What's wrong with this?
Regarding the killing of the thief who robbed Trung Nham Duong's store the other day, District Attorney Wes Lane said that while he has no sympathy for thieves, the law doesn't allow the killing of unarmed shoplifters.
Well, Wes, the law doesn't allow anything. Laws DISallow things. A look at the definition of manslaughter in the first degree in the Oklahoma Statutes 21-711.3 reads: (Manslaughter in the first degree defined) "When perpetrated unnecessarily either while resisting an attempt by the person killed to commit a crime, or after such attempt shall have failed." OK, we can ignore the last part because the crook didn't fail in his attempt. That leaves the first part to discuss. Was it necessary to shoot the crook to stop the crime? Obviously, the crook was still running away with the stolen goods when Trung shot him. It will be necessary for Wes Lane to prove that shooting the crook WAS unnecessary to stop the crime.
A look at 21-1289.16 will show that pointing a firearm in defense of one's property with intention of discharging the firearm is not unlawful. A decent lawyer should be able to quash this travestry before it goes to court. Please note that I like Wes Lane, voted for him, but I believe he is wrong to bring any charges upon Trung.