On New Year’s Eve, 18-year-old Sarah McKinley shot and killed 24-year-old Justin Martin, who was trying to break into her Oklahoma home. Before McKinley confronted the crook, she called 911 and asked the dispatcher, “Is it okay to shoot him if he comes in this door?”
“I can’t tell you that you can do that, but you do what you have to do to protect your baby,” the dispatcher replied.
When Martin kicked in the door, McKinley fired. Police later said the shooting was justified.
Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin agrees. In an email to NRO, Palin writes, “I love that young woman. I’m all in favor of girls with guns who know their purpose. She fulfilled a purpose of the Second Amendment. I’d advise my own daughters to do the same. This mom protected an innocent life. Kudos to the 911 dispatcher, too.”
"but you do what you have to do to protect your baby"
Some things are so obvious that they shouldn't have to be explained.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd therein lies the problem. We spend too much time explaining things we shouldn't have to explain and not enough time doing the things that have to be done.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSarah McKinley did just fine. She held it together through a terrifying ordeal and protected the lives of her baby and herself. I have nothing but tremendous admiration for her. So, I think we can just cut her some slack for having one moment of confusion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou misread me entirely.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseApologies if I have. Please elaborate, if you would.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI simply meant that it's a concept which doesn't need explaining, i.e., no one should question that she should do this. I didn't mean she didn't think she should.
Which is part of the issue, I suppose; if indeed she felt she needed to ask permission to protect her baby, then society is in a bad place.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think this is right. The troubling part of the story is that we've been indoctrinated into calling state authorities to see if it is okay to protect our own lives when they are in imminent danger.
If this happened in Chicago, she'd could be going to jail for any number of violations. The honest dispatcher would have had to have answer: "No, it's not okay. You can kick and scream, but if you use a handgun and haven't taken the course yet, you'll go to jail. So kick, scream, whatever. Beyond that you'll both just have to take what's coming."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHer little segment of society certainly isn't in a bad place and, judging by the way her household was armed, she understood as much. The state couldn't protect her, but they did the next best thing, which was to clear the way for her to do so, and she knowingly availed herself of this opportunity.
The ability to characterize matters as conceptually simple or obvious is no longer operative in the midst of exigencies of the highest order. It's impressive that she was even able to string two words together. This wonderful outcome is basically a small miracle. The only thing that has marred it was the snide comment you directed at this girl. And please - that really is what you did.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI made no snide comment about the girl in any way. My comments are directed at those who would question what she did. That's it. Period.
Jenna got me, right off the bat. Not sure why you didn't.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh lordy, there was nothing snide about it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAny rational person should have a bit of a pause - after all a dangerous situation is at hand.
My read on the situation is that, in her heart, she know what she had to do, but the 911 call was a last-ditch attempt to see if there might be another way.
With only 3 deputies patroling the entire county, the "another way" was not possible.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't see it as " a moment of confusion", at all...
She's called 911, as she should.
She's SURE that these guys are scary goblins.
She's *guessing* correctly, might I add, that the first guy through the door she just hid behind, needs shooting.
Unlike the Walter Mitty types whose ONLY experience with guns involves an NRA membership, 3 times on a range, and lots of spy-novels or video games...
This lady was contemplating having to KILL someone.
Very soon...
I do not fault her for seeking some moral/legal(?) support for such a terrible decision.
In fact, I commend her for having the
presence of mind to take and think through her choices.
Every step of the way, it seems...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh but they do- in the UK, she'd be brought up on charges immediately for homicide and unnecessary force.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI know.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think this was not only giving her permission to defend herself and her baby without specifically telling her to shoot (which wouldn't have been totally proper since the 911 dispatcher wasn't there), but also was helping to stiffen her resolve to do whatever had to be done.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell done on both sides of the phone.
Sarah Palin is right to note this. I also linked to a story Ann Althouse found that had a fifteen year old having criminal charges dismissed against him (in Florida) after he was physically attacked by a classmate and stabbed him in response. The Court noted that he did not have to retreat and deadly force was justified once force was used against him. External Link
We have a right to defend ourselves.
As for this Oklahoma story, Feminist Empowerment (the good kind!)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood for Sarah McKinley.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDitto!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNRA endorsement can't be too far behind for either one of these great courageous ladies
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDuring a heart-felt report on this incident, Diane Sawyer claimed it has sparked a national debate. Really? No one in their right mind - no offense, Diane - should debate whether an 18 year old mother, whose husband succumbed to cancer on Christmas day, had the right to protect herself and her son from an intruder carrying a 12-inch hunting knife, an intruder who had previously scoped out her home and knew her husband was dead, an intruder who was warned that she had a gun, but kicked in the door and entered her home anyway.
Ms. Sawyer and others who have an ideologically-driven empathy for the bad guys believe this young woman should have attempted to retreat or surrender rather than use deadly force without absolute proof that the intruder would have killed her and her baby or caused them bodily harm. In their minds, it’s better that the innocent victims end up with permanent injuries than the bad guy end up dead. This is the mentality that resulted in laws in more than a few states that require the victim to retreat rather than defend. And if the attempt to retreat is unsuccessful, . . .
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse