A Guthrie, Oklahoma, homeowner woke to the sound of someone trying to get through his back door last week. “That homeowner told police his family was asleep when they first heard banging at the door.¬†He loaded his weapon and shot the man when he walked into the kitchen and lunged at him.” So reports¬†kfor.com. The intruder, dressed in nothing but a smile, soon assumed ambient temperature thanks to the homeowner’s quick action. You can hear the homeowner’s and a neighbor’s 911 calls here. A TTAG reader, Kenny D., who tipped us to the story initially questioned whether the homeowner’s use of deadly force against a bare-ass intruder would be considered justified in a less firearms-friendly state. But it seems hard imagine even the most hard-hearted prosecutor would find fault in a man using a gun to protect his wife and two small children against a nocturnal naked attacker in his own home. Or is that too naive?

Recommended For You

36 Responses to Defensive Gun Use of the Day: Going Out the Way He Came In Edition

    • Lack of clothing doesn’t make the intruder any less dangerous, and would lead a rational person to conclude that mental derangement or drug use was a factor, thus a more dangerous situation.

      In Oklahoma this is common sense. In New York, this is unconscionable judgementalism of an alternative lifestyle choice.

  1. Personally if someone is willing to break into a house completely naked with no weapons of any kind, that’s more terrifying than a guy breaking into your house with a bunch of rocket launchers and SAW.

  2. At that time of day, butt-naked and breaking into a home…. we have to assume that the guy was either under the influence or crazy. Either way, the homeowner was certainly justified. He was not shooting a guy who was complying with his commands.

    Could he have been charged in another jurisdiction? Yes. But would it be an easy case to defend? Yes.

  3. Wasn’t it Michigan where the law basically allows you to do nothing about someone breaking into your house?

    I’m just imagining what would happen to the homeowner in that instance.

    Castle laws are awesome. Anyone who doesn’t think so has the best rose colored glasses ever.

    • MO used to be a ‘duty to retreat’ (even in your own home) as well as ‘equivalent force’ state not all that long ago. All fixed with Castle Doctrine.

      • Wow, didn’t realize MO was so bad. For some reason I keep thinking they are more like their neighbors, or is it just St. Louis that throws off the demographics?

        • It was finalized in 2007, but the courts started to look more kindly towards self defense, even in the late 80s or so. But it wasn’t codified, so lots of variance until then.

          Which neighbors is kinda the trick. Truckers always used to refer to the Mississippi river as “crossing the Iron Curtain” when headed east. But, STL and KC have a certain percentage of ‘whiny suburbanite’ types, despite the rural nature of many of the folks.

        • NC had a quirk where you could use lethal force against someone in the act of breaking in, regardless of threat, but once they were inside, they had to be showing a clear and present danger or else shooting was a no no. Really warped, confusing law that got smoothed out in the past year or two.

  4. Even in California we have enough of a castle law to shoot an intruder. We’re not required to interview him for his intentions. Naked man. I could tell the DA I saw his gun and fired. I doubt the DA, even in Alameda county, would file charges.

    Ermey, on the other hand, may have me doing renditions of “This is my rifle, this is my gun…”

  5. Here in the Peoples Republik of Suckachusetts the homeowner would be spending the first night of the rest of his life in jail. Obviously that poor fellow just wanted in from the cold…. and what happens? He gets shot! Oh, the humanity……..

    Fawk I hate this craphole of a state….

    • You’re still living there, aren’t you? You love it enough to stay – take the good with the bad.

      • This kind of comment is just silly and I’m tired of seeing it posted by various commenters. People have family, friends, property, and jobs where they live.

        Plus, we need people to fight in every state rather than abandoning ship.

      • We’re outahere as soon as possible. Wife insists we’re not going anywhere until the kids are out of school. After that all bets are off, the house is on the market, and free states here we come! Until then…. patience is a virtue.

    • It’d be the same in Jersey, unless you were lucky enough to have a sympathetic prosecutor take the case. But even then you’d suffer a civil suit from the dead man’s relatives, and you’d almost certainly lose it. In Jersey, you’re actually obliged to abandon your house rather than shoot if you can exit safely. Un-friggin-believable.

  6. “Intent? How did you establish that?”

    “When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher knife and a hard-on, I figure he isn’t out collecting for the Red Cross.”

    “I think he’s got a point.”

  7. even if unarmed and naked, a man that lunges at you may take your weapon. You have to assume they will try, and failure to act may end up badly.

  8. even behind enemy lines (in massachusetts) you are allowed to stand your ground if you are inside your own home

  9. A kitchen is a dangerous place – lots of knives & other sharp objects, not uncommonly kept on countertops within easy reach. Anyone: 1. in their birthday suit, 2. coming into my kitchen, 3. uninvited, 4. at an hour when I’m asleep – will meet the same fate as this guy.

    The bright side is that perhaps now there will be one less homeless person.

    • Highly unlikely since Oklahoma is a Stand-your-Ground state.

      The law is very clear under Oklahoma Firearms Act of 1971, Section 1289.25. Deadly force in the home is protected. And the fact that his wife and kid was in the home as well, you know—-just bury the damn naked bastard already!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *