Woman Shoots Intruder During 911 Call

(CBS)  Oklahoma resident Donna Jackson faced a life or death situation when an intruder tried to break into her rural-area home last Friday.

Home alone, but armed with a shotgun, 57-year-old Jackson called 911 and begged for help, but police couldnt get there before the man was able to break through a glass door with a chair and patio table.

Jackson, who stayed on the phone with the 911 dispatcher, can be heard in the call saying, "I don't want to have to kill this man, but I'll kill him graveyard dead, ma'am."

When the intruder broke through the door, Jackson dropped the phone. A minute later, Jackson was forced to shoot, and the suspect, Billy Riley, 53, was killed. According to the local district attorney's office, Jackson won't be charged with a crime. During the call, the 911 operator told Jackson it was legal for her to defend her home.

Click on the video below to hear Jackson's call, recorded by 911 Dispatch.


Watch CBS News Videos Online

CBS News legal analyst Lisa Boom commented on the legality of defending one's property, mentioning the Joe Horn case in Houston two years ago in which Horn shot and killed two men who were breaking into his neighbor's home. Horn, Bloom pointed out, also wasn't prosecuted.

For more with Bloom, click on the video below.


Watch CBS News Videos Online

[TooUnfazed]

nk Mrs. Jackson was justified in the shooting of the intruder in her home, but not because of the castle doctrine. I don't like it characterized as shooting to "defend property" because it clearly was a shooting to defend against a violent attack. A battery doesn't have to occur, you only need to reasonably believe that a battery will occur, as in assault and battery. The assault is the mere threat of battery. You can defend against assault. When someone throws furniture through your door, then you have every reasonable expectation that you are physically in danger. Her actions were to defend her person, not her property. Characterizing this as a "defend your property" situation actually trivializes the real nature of the danger she was in.

Thank goodness this was in Oklahoma, and not in a "duty to retreat" state. Where in the heck is a 56 year old woman in a nightgown supposed to retreat in a rural area in December, lugging a shotgun just in case she can't retreat far enough? She would have been either dead in a tiny bathroom after he kicked that door onto her, or she would have been dead of exposure outdoors if she was lucky enough to run fast enough to elude him.

Quite frankly, I personally view any unauthorized entrance into my home as a physical danger to my person. I'm a 53 year old grandmother. I don't feel any need to take a survey: "Are you here to just steal my stuff, or do you plan to rape and rob while your here? Do plan to kill me, perhaps after torturing me and doing a little mutilation during the rape? I want to understand fully why you woke me up in the middle of the night, scream vulgarities, pounding on my door, then throwing furniture through it. I don't want to be accused of not fully understanding why YOU are in my home uninvited and full of anger and violence." Ridiculous! I'm from Oklahoma. I don't take surveys and I don't take prisoners. I also stay in my own home and refrain from breaking into other people's houses.

[TooUnfazed]

I think Mrs. Jackson was justified in the shooting of the intruder in her home, but not because of the castle doctrine. I don't like it characterized as shooting to "defend property" because it clearly was a shooting to defend against a violent attack. A battery doesn't have to occur, you only need to reasonably believe that a battery will occur, as in assault and battery. The assault is the mere threat of battery. You can defend against assault. When someone throws furniture through your door, then you have every reasonable expectation that you are physically in danger. Her actions were to defend her person, not her property. Characterizing this as a "defend your property" situation actually trivializes the real nature of the danger she was in.

Thank goodness this was in Oklahoma, and not in a "duty to retreat" state. Where in the heck is a 56 year old woman in a nightgown supposed to retreat in a rural area in December, lugging a shotgun just in case she can't retreat far enough? She would have been either dead in a tiny bathroom after he kicked that door onto her, or she would have been dead of exposure outdoors if she was lucky enough to run fast enough to elude him.

Quite frankly, I personally view any unauthorized entrance into my home as a physical danger to my person. I'm a 53 year old grandmother. I don't feel any need to take a survey: "Are you here to just steal my stuff, or do you plan to rape and rob while your here? Do plan to kill me, perhaps after torturing me and doing a little mutilation during the rape? I want to understand fully why you woke me up in the middle of the night, scream vulgarities, pounding on my door, then throwing furniture through it. I don't want to be accused of not fully understanding why YOU are in my home uninvited and full of anger and violence." Ridiculous! I'm from Oklahoma. I don't take surveys and I don't take prisoners. I also stay in my own home and refrain from breaking into other people's houses.

[AD2525]

Does anyone know if this man was armed when they found him dead?

[JV1970]

It doesn't matter. The lady had no way of knowing if he was armed or not. When someone is breaking into your home you don't have time to find out if they're armed. It's better to assume they are armed. Besides this was a woman alone. Even if he wasn't armed if she had allowed him to enter the house he could have killed her with his bare hands. It is very obvious that he was up to no good because it was after midnight and he threw a chair and a patio table through her glass door!

[texasdoitright]

After listening to the 911 call, I do not understand how anyone can say this woman was wrong but shooting this man. If she hadn't, the story we are hearing would have been very different. She might have been raped or murdered.

This is why responsible gun owners are pushing for the right to have guns. Just imagine if she didn't have her shotgun?

Besides this lady has a heart, you can hear it in her voice. She will have a hard time getting past this. She did not want to kill this man.
God be with you Donna Jackson. You did what you had to do.

[JohnD9207]

This is a tough situation. No one wants to kill someone however defending yourself and your property is your right. If someone chooses to not do anything and hope the authorities save you...huh FINE. Good Luck.

I choose to not get my ass kicked, and will defend myself.

Its all about choices!

[T_Sip]

The lady did a good job and deserves a medal. A shotgun is my weapon of choice also especially when it is loaded with double O's. With it you don't have to aim just point it in the vicinity.

[Dgunner]

In eastern oklahoma everyone considers everyone armed.Oklahoma has the "Make My Day Law.Home invasions are rare in oklahoma as well as carjacking.

[nowhiningallowed]

Hurray for the Second Amendment. Hurray for this courageous and determined woman. Hurray she's rid society of this trash. Happy days!

[kansas1946]

According to the local district attorney's office, Jackson won't be charged with a crime. During the call, the 911 operator told Jackson it was legal for her to defend her home.
***********************************

Well, duh. It is legal to defend your home and it is legal
to defend youself. One less creep on the streets. Good job, Donna.

[riptide213]

Shamefully citizens can no longer depend on their government to protect them.

Law of the jungle, street justice, code of the Wild West are all pragmatic options.

If you want something done right you have to do it yourself.

Self defense if that is what has to be done then it must be done.

Federal and state justice systems have long been turned upside down because they focus too much on criminal rights vs. victim rights.

Majority of crime is perpetrated by a small percent of repeat, chronic offenders who will not change their ways and are beyond rehabilitation. Crime does pay for them.

Tax payers can no longer afford to allow offenders to be a continuous lifelong burden on society.

Damage, injury, death, fear and negative quality of life causing criminals deserve nothing more than a quick fitting dispatch worthy of any varmint caught in the act of intruding or pillaging.

[MissingOklahomafromGA]

Have you ever been to "RURAL" Oklahoma? It's not uncommon to be 20-30 mins from the nearest LEO. I agree, we should not count on the police force to prevent crime, there is still no way this was the fault or mishandling of the PD.

[mecury69]

To those that say you should warn the intruder first? You just alerted him and now ready he's ready for it and if he has a gun it's drawn and ready to fire. Surprise is a big advantage in any situtation.

On a side note: I think stun guns and other non-lethal technologies need to be developed to replace hand guns in the long run. Set for STUN (his ass and make him cry like a baby) or BURN BABY, BURN!