History of the “Make My Day”
Oklahoma’s "Make My Day" law is also known by its official name: the "Self-Defense Against Intruders Law." It has its roots in the 1980s, when anti-crime fervor was sweeping the nation. In Oklahoma, the state legislature reacted by enacting laws intended to facilitate the use of deadly force in self-defense against either home intruders or automobile invaders . The "Make My Day" law was created to give homeowners a legal basis for using deadly force against individuals who break into their homes or their vehicles. Under this law, a homeowner is immune from civil or criminal liability if he or she uses deadly force against a home invader. Most amendments to the law strengthened the defensive posture of homeowners and property owners as against criminal and civil liability arising from the use of deadly force.
Major Aspects of the Oklahoma Law
The main provisions of Oklahoma’s "Make My Day" statute, which is codified at 21 O.S. § 1290.22, provide that:
- A person who is attacked in a dwelling and uses reasonable force to repel the intruder is immunized from criminal prosecution or civil action if the use of physical force is justified under 21 O.S. § 643 and more severe physical force is used with the belief that deadly force is justified under 21 O.S. § 732.
- A person who unlawfully enters a dwelling occupied by another after 6:00 PM shall be presumed to be an imminent threat.
- No duty of retreat exists for defending oneself in one’s own dwelling.
- A person is not liable for injury or death arising from the use of any device designed to be primarily used for defensive purposes within their dwelling.
To be eligible for immunity under these laws, an individual must have acted in self-defense. Self-defense law in Oklahoma requires all individuals to exhaust available means of safety outside of the home. 21 O.S. § 644(A). This is problematic because failure to exhaust available means of escape is, by its very definition, impossible for residents of Oklahoma – as a result of the "Make My Day" law, shooting an intruder inside of your home is a more legally acceptable response than calling police or running away from home.
“Make My Day” versus Stand Your Ground
Understanding the actual application of Oklahoma’s "Make My Day" law requires a general understanding of its rules of self-defense. All self-defense laws have two components: (i) the circumstances in which the allegedly threatened party is authorized to use force in self-defense, and (ii) the degree of force that party is authorized to use in self-defense. Let’s first cover the Stand Your Ground components. Oklahoma’s Stand Your Ground provisions are contained in 21 Okla. Stat. § 1289.25. It essentially provides that, without retreating, an individual may use deadly force if they reasonably believe such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily injury to the individual or another, or prevent imminent commission of certain felonious criminal acts ((certain violent felonies including murder, kidnapping, sexual assault, robbery, and certain other felonious assaults). However, that cannot be the end of the inquiry since Oklahoma’s Stand Your Round law also requires a scenario in which the alleged assailant is: The second component is the presumption the law creates — that these standards of reasonableness of the person’s response and no-retreat requirement have been met. In fact, 21 Okla. Stat. § 1289.25(B)(3) provides that: In reviewing the above requirements for the purpose of determining whether a presumption has been met, the court need not consider whether the party against whom the presumption is directed was any of the following: 1) Impersonating a law enforcement officer; 2) Going or remaining upon another’s property for an unlawful purpose; 3) Wearing or using the same or similar uniform or badge adopted by the law enforcement agency of the city, town, or county in which such person is protecting persons or property for the purpose of inducing alarm; 4) An unlawfully armed person in or near a lawfully operated dwelling, residence, or occupied building or conveyance who is resisting or preventing a person from making or attempting to make such an unlawful entry; 5) Unlawfully or unlawfully entered onto the property of another individual. In a nutshell then, a person does not have to retreat from their own home or business from an imminent violent threat and may use deadly force in keeping with the imminency and nature of the threat without having to first register their displeasure with assault or other potential assailant, even if they could have fled to safety if they had chosen to do so. As noted earlier, in order for Oklahoma’s Make My Day law to apply it must go beyond Oklahoma’s Stand Your Ground provisions. In contrast, in Oklahoma, a "Make My Day" measure extends the application of Stand Your Ground-like protection by applying without regard to where the assailant is on their own property, including the curtilage to a residential address. The overall purpose of "Make My Day" is to supplement Oklahoma’s Stand Your Ground law in the event the personal residence of an individual is not otherwise protected by 21 Okla. Stat. § 1289.25. The law is intended to provide an expanded standard for the lawful use of deadly force within one’s home in situations where an individual is lawfully put in fear of death or great bodily harm. Basically, it expands the rights of a homeowner to treat any person trespassing on their property as an imminent threat of great bodily harm, similar to an attacker who unlawfully enters their home. In particular, Oklahoma’s Make My Day statute extends statutory immunity from civil law liability to individuals who use reasonable force under the above-described scenario to keep the peace on their property. 21 Okla. Stat. § 1289.26. This immunity provision only applies when the defendant is charged with a crime of violence or is sued in tort "in which an individual claims entitlement for relief from injuries resulting from the use of lawful defensive force." 21 Okla. Stat. § 1289.26(A)(2). Oklahoma’s version of "Make My Day" is 21 Okla. Stat. § 1289.26. Oklahoma’s version makes no mention of other premises or locations where lawfully put in fear of death or great bodily harm. It is intended to protect the individual from any liability arising in response to the person forcibly entering their property. In this sense the law is broader than just homes. In other states, "Make My Day" essentially protects one’s home and the area immediately surrounding it. In Oklahoma, however, the law goes further; a person is able to use deadly force against an assailant on that person’s property. Of course, whether the statutory immunity provision applies will generally turn on whether an underlying prosecution for a violent crime is involved or whether the requisite tort liability is sought (or if a victim argues the defense provides immunity from liability for negligence, premises liability, etc.).
Legal Requirements and Caveats
I’m also informing my readers about the possible consequences of invoking the law. First, a property owner must demonstrate a reasonable fear of an attack. Second, an attack must occur inside or immediately outside the dwelling. There must be some forceful entry from the outside for the situation to be self-defense. You’re not going to be able to chase someone from fifty yards away and then claim "make my day" rights. Third, there must be an immediate threat to life. With a reasonable fear, someone kicking a door down can give a reasonable person – even a woman – cause for fear or endangered life. For example, with a reason for fear, a man kicked a door down and charged the occupant with a baseball bat. Although the occupant was attacked with backpack and laptop books, (Not considered a lethal weapon), it would appear that even this might not rise to the level of a "make my day" event. In this case, the legal implications of resisting could come into play. It has been my experience that even a common plastic pen can become lethal in hands of a determined citizen. When you are actually attacked , your life is probably going to be threatened. For instance, you could be replaced quickly or used as a shield or human weapon. Histories of extreme violence are often reserved for foreign lands. Equally important, if you have to shoot someone, you are going to need to justify the action. If you have mixed weapons, the jury is going to believe that you recognized the threat was real. Conversely, if those involved in the dispute were armed with "firearms only," then my guess is that the "make my day" provisions may not apply and the jury instruction will be left to the judge. In Oklahoma, a threat to property alone may not rise to a "make my day" situation. However, a forced entry or threat to personal safety and a firearm presence by a burglar on the lands may justify use of a firearm. Oklahoma law clearly allows you to track if your car is stolen with a global positioning kit or through the dealer. This is the case when you do not have the characteristics of a "make my day" situation on your hands.
Notable Make My Day Cases in Oklahoma
The broad definition of "dwelling" in Oklahoma has resulted in several notable cases on record. Its reputation as a "make my day" law comes from the notoriety of a few of them.
Oklahoma Statute 21-1290.22 states: "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force."
In January 2012, a jury sentenced two Oklahoma brothers to a collective 68 years in prison for killing a 19-year-old. Police investigated the shooting and found that the victim was in the trespasser’s vehicle going through his belongings and a struggle ensued.
The trespasser was also trying to reach inside his vehicle for his gun, but stated that he was only trying to retrieve a cellphone that was in his pocket.
One brother pulled his gun and shot the trespasser in the back. The second brother then rode along with his brother after the shooting for about six hours while they disposed of the gun and the body (in separate counties) and cleaned the interior of the car of evidence before calling the police.
Public Perception and Criticism
Public opinion surrounding Oklahoma’s "Make My Day" law has been mixed since its inception, with proponents arguing for the necessity of self-defense laws in cases of home invasion and break-ins, while opponents argue that the law provides overly broad protections for property owners and business owners who may invoke deadly force. Critics in the public have voiced concerns that the law does not clearly delineate between an intruder who threatens the property of an individual and one who engages in disruptive or non-violent behaviors in a business setting. Some Oklahoma residents fear that should intrusive behavior take place in their business, patrons may mistakenly invoke force that could result in injury or death to a disruptive customer. In 2006, an Oklahoma convenience store owner shot and killed an intoxicated soda manufacturer who allegedly refused to leave the business even after the cashier’s pleas . Although the store owner alleged that the man disregarded the warnings and made threatening gestures towards him, some local authorities criticized the store owner for claiming the victim was a trespasser; the victim had become intoxicated after purchasing vodka and other items from the store, then appeared to become a nuisance to the owner and patrons of the convenience store, which was still open for business at the time. A local prosecutor expressed doubts regarding the application of the law in the particular incident and its provisions for property owners. Oklahoma’s 1982 "Make My Day" law’s supporters have argued that the measure’s broad nature is appropriate in maintaining personal rights of self-defense while also protecting property owners from potentially aggressive intruders. The law’s defenders have also stated their belief that its provisions are clear enough to maintain public safety and order in the face of intruders. Further, the law’s advocates argue that the protection of a person’s safety is of equal or greater importance to the law’s protections of property and business rights.