Man Shot While Child Was In Car

08 November 2015, Tulsa, Oklahoma

A man was shot today while his 3-year-old waited in his car. Officers found him passed out in the front seat of his SUV, which had crashed into a legally-parked BMW. He was later pronounced dead.

The man in question, currently unnamed (let’s call him “Assailant”), had been at a house a few minutes before crashing.

The house belonged to an unnamed man (Victim 1, AKA our Good Guy With A Gun). Also residing at the house was a woman (Victim 2).

Apparently, Assailant knew Victim 1 prior to his assault on the house because he used to date Victim 2. According to investigators, Assailant went to Victim 1’s house and knocked at the door. Victim 1 then opened the door to speak to Assailant. The discussion apparently escalated into an argument and Victim 1 disengaged, closing the door.

Assailant was having none of that. Assailant kicked down the door and entered the home. Victim 1 then shot Assailant four times.

Assailant then fled the home, getting back into his gray SUV, wherein his 3-year-old child was waiting, drove about half a mile down the street, passed out, and crashed into a parked BMW. He was pronounced dead at St. John’s Medical Center.

The child was uninjured and was taken by family

Tulsa Police Sergeant Dave Walker says that he doesn’t believe that charges will be filed against Victim 1.

On a semi-related note, police also believe that Assailant was also connected to burglaries at Victim 1’s house.

Many points can be taught from this incident. Let’s start with what the Assailant did wrong:

1. He allowed his emotions to run away from him. Part of being an adult is not allowing your emotions to rule your behavior and he failed in this. Maybe the kid was his and Victim 2’s, maybe Victim 1 owed him money or stole something, maybe Assailant was intoxicated. We don’t yet know…

But we DO know that an argument between Assailant and Victim 1 took place and Victim 1 attempted to end the argument by disengaging and closing the door.

We DO know that Assailant then used force to enter the house and continue the argument and that THAT’S where he opened himself up to a use of force to repel his unlawful invasion.

As thinking, reasoning beings, we have a moral duty to control our emotions. Assailant paid the price for allowing himself to become upset to the point he decided to assault his way into Victim 1’s home.

After Victim 1 closed his door, if Assailant had simply gone back to his car, he’d be alive to argue another day. Instead, he forced Victim 1 to Be His Own First Responder.

2. He brought a CHILD to a Domestic Dispute. Do we need to say anything more? As the custodian of that child, he had an obligation to put the needs of the child before his desire to kick ass or take names. Starting a physical altercation is HIGH on the list of things you shouldn’t do when entrusted with the welfare of a child

Now, what did Victim 1 do wrong?

3. Victim 1 opened the door. When confronted with an issue, sometimes the simplest method of handling the problem is to simply NOT OPEN YOUR DOOR.

Now, this may be complicated in many ways. Perhaps Victim 1 and Assailant had a decent relationship, despite the fact that Assailant’s ex-girlfriend (Victim 2) was living with Victim 1.

We doubt it, though.

With the limited amount of data, we can’t know for SURE what drove Assailant to kick the door in, but we have previous domestic incidents upon which we can postulate what is likely:

Victim 2 ended her relationship with Assailant 11 months ago.

Assailant had difficulty letting go.

Victim 2 moved in with Victim 1 a month ago.

Assailant finds out new address and goes to talk to/confront Victim 2 about an Issue.

Victim 1 refuses Assailant access to Victim 2 and attempts to disengage.

Assailant loses it, kicks down door, and is shot during his unlawful entry.

We’re not saying that this is what actually happened, but those of you who know have seen this happen and know it is all too common.

4. Lastly (and this is totally unrelated to the incident), let's look at the title we used for this article "Man Shot While Child In Car". Misleading, isn't it? Maybe it makes you think that this man was shot while his child was in the car and that the shooter was an irresponsible bastard who had no business handling a gun?

This is a common tactic used to vilify firearms to people who only read headlines. Similar to "Connnecticut Passes Gun Law And Gun Violence Rates Drop" (Click here and here for non-gun-control analysis of that headline) or "Tulsa Shooting is 50th Homicide this Year" (link below).

Both of these are extremely misleading. The Connecticut case involves some VERY shady assumptions which no self-respecting statistician should feel comfortable publishing.

The Tulsa article, which pertains to this shooting, is just a headline. there is no substancce to back it up, nor is there anything in it detailing that while it was a homicide, it was (most likely) a justifiable homicide, not a murder.

Our point with this last bit? Read more than just headlines. You'd be amazed at the agendas out there.

The Links:

#domesticviolence #DomesticDispute #homeinvasion #youareyourownfirstresponder #castledoctrine #selfdefence #armedselfdefence #selfdefense #armedselfdefense #FortWayne #intruder #barricade #selfcontrol #lackofselfcontrol #Tulsa #Oklahoma #DGU #DefensiveGunUse

Featured Posts
Recent Posts
Follow Us
  • Facebook Basic Square
  • Twitter Basic Square
  • Google+ Basic Square