Why do some women choose to stay with cheating husbands?

It’s very modern and edgy these days to read articles about how monogamy may be an unrealistic expectation in marriage, how cheating might even help a marriage, how we should rethink our views about cheating, and so on. And that’s all just fine and dandy if the non-monogamy is consensual—but that’s not really the norm. The norm is that the sex outside the marriage is secretive and deceptive and affairs are still a major reason for divorce. And, although the gap may be closing, men still opt for cheating more than women.

Through online forums and interviews, I was able to take a glimpse into the private lives of women who had dealt with a cheating husband who often turned out to be a serial cheater. Was it really no big deal? And, when given the opportunity, what motivated them to stay?

Of course, not all women are given a choice of whether to stay or go. There are plenty of husbands that simply trade them in, usually lining up their replacement before announcing they are out of the marriage. But here, we are talking about women dealing with cheating husbands who seem to want to stay married but cheat anyway. Why do the women say they decided to stay?

  1. Love—These wives actually love their husbands. For most wives, the cheating is not constant—there may be periods in between where things get better—maybe a few years go by and they think they are past it. And then it happens yet again—and they are traumatized, blindsided, in shock, and they love so much about their husbands, but every woman is different in just how much she can endure.

Some will stay for the duration, some will be discarded, and some will make the hard decision to go, even wishing they had made the decision to leave long before, after the first cheating episode was revealed.

“The idiots-who-take-them-back club is big. It was 4 years between my first discovery and my second discovery.”

“There is more to a marriage than sex, but it causes such tremendous damage to intimacy and trust that it is hard to recover. The periods in between the cheating episodes can be normal and hopeful. Other parts of the marriage can be happy-ish—companionship, compatibility, shared interests, sharing responsibilities for family, shared history, especially in long-term marriages.”

  1. Economic realities—The stories of women finding out about cheating never occur at a convenient time economically. Some were pregnant, some were pregnant and had a toddler as well, some had left the workforce to become a full-time mom. Others had spent a generation with their husbands and amassed a complicated and intertwined set of joint accounts. Some were on the verge or retirement. Some just couldn’t face the economic reality of the cost of divorce combined with an unanticipated return to the workplace. Statistics prove that a woman’s standard of living will go down after divorce by about 25 percent while men’s will go up by a minimum of 10 percent.

“I knew I would not come out well in the divorce financially. A marriage is also a financial partnership, and it was definitely a factor in why I stayed. Plus, after each infidelity, I was traumatized and didn’t feel like I could make good decisions. I dreaded the process of dividing everything up on top of all the emotions I was already experiencing. It was overwhelming.”

  1. Children/extended family—Speaking of consequences of cheating, it is hard to imagine a spouse who doesn’t care that they are threatening and disrespecting more than their spouse—it absolutely hurts their children as well as their extended families who have become one family over the years.

When the wives were confronted with cheating while still raising small children, or even anticipating the birth of another child, the idea of becoming a single parent or having to ferry children back and forth between households during the week and on holidays was all just too much.

Sometimes, they believed their children would be better off in a two-parent household. Sometimes the wives themselves just found it would be in their own best interest to stay.

“Yes I’m the chump that put up with the lies, deflection, projection, gaslighting, word salad, crazy making for 25 years all for the sake of the children.”

“I think that too many people hold onto relationships broken by infidelity because of the guilt that they feel when they think about their kids.”

“I am not looking forward to finding a new job so I can earn more money and be away from my kids a ton more. It is hard to push thru to a future you are not looking forward to even though you know it is necessary.”

  1. The husband can/will change—If the men were wanting to stay married, they usually made convincing arguments that they would change. And here’s the deal—the wives want to believe this is true. They are themselves decent, honest, moral women who have committed to marriage, who have not cheated themselves, who are loyal to a fault. They are susceptible to promises of change because they can’t fathom how the husband, the person they trust and love, would lie to them again. Others simply said it was easier to believe they would change—easier than facing the reality that their husbands truly put their needs first and were willing to hurt them at the deepest of levels. It was just too much.

“I took a HUGE toke off of the hopium pipe when he interacted with a couple who had a great deal of love between them…he told me that he admired their relationship and I immediately had visions that he would learn that devotion and commitment come first and the fruits follow and he would be ‘that guy’ and we would be so happy and bonded… but alas, he lost interest in that whole idea in minutes (or perhaps remembered that his years of cheating were a stumbling block to real intimacy) and forgot the whole idea.”

“I really do feel sorry for my 30 year younger self. She should have run the other way the first time she saw him. He was a wolf in sheep’s clothing and the wolf showed himself here and there, I forgave him and felt so sorry for him being a wolf. I really believed he wanted to change. I believed he had the capacity to change. He certainly had the tools, opportunity and resources to be a better man. What he lacked was the will, the honest desire and the character to be better.”

“The promises of change seemed sincere—and maybe they even were sincere for a time. But then something would happen—I think sometimes it was just boredom—he just couldn’t find meaning in life or excitement in life if he wasn’t pursuing sex outside the marriage. He didn’t really seem engaged in life—he didn’t like to handle life’s little details. He was emotionally and intellectually lazy, and cruising online for anonymous sex or flings seemed to be the answer to that boredom. And the secrecy and getting one over on me seemed to make it all the more exciting, I guess. It was really just that simple and shallow. It was fantasy and an escape from reality. So many better ways he could have spent his time—so much meaning in life that he missed. Such a better legacy he could have left for his children. He was destructive to us as a family and destructive to himself.”

“I convinced myself that his negative actions were the result of depression or bipolar or anxiety or SOMETHING that allowed for the possibility of change and recovery.”

  1. Denial of reality—This came in two forms—one was the husband denying the truth of the marriage. The second was the denial of reality by the wife—an idea of what she thought her marriage was or what it used to be—and that reality either never existed or had changed. Looking back, most women realized that it never really was the marriage they believed it was. It just took an awfully long time to see it.

“I have come to realize that you will never know what was running through his head. I cannot cry over what could have been.”

“I thought we could go on forever being grandparents together.”

“I believed him, because I wanted the fairy tale romance to be true. And me believing him lead to another 23 years of lying.”

“It’s all a mirage and poof— it’s not really there! Takes a long time to see them for who they are.”

“It is the fear that keeps us trying to hold on to the cheater- the desire to continue with the life we thought we had (and which for me I NEVER actually had, it was an illusion)– and to hold it together for the kids.”

“It was so surreal–not the life I thought I had built with him.”

“I too began to look back, after his final gigantic exit affair, which was proceeded by many other instances of paid sex and work-related improprieties. I started to really doubt my marriage was ever really what I thought it was. I began to think he never really loved me at all. I think I was just part of an image he wanted to project, but not really a person. By the women he chose to exploit, I realized he degraded women—they were often vulnerable or easily discredited. And clearly he didn’t respect me.”

“I always trusted him. (I had suspected something at the time but blew it off.) Now, I’m going back analyzing my entire life with him and I am thinking of a lot of other suspicious things he got away with. The fact is, I would never have believed he was that kind of person.”

“I gave it my 100% and his 100%. He didn’t have to work hard at our relationship. I was doing it all for us and believing his words of devotion and commitment. I was gaslighted, lied to, cheated on (apparently more frequently than I first found out about), abandoned…and I still had hope.”

“I knew something was up, but surely my husband of 25 years would never lie to me! The smirks, the eye rolls, the silent treatment. I was the recipient of it all. My ex knew me well enough to know that I would never judge him without ‘proof.’ Well, proof I got in the form of a front page news story.”

“I look back and wonder why I was so stupid. How could I have believed the garbage he was spewing? At one time, I was hung up on blaming myself. I was so committed to my marriage that I was not acknowledging what was right in front of me. I am more forgiving of myself, now. That’s what these kinds of people do; they make you doubt your own judgment.”

  1. Gaslighting—After so many lies and cover-ups, many wives began to doubt their sanity. They no longer trusted their intuition or their judgment. Decision-making became increasingly difficult.

When the cheating was revealed as the result of an STD diagnosis, many of the women were so shell-shocked, they couldn’t make a rational decision, or the prospect of divorce on top of everything else was just more than they could handle. So they chose to stay simply to avoid additional emotional distress.

“My husband wrote, ‘to my best friend and sexy wife … whom I deeply love.’  Then he got caught the very next week texting one of the other women.”

“He has tried every tactic in the book to convince me otherwise. He tells me that he loves me and he would never do anything like that to hurt our family or our relationship. He tells me that my imagination is just making normal things look bad.”

“My husband sent me a message to say, ‘it can all come back,’ with a photo of us celebrating our 30th anniversary. Literally, the next day he texted his (also married) affair partner that he was ‘throwing his marriage out the window for her’—that he loved her, that he had told everyone in his family he loved her and wanted to marry her…he referred to me, his wife of more than 30 years, as ‘the warden’ and told his affair partner I ‘slept all day.’ If I hadn’t seen the text messages, I would never have believed he could be so cruel.”

“I had evidence and confessions but STILL found it difficult to accept and then move into action. My paralysis was short, three months–divorce will be final early next year.”

“I think it’s very difficult to make informed decisions while you are going through the unparalleled emotional pain of infidelity.”

“My biggest regret is not trusting my gut (intuition.) My gut told me something was wrong even before we got engaged. I saw what I thought was evidence Even though my gut was SCREAMING at me that something was wrong, I still chose to believe him.”

“That is the trick, being objective – which can be very difficult. Talk to others—close friends, family—let them be objective for you.”

“Somewhere along the way I think I did begin to doubt my sanity. He had told me for so long I was wrong about facts, that I was reading things into situations, that things weren’t really they way I thought they were, that there was something wrong with me—I just started to believe his reality, and I didn’t really know what the true reality of my own life was. I know a lot about what he was up to, but I will never know everything.”

“My mind and my spirit were damaged. It was not even remotely the person I was or ever had been—it was like I was brainwashed. He took me to very low places and exposed me to people of very low character. I lost my dignity and kept lowering the standards of what I was willing to accept. I just wasn’t me anymore.”

“I feel like a part of my mind has been stolen. Thief….”

“I look back now and it all makes sense.”

“It’s opened my eyes about humanity. The good, the bad, and the sick, sad and just plain fucked up worlds some people live in.”

“I never thought in a million years I would have experienced what I have in the last few years. I truly had my head stuck in the sand and I have had feelings and pain I didn’t know even existed.”

Duping Delight, Cheater’s High, Sneaky Thrills: When Duping Becomes an Aphrodisiac

  1. Sunk cost fallacy–The sunk cost fallacy involves the concept that you have so much invested in a decision or a material object, that letting it go is wasteful and you must honor your sunk costs.

Example 1: You buy an expensive ticket to a Broadway show. The show gets terrible reviews and the person who you were going with no longer wants to go. You now don’t want to go either but you spent so much on the ticket that you feel like you have to attend.

Example 2: You bought an expensive pair of shoes, but they are uncomfortable and wobbly. You spent so much that you wear them anyway and regret it. Then, you put them in your closet, but you can’t stand to throw them out because they cost so much.

Well, some women eventually ask themselves if they are refusing to leave a serial cheater due to sunk costs. After a long term marriage, finally giving up is very difficult. One, you are left at an age where your options are limited and where finding a job may be more difficult. Two, surely your husband is now old enough to quit cheating.

One woman relayed how her husband was still cheating at age 67 with an old girlfriend he dragged up on Facebook. Her friend was shocked: “Don’t they have grandchildren they should be playing with?” Yup, for some, particularly the narcissist types, the party never ends—nor does the pain to the wife. “Sadly, both these fine married people (not to each other) did have grandchildren they could have been playing with—they just preferred meeting up for public blow jobs in the car.”

Decades-long marriages can be especially hard to leave because (1) you’ve invested most of your life and all your money in it; (2) you may have just wasted the bulk of your years on earth with this person; (3) family and friends told you to get out a long time ago; (4) you made the mistake of believing him when he committed to no more cheating.

“No matter how long you’ve been married–some investments are just bad and need to be dumped—cut your losses. I think it’s a bad risk to continue to trust people who have GIVEN you reason to not trust them.”

“Every day I think of the dupery and that the dupery gets deeper the longer and more I dig. I find myself still ‘suffering’ still having so much trouble moving on from this.”

“I am blamed by people for letting him ‘get away’ with it, in other words, I am blamed for being blinded that nothing was going on, or allowing myself to be in limbo too long while he was living it up never batting an eyelash and ‘going on’ with his life, while still married to me. I think back and little/big things come up like him constantly texting at dinner while we were out, jumping up to ‘use the bathroom’ at a restaurant or the last days it is was jumping up and running outside to take a phone call—‘I have to get this,’ leaving me sitting in the restaurant, etc. Looking back now I was such a fool. He was in deep since day one.”

“You don’t want to admit things didn’t work, or that you could be so easily fooled.”

“Leaving a long term marriage is so very difficult. It is the equivalent of cutting off a body part. But that part is cancerous and is going to kill your spirit. My life hasn’t been the easiest since I left, but it is my life, and it is not one of deception and contempt. Like so many here, I wish I had left a lifetime ago.”

(This article is excerpted from a book I am writing with the working title  Cheating Husbands: What Wives Would Like You to Know.)

Wild Wild Country: Docuseries on Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, AKA Osho, Will Not Answer All Your Questions, But it is a Must-See on Religions, Cults vs Utopias & Civil Liberties

The new docuseries released by Netflix in 2018 is provocative, insightful, sad and terribly relevant even today.

The 6-part series is the story of an experiment gone wrong, corrupted by those who may have loved Bhagwan the most, and perhaps most nefariously the story of Sheela, Bhagwan’s personal secretary, who seems to be pulling all the strings.

The series does not delve very deeply into what Bhagwan was like before the move to the United States when Bhagwan’s followers set up shop in Antelope, Oregon. It left me wondering if it missed some of the more innocent times before the Ashram became an attraction.

I did not know that Christopher Hitchens had visited the Ashram in India and was highly critical of it. In 1981, Hitchens released a BBC documentary titled “The God that Fled.” Later, he devoted a chapter to “There is No Eastern Solution” in God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

The documentary also doesn’t answer the questions, “Was it a cult? Was it a con game? Was it a religion? Was it a utopian experiment?” And probably the biggest question of all is how much did Bhagwan know about what Sheela was up to? Did he know that Sheela was committing criminal acts?

Sheela is an interesting character, both sympathetic and ruthless. She loved Bhagwan and saw her mission in life as protecting him at all costs and by any means necessary. The most telling statement she makes in the documentary (after apparently spearheading a plot to poison the residents of Antelope with salmonella) was after she was asked if she felt remorse for making so many people sick. She shrugs it off and says people get sick all the time, even though at least one person was near death and several were hospitalized. She is as cold as ice.

OSHO International, the organization that carries forward the work and legacy of Bhagwan/OSHO, has released the following statement:

Wild Wild Country, The Story Behind the Story of Rajneeshpuram

OSHO International

Apr 06, 2018, 08:30 ET

PUNE, India, April 6, 2018 /PRNewswire/ — “Wild Wild Country,” the recently released six-part Netflix docuseries, is capturing worldwide attention. It recounts the extraordinary story of a group of people, inspired by the vision of the mystic, Osho, creating an ecological oasis in the barren hills of the Oregon high desert.

These events trigger a political and criminal confrontation between a revolutionary vision of a new way of living versus the establishment. Unfortunately, In OSHO Internationals’ view, the docuseries fails to explore key details and so does not give a clear account of the real story behind the story.

Based on documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, it is clear to OSHO International that the government, from the highest levels on down, were determined to use whatever means possible to thwart Osho’s vision of a community based on conscious living. These include US Attorney Edwin Meese, both US Senators from Oregon, the governor of Oregon. All the named later admitted publicly that they had no evidence associating Osho with the crimes of Sheela Silverman, Osho’s personal secretary at the time.

The government’s attitude toward Osho is perhaps best captured by a statement, on the public record, by the District Director’s Chief INS Investigator, Thomas Casey, who stated that Osho will be “deported as an example to wetbacks and other cults.”

The attempt to create a model city in the Oregon high desert was blocked from the outset on the basis that it was “farmland” where “offices” were not legal.

Only after the community had been destroyed did the Oregon Supreme Court confirm what anybody could see with their own eyes: that the land was not in any sense “farmland.” The court confirmed that the land could only support “9 cows” and that the city’s original incorporation had been legal.

Denied even a telephone line, it was impossible for the community to grow. As the film describes, the residents of that community then bought property – that had long been for sale in Antelope, a tiny “ghost town” of 40 mainly retired residents 19 miles away – in order to have essential services. As the film shows, this was termed “the invasion” that was later used to justify ever-greater efforts to “get them out.” In response, Sheela Silverman set out on her personal road to perdition – bending and breaking laws as she saw fit in an attempt to defend the community.

A critical moment came when Sheela fell out with Osho and, as she said in the docuseries, “He lost it.” She decided only she knew how best to implement what she thought was Osho’s vision — which was the beginning of the end. When Osho became aware of Sheela’s criminal acts he immediately invited the FBI to investigate her crimes.

In the fall of ’85, the press was full of rumors, later confirmed by the Oregon Attorney General, that the National Guard and other levels of law enforcement were being mobilized. As the film describes, repeated attempts by Osho’s attorneys to cooperate with any warrant or allegations against him were rebuffed.

In OSHO International’s opinion, the risk of violence was defused at a stroke when Osho accepted the advice from those around him to leave. He flew out of Rajneeshpuram on the long journey across the country. His departure from Rajneeshpuram was a gift for the authorities who then claimed he was “fleeing.” OSHO International questions how Osho could be fleeing a non-existent arrest warrant, while filing flight plans with the FAA, and taking the longest possible route across the US when Canada was only 20 minutes away?

The attacks on Osho’s fragile health while the authorities were holding him required him to allow his lawyers to make an “Alford Plea” deal to leave the US, all the while maintaining his innocence of all charges.

Sheela was at the center of this criminal enterprise and received a 20-year prison sentence. She was released after only 39 months. A slap on the wrist compared with what OSHO International guesses would have been decades in prison for Osho had there been a trace of evidence linking him to Sheela’s crimes.

OSHO International’s summary of this story is that here was a non-white man from India, who wore a dress and an unusual hat, who drove a fleet of fancy foreign cars round a city named after him in Sanskrit, where everyone wore red, worked for no money but with only the love of a vision of a different world based on meditation, where there was no support for the family, private property or any religion, and where everyone was a vegetarian – right in the middle of conservative, Christian, cowboy country!

North Korea to hold nuclear dismantling ceremony; Invites journalists

Castle Romeo (yield 11 Mt) – an atmospheric nuclear test carried out by the U.S. on 1 March 1954 at Bikini Atoll, Marshal Islands. It was the third largest test ever detonated by the United States the first deployed thermonuclear device. Image in the public domain Image: U.S Government

Photo: The Official CTBTO Photostream

Press Release of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

Date: 05/12/2018


Pyongyang, May 12 (KCNA) — The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea issued a following press release on Saturday:

In accordance with the decision of the Third Plenary Meeting of the Seventh Central Committee of the Workers’ Party of Korea, the Nuclear Weapon Institute and other concerned institutions are taking technical measures for dismantling the northern nuclear test ground of the DPRK in order to ensure transparency of discontinuance of the nuclear test.

A ceremony for dismantling the nuclear test ground is now scheduled between May 23 and 25, depending on weather condition.

Dismantlement of the nuclear test ground will be done in the following sequence-making all tunnels of the test ground collapse by explosion; completely blocking entries; removing all observation facilities, research institutes and structures of guard units on the ground.

In parallel with dismantlement of the nuclear test ground, guards and researchers will be withdrawn and the surrounding area of the test ground be completely closed.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the DPRK is authorized, in this regard, to release the following decisions.

First, it has intention to allow not only the local press but also journalists of other countries to conduct on-the-spot coverage in order to show in a transparent manner the dismantlement of the northern nuclear test ground to be carried out in accordance with the decision of the Third Plenary Meeting of the Seventh Central Committee of the Workers’ Party of Korea.

In due consideration of small space of the test ground, journalists from other countries will be confined to those from China, Russia, United States, United Kingdom and south Korea.

Second, the following steps will be taken for providing convenience of visit and coverage to international journalists.

1) All international journalists will be provided with charter flight from Beijing to Wonsan, and other related steps such as opening territorial air space will be taken.

2) Special accommodation will be arranged in Wonsan for stay of the international journalists, and press center be set up for their use.

3) Special charter train will be arranged from Wonsan to the northern nuclear test ground for the international journalists.

4) In consideration of the fact that the test ground is located in the uninhabited deep mountain area, the international journalists will be accommodated in the special charter train and be provided with appropriate conveniences.

5) Necessary conditions and cooperation will be provided to the international journalists so that they can transmit at the press center about dismantlement of the test ground which they have covered on the spot.

The DPRK will, also in the future, promote close contacts and dialogue with the neighboring countries and the international society so as to safeguard peace and stability on the Korean peninsula and over the globe. -0-

Guns Now Allowed in Churches, Houses of Worship in Oklahoma

Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin has signed into law a bill which will expand “Stand Your Ground” to Churches and other Houses of Worship effective November 1, 2018.

 

An Act
ENROLLED HOUSE
BILL NO. 2632 By: Babinec, Ritze, Montgomery, Humphrey, Roberts (Sean), Faught and Downing of the House and Bergstrom and Pittman of
the Senate

An Act relating to firearms; amending 21 O.S. 2011,
Section 1289.25, as amended by Section 2, Chapter
266, O.S.L. 2017 (21 O.S. Supp. 2017, Section
1289.25), which relates to the use of deadly force;
expanding right to use deadly force at certain
places; defining term; and providing an effective
date.

SUBJECT: Firearms
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA:
SECTION 1. AMENDATORY 21 O.S. 2011, Section 1289.25, as
amended by Section 2, Chapter 266, O.S.L. 2017 (21 O.S. Supp. 2017,
Section 1289.25), is amended to read as follows:
Section 1289.25

PHYSICAL OR DEADLY FORCE AGAINST INTRUDER
A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the
State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within
their own homes or, places of business or places of worship and have
the right to establish policies regarding the possession of weapons
on property pursuant to the provisions of Section 1290.22 of this
title.

ENR. H. B. NO. 2632 Page 2
B. A person, regardless of official capacity or lack of
official capacity, within a place of worship or a person, an owner,
manager or employee of a business is presumed to have held a
reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to
himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is
intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another
if:
1. a. The person against whom the defensive force was used
was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully
entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a
dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle, or a place of
business or place of worship, or if that person had
removed or was attempting to remove another against
the will of that person from the dwelling, residence,
occupied vehicle, or place of business; and or place
of worship.
2. b. The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason
to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or
unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had
occurred; or
2. The person who uses defensive force knew or had a reasonable
belief that the person against whom the defensive force was used
entered or was attempting to enter into a dwelling, residence,
occupied vehicle, place of business or place of worship for the
purpose of committing a forcible felony, as defined in Section 733
of this title, and that the defensive force was necessary to prevent
the commission of the forcible felony.
C. The presumption set forth in subsection B of this section
does not apply if:
1. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the
right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence,
or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is
not a protective order from domestic violence in effect or a written
pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;
2. The person or persons sought to be removed are children or
grandchildren, or are otherwise in the lawful custody or under the
lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force
is used; or
ENR. H. B. NO. 2632 Page 3
3. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an
unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, occupied
vehicle, or place of business or place of worship to further an
unlawful activity.
D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who
is attacked in any other place where he or she 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, if he or she
reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or
great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the
commission of a forcible felony.
E. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to
enter the dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle of another person,
or a place of business or place of worship is presumed to be doing
so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or
violence.
F. A person who uses defensive force, as permitted pursuant to
the provisions of subsections A, B, and D and E of this section, is
justified in using such defensive force and is immune from criminal
prosecution and civil action for the use of such defensive force.
As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes
charging or prosecuting the defendant.
G. A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for
investigating the use of defensive force, but the law enforcement
agency may not arrest the person for using defensive force unless it
determines that there is probable cause that the defensive force
that was used was unlawful.
H. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, court costs,
compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the
defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if
the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as
provided in subsection F of this section.
I. The provisions of this section and the provisions of the
Oklahoma Self-Defense Act shall not be construed to require any
person using a weapon pursuant to the provisions of this section to
be licensed in any manner.
ENR. H. B. NO. 2632 Page 4
J. A person pointing a weapon at a perpetrator in self-defense
or in order to thwart, stop or deter a forcible felony or attempted
forcible felony shall not be deemed guilty of committing a criminal
act.
K. As used in this section:
1. “Defensive force” includes, but shall not be limited to,
pointing a weapon at a perpetrator in self-defense or in order to
thwart, stop or deter a forcible felony or attempted forcible
felony;
2. “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind,
including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is
temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over
it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people;
3. “Place of worship” means:
a. any permanent building, structure, facility or office
space owned, leased, rented or borrowed, on a fulltime
basis, when used for worship services, activities
and business of the congregation, which may include,
but not be limited to, churches, temples, synagogues
and mosques, and
b. any permanent building, structure, facility or office
space owned, leased, rented or borrowed for use on a
temporary basis, when used for worship services,
activities and business of the congregation including,
but not limited to, churches, temples, synagogues and
mosques;
4. “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides
either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited
guest; and
4. 5. “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not
motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
SECTION 2. This act shall become effective November 1, 2018.
ENR. H. B. NO. 2632 Page 5
Passed the House of Representatives the 30th day of April, 2018.