have the same protection against prosecution that homeowners have.  Notwithstanding, the legislature broadened the act to expressly include visitors and granted immunity. 

Custosnox, I don't think you understand how prosecutors and courts function, especially wrt immunity issues.  The courts have uniformly ruled that immunity is protection against a case even being brought, and unlike common law immunities such as prosecutorial and judicial immunity or the qualified immunity that protects public officials from liability under the civil rights laws, specific statutory immunities are not subject to being judicially narrowed.  This is not a question in which anything is left to the discretion of the prosecutor or the court. 

Also, in case you haven't read the statute, subsection F of the statute expressly provides that anyone who uses force permitted under the act is immune from both criminal prosecution and civil action.  It further provides that court costs, attorneys fees, lost income, and all expenses will be awarded to anyone sued in a civil action who is found to be immune under the act. 

So, since you're making the claim that the Make My Day law is protection merely in theory, show us one case since the enactment of the law in any state in which someone acting clearly within the scope of the statute has been convicted or, in states that grant immunity, has even been charged. 

Quote from: custosnox on July 14, 2010, 03:36:15 PM
In theory, yes the make my day law will cover you.  That doesn't mean that a DA won't go after you when you shoot someone 10 times in the back while they are heading towards the door.  Also doesn't mean that the Judge won't rule against you.  It also doesn't protect you from civil suit.  Keep in mind that it is a rare thing for someone to shoot an intruder in their home, so this law hasn't really been tested.

Quote from: cynical on July 15, 2010, 10:34:11 AM
But it has been tested.  Several times.  The cases are there.  The courts have supported the act.  One case, for example, arose before the law was amended to clarify that "occupied" included visitors and before the immunity provision replaced the affirmative defense.  Even though the statute at that time didn't define "occupied dwelling" to include visitors, the Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that visitors have the same protection against prosecution that homeowners have.  Notwithstanding, the legislature broadened the act to expressly include visitors and granted immunity. 

Custosnox, I don't think you understand how prosecutors and courts function, especially wrt immunity issues.  The courts have uniformly ruled that immunity is protection against a case even being brought, and unlike common law immunities such as prosecutorial and judicial immunity or the qualified immunity that protects public officials from liability under the civil rights laws, specific statutory immunities are not subject to being judicially narrowed.  This is not a question in which anything is left to the discretion of the prosecutor or the court. 

Also, in case you haven't read the statute, subsection F of the statute expressly provides that anyone who uses force permitted under the act is immune from both criminal prosecution and civil action.  It further provides that court costs, attorneys fees, lost income, and all expenses will be awarded to anyone sued in a civil action who is found to be immune under the act. 

So, since you're making the claim that the Make My Day law is protection merely in theory, show us one case since the enactment of the law in any state in which someone acting clearly within the scope of the statute has been convicted or, in states that grant immunity, has even been charged. 

I have to ask, how many of the cases that you are speaking of took place in Oklahoma?  Also, I would like you to show me where a case was tried when an unarmed intruder was gunned down from behind while trying to flee.  Perhaps I overspoke when I stated that the law itself hasn't really been tested.  More over, certain aspects of the law have not been tested, such as the situation that I have given.  If they have I would really like to see the decission on the case.  Also, I think I was a bit akward in my wording on the immunity protection.  First, I was not aware that it covered civil, but that still does not mean that someone can't file against you.  From what you posted, it allows you to be free of all damages if you are found to be operating  legally under the make my day law.  Would you say that stopping an intruder, making them kneel down, unarmed, and killing them execution style would be covered by the make my day law?  Other than being in fight or flight mode, how does that differant from shooting a fleeing intruder in the back?  I have no doubt that a frontal confontation, or any situation that gives a hint of a threat will stand up to the srutiny.  But at some point the threat is gone, and that is what, as far as I know, has not been tested under this law. 

And FYI, even your vehicle can be considered dwelling under certain circumstances, as long as it is parked, and the drivers seat is unoccupied (think sleeping in the back seat).

The statute removes the issues you are concerned about from the table.  The threat you say was removed still exists under the statute.  So yes, on its face it permits the use of deadly force against an intruder without regard to whether the intruder is able to actually inflict harm.  That is the entire purpose of the statute.  it has been applied many times in Oklahoma.  The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has no problem with it.  The Oklahoma District Courts have no problem with it.  And motor vehicles are expressly included in the statute in order to cover carjackings.

Again, since you are the one claiming that it protects occupants only "in theory," the burden is on you to show a single case that supports your contention.  The cases that support mine are easily enough found since the OSCN listing for the statute (21 O.S. Sec. 1289.25) includes cases that cite or discuss it.  You can also google for news reports showing that law enforcement have had no problem following the law, provided that their investigation shows that the statutory circumstances exist.

The cases you ask me to provide aren't there because of the immunity provided by the statute.  Since cases can't be filed, there are no cases to report.  Only the cases supporting your contention would be there if there was a serious legal issue to be determined.  They aren't there.  Not one.  Anywhere.  In Colorado, whose Make My Day law was the model for Oklahoma's original version, a homeowner was not charged after shooting a "fleeing intruder" in the back of the head as the intruder was running out the front door.  Because there was no charge, there was no case to "test" the law.  Law enforcement found that the case fit "squarely" within the intent of the statute.  Oklahoma's current statute is stronger than Colorado's.

I am personally not comfortable with an automatic safe harbor for killing people, but the safe harbor exists here, is settled law, and does not have the holes in it that you claim.  If you like it, enjoy having it.  If you don't like it, talk to your legislators because the courts are going to respect it as they have since its enactment.

Quote from: custosnox on July 15, 2010, 11:13:44 AM
I have to ask, how many of the cases that you are speaking of took place in Oklahoma?  Also, I would like you to show me where a case was tried when an unarmed intruder was gunned down from behind while trying to flee.  Perhaps I overspoke when I stated that the law itself hasn't really been tested.  More over, certain aspects of the law have not been tested, such as the situation that I have given.  If they have I would really like to see the decission on the case.  Also, I think I was a bit akward in my wording on the immunity protection.  First, I was not aware that it covered civil, but that still does not mean that someone can't file against you.  From what you posted, it allows you to be free of all damages if you are found to be operating  legally under the make my day law.  Would you say that stopping an intruder, making them kneel down, unarmed, and killing them execution style would be covered by the make my day law?  Other than being in fight or flight mode, how does that differant from shooting a fleeing intruder in the back?  I have no doubt that a frontal confontation, or any situation that gives a hint of a threat will stand up to the srutiny.  But at some point the threat is gone, and that is what, as far as I know, has not been tested under this law. 

And FYI, even your vehicle can be considered dwelling under certain circumstances, as long as it is parked, and the drivers seat is unoccupied (think sleeping in the back seat).

Quote from: cynical on July 15, 2010, 12:20:52 PM
The statute removes the issues you are concerned about from the table.  The threat you say was removed still exists under the statute.  So yes, on its face it permits the use of deadly force against an intruder without regard to whether the intruder is able to actually inflict harm.  That is the entire purpose of the statute.  it has been applied many times in Oklahoma.  The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has no problem with it.  The Oklahoma District Courts have no problem with it.  And motor vehicles are expressly included in the statute in order to cover carjackings.

Again, since you are the one claiming that it protects occupants only "in theory," the burden is on you to show a single case that supports your contention.  The cases that support mine are easily enough found since the OSCN listing for the statute (21 O.S. Sec. 1289.25) includes cases that cite or discuss it.  You can also google for news reports showing that law enforcement have had no problem following the law, provided that their investigation shows that the statutory circumstances exist.

The cases you ask me to provide aren't there because of the immunity provided by the statute.  Since cases can't be filed, there are no cases to report.  Only the cases supporting your contention would be there if there was a serious legal issue to be determined.  They aren't there.  Not one.  Anywhere.  In Colorado, whose Make My Day law was the model for Oklahoma's original version, a homeowner was not charged after shooting a "fleeing intruder" in the back of the head as the intruder was running out the front door.  Because there was no charge, there was no case to "test" the law.  Law enforcement found that the case fit "squarely" within the intent of the statute.  Oklahoma's current statute is stronger than Colorado's.

I am personally not comfortable with an automatic safe harbor for killing people, but the safe harbor exists here, is settled law, and does not have the holes in it that you claim.  If you like it, enjoy having it.  If you don't like it, talk to your legislators because the courts are going to respect it as they have since its enactment.

You still fail to see that just because it has not come before the court does not mean that it won't, and that it is not an impossibility.  It is often taught that a law is only theory until it is tested in the court of law.  So I must ask, are you an attorney or have anything that gives weight to what you say or are you just speaking of your opinion and interpretation of the law?  If it is the latter, than this conversation will go no where until someone who practices law settles it.  If it is the former, I still maintain my stance but bow out to your expressed expertise, because it is merely my opinion, based on what I have learned on other laws, that while it is unlikely that someone will ever be prosocuted for defending their home, it does not lay outside the realm of possibilites under a highly unlikely set of circumstances.

If it makes any difference, and under these circumstances I don't believe it does, I am an attorney with 30 years of practice (and a little time to kill this afternoon), nearly half of which was as an Oklahoma assistant district attorney. 

The argument that a law is only a theory until it is tested in court is plainly wrong, belied by the well-established judicial rule that statutes are presumptively valid.  There are many statutory and non-statutory legal principles without Oklahoma case law support because they are so obvious, so well established and accepted, and beyond serious question that no one will devote the time and resources, not to mention the risk of sanctions, testing the obvious in court.

Aside from the vague and unsupportable assertion that a law is only valid if it is tested in court, you haven't actually managed to show that anything I've said was wrong.  Just that you disagree.  At some point opinions have to be supported by a factual basis.  Mine is based on the court decisions already handed down, the statutory history of this provision, and the fact that law enforcement agencies in Oklahoma and elsewhere have treated it as binding law since the day it went into effect.  Again, is there a single case anywhere that supports your argument?

There ARE legal questions about the application of the MMD law to particular circumstances.  They do not involve the reasonableness of the force used, though. 

Quote from: custosnox on July 15, 2010, 01:17:09 PM
You still fail to see that just because it has not come before the court does not mean that it won't, and that it is not an impossibility.  It is often taught that a law is only theory until it is tested in the court of law.  So I must ask, are you an attorney or have anything that gives weight to what you say or are you just speaking of your opinion and interpretation of the law?  If it is the latter, than this conversation will go no where until someone who practices law settles it.  If it is the former, I still maintain my stance but bow out to your expressed expertise, because it is merely my opinion, based on what I have learned on other laws, that while it is unlikely that someone will ever be prosocuted for defending their home, it does not lay outside the realm of possibilites under a highly unlikely set of circumstances.

Quote from: cynical on July 15, 2010, 02:43:00 PM
If it makes any difference, and under these circumstances I don't believe it does, I am an attorney with 30 years of practice (and a little time to kill this afternoon), nearly half of which was as an Oklahoma assistant district attorney. 

The argument that a law is only a theory until it is tested in court is plainly wrong, belied by the well-established judicial rule that statutes are presumptively valid.  There are many statutory and non-statutory legal principles without Oklahoma case law support because they are so obvious, so well established and accepted, and beyond serious question that no one will devote the time and resources, not to mention the risk of sanctions, testing the obvious in court.

Aside from the vague and unsupportable assertion that a law is only valid if it is tested in court, you haven't actually managed to show that anything I've said was wrong.  Just that you disagree.  At some point opinions have to be supported by a factual basis.  Mine is based on the court decisions already handed down, the statutory history of this provision, and the fact that law enforcement agencies in Oklahoma and elsewhere have treated it as binding law since the day it went into effect.  Again, is there a single case anywhere that supports your argument?

There ARE legal questions about the application of the MMD law to particular circumstances.  They do not involve the reasonableness of the force used, though. 

Okay, let me present you with a highly unlikely scenerio, but one for the sake of argument.  Let's say a group of five men broke into my home while I was there.  These men were unarmed, and I was armed.  I come around the corner, gun in hand and the group of men surrendered.  I then proceeded to have them all kneel down in a row, and quickly executed all of them.  Are you saying that I would not be held accountable in the court of law?

You have to be a reasonable person. 

If 5 men breaks into my house, I come around the corner with a gun, and they surrender, I think I'll call the PoPo while I keep them at gunpoint.

If at any point they threatened my security, I would aerate their skulls.

There is a difference between self-defense and execution.  You would be held accountable for execution, just as a police officer would for taking the same action. 

Quote from: custosnox on July 15, 2010, 02:51:55 PM
I then proceeded to have them all kneel down in a row, and quickly executed all of them.  Are you saying that I would not be held accountable in the court of law?

I bet that if you just shot 'em when they came around the corner, you'd get away with it. Shooting them in the back of the head at point blank range? Don't think so.

They'll be coming round the corner when they come.
I'll be pakin' Smith & Wesson when I come.
They'll  be ridin' hot lead bullets,
They'll  be ridin' hot lead bullets,
They'll  be ridin' hot lead bullets, when they come.

Oh. . .It's been a long day.

LOL, thanks for the laugh Gaspar.

Quote from: nathanm on July 15, 2010, 04:45:28 PM
I bet that if you just shot 'em when they came around the corner, you'd get away with it. Shooting them in the back of the head at point blank range? Don't think so.

That is my point, there is a line that exists, even if it has not been drawn.  The question is, where does that line lay.

That was great Gasp... that might become my tagline at some point.

The statute tells you precisely where the line is drawn.  You are using a tactic known as reductio ad adsurdum.  Showing that application of the statute under circumstances perhaps unforseen by the drafters gives a result a reasonable person does not like doesn't change what the statute clearly does.  It is a safe harbor.  It is there to protect people acting in the heat of the moment against prosecutors who have the advantage of 20-20 hindsight.  That is what the statute does through the immunity provision that prohibits even the bringing of a charge.  If it didn't, it would only be a restatement of previous law, a result the courts will not reach because the legislature is never presumed to have done nothing when enacting a law. 

Even your extreme example is clearly within the scope of the statute.  Does the result offend you?  I hope so.  It offends me.  If you make the mistake of reading the comments to Tulsa World articles about various property crimes such as auto theft or vandalism in which there is no element of home invasion or personal danger, the idea of summary self-help execution of thieves and burglars already has substantial political support in Oklahoma, so I'm pretty sure that a good many of our fellow Oklahomans would not be offended by you executing the bad guys. 

Quote from: custosnox on July 15, 2010, 07:19:33 PM
That is my point, there is a line that exists, even if it has not been drawn.  The question is, where does that line lay.

That was great Gasp... that might become my tagline at some point.

Quote from: cynical on July 15, 2010, 08:31:35 PM
The statute tells you precisely where the line is drawn.  You are using a tactic known as reductio ad adsurdum.  Showing that application of the statute under circumstances perhaps unforseen by the drafters gives a result a reasonable person does not like doesn't change what the statute clearly does.  It is a safe harbor.  It is there to protect people acting in the heat of the moment against prosecutors who have the advantage of 20-20 hindsight.  That is what the statute does through the immunity provision that prohibits even the bringing of a charge.  If it didn't, it would only be a restatement of previous law, a result the courts will not reach because the legislature is never presumed to have done nothing when enacting a law. 

Even your extreme example is clearly within the scope of the statute.  Does the result offend you?  I hope so.  It offends me.  If you make the mistake of reading the comments to Tulsa World articles about various property crimes such as auto theft or vandalism in which there is no element of home invasion or personal danger, the idea of summary self-help execution of thieves and burglars already has substantial political support in Oklahoma, so I'm pretty sure that a good many of our fellow Oklahomans would not be offended by you executing the bad guys. 

Many of my fellow Oklahomans have not looked a man in the eyes and made the decision to pull the trigger.  If the law does indeed cover summery executing in that situation, and I must except your insistance that it does as you have the expertise that I do not, than yes, it bother me.  I do understand the need to protect a resident from persecution while defending his dwelling, but a clear line should exist. 

Every career has its risks. If you choose to be a home invader, one of those risks is that you could be shot. Accept the risk or find another line of work.

Quote from: Red Arrow on July 15, 2010, 10:54:50 PM
Every career has its risks. If you choose to be a home invader, one of those risks is that you could be shot. Accept the risk or find another line of work.

I'm not a bleeding heart that worries about crooks getting shot, I am the guy that pulled the trigger after all, just that people have a built in excuse to skip the whole legal process even though the threat is gone bothers me.

Just wanted to drop this link in

http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/content/2010/crimesite/article.aspx?subjectid=450&articleid=20100715_450_0_Adoubl946491&allcom=1

Quote from: Red Arrow on July 15, 2010, 10:54:50 PM
Every career has its risks. If you choose to be a home invader, one of those risks is that you could be shot. Accept the risk or find another line of work.

+1

Quote from: custosnox on July 15, 2010, 07:19:33 PM
That is my point, there is a line that exists, even if it has not been drawn.  The question is, where does that line lay.

TITLE 21 § 1289.25. Physical or deadly force against intruder
PHYSICAL OR DEADLY FORCE AGAINST INTRUDER
A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
B. A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
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 if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against the will of that person from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; 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.

So it hinges on the meaning of "defensive". (and how long "had" constitutes)

Cool!  I'm shootin everyone then.  ;D

Go ahead, make my day.

Quote from: Red Arrow on July 15, 2010, 10:54:50 PM
Every career has its risks. If you choose to be a home invader, one of those risks is that you could be shot. Accept the risk or find another line of work.

Hey that's another profession Rwarn can claim that has more risk and sacrifice associated with it than being a soldier.

No doubt that last guy already had a long criminal record and was in & out of the system when he got shot, That was not his first crime- and at least he won't be invading any more homes, and it also sends a message to other would-be-home invadors to think twice (and act once) because you may not get a 2nd chance.