Quote:
Posted by Edward429451: Normal people do not go around exposing themselves to women or anyone. To behave in this manner clearly shows that he at least has a mental problem, and at most anything could happen.
|
See below.
Quote:
Posted by TennJed: The trouble this lady could have gotten into by not drawing her gun outweighs (I'm my mind) everything else.
|
Could have=speculation.
Quote:
If he grabs her kid, then what? If he charges her and she tries to fleeing while carrying the child what are her chances. She could get into the ultimate "trouble" by giving this mentally defective man an opportunity at the upper hand
|
If...if...could.... Here's the rub:
everyone one meets in a remote park
might grab a kid or charge. Someone sitting on a bench with his clothing open and occupied with himself, however abnormal that behavior may be, most probably constitutes less of a threat of
imminent danger of
physical harm than someone casting furtive glances at the child, looking around, and continuing to approach.
But you cannot draw on them until you have some indication that it is
immediately necessary to do so, or you will likely go to jail.
The lady here may well have had that indication; we weren't there. But one cannot go around drawing on people because of that they
might do, or what "could happen", or because they are behaving abnormally. That's been true for centuries, screen fiction notwithstanding.
One may lawfully use force, or deadly force, and in some jurisdictions such as Washington State and a few others, display a firearm, when it is
necessary to do so to protect and defend, but not to administer justice, or to indicate disapproval for abnormal behavior, or to take into account what could happen.
The key word is
necessary---
immediately necessary. The old formula of A, O, J, and P applies well, except that when the threshold is to defend against "presently threatened unlawful physical force" as it is here, "Ability" is defined differently from its traditional meaning in the context of self defense.