|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 18, 2012, 02:41 PM | #101 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
In any event, suggesting that it might be okay to unlawfully use lethal force as long as you can get away with it is not appropriate on this forum.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
November 18, 2012, 03:09 PM | #102 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 31, 2011
Posts: 180
|
I said it before and I will say it again I don't know what the state law is but from what I read in the paper and that’s all I have to go by at this point she was with in her rights OR the paper would have mention "SHE" was questioned, "SHE" was detained, "SHE" might be facing charges. So with little info we do have it sounds like "SHE" was within her rights to defend herself and child against a sexual predator.
"it might be political". NO; it might be right! |
November 18, 2012, 03:30 PM | #103 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Every time a news article critical of gun ownership, or including things about guns we know to be inaccurate, is published, we complain bitterly about how ignorant, incompetent and/or biased reporters are and the media is. But if a news article says something we like, it's suddenly gospel.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
November 18, 2012, 03:42 PM | #104 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2010
Posts: 1,536
|
What would most people want their wife or daughter to do in this situation? I would have no problem with my wife or daughter pulling their weapon in this situation to end the treaty quickly and keep it from escalating. We can argue legalities till the cows come home, but when the crap hits the fan in real life I would not want my loved ones to risk it. Someone who would do something like this guy did is too unstable to assume anything other than the worse case.
|
November 18, 2012, 03:48 PM | #105 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2010
Posts: 1,191
|
Quote:
Got it. Wouldn't have been justified.
__________________
The Day You Get Comfortable Is The Day You Get Careless... |
|
November 18, 2012, 03:53 PM | #106 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
One's goals in any potentially dangerous encounter are to (1) protect himself and his family; and (2) avoid going to jail. A major purpose of having these discussions here is to provide information that might help someone make decisions that will achieve both those goals.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
November 18, 2012, 04:19 PM | #107 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 6, 2006
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,324
|
i'm fairly sure that graveyards are littered with good folk who paused to ponder the legal ramifications of an armed response and the jailhouses have their share of those who did not.
Hmmmm.....potentially... grave vs jail. What would I choose for myself or any good citizen? To say she and her's were in no danger is ridiculous, she was but a few feet from a depraved felon in the act of commiting a felony.
__________________
Proud NRA Benefactor Member |
November 18, 2012, 04:33 PM | #108 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: May 31, 2011
Posts: 180
|
Quote:
As far as charging the woman.... I will say this... jury nullification if it ever gets past the judge or grand jury that would even think about moving it on not to mention the outcry of people that would stand in her support me being one |
||
November 18, 2012, 04:42 PM | #109 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2010
Posts: 1,536
|
Quote:
|
|
November 18, 2012, 04:46 PM | #110 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2010
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 2,016
|
Is it just me...or is this discussion just going around in circles?
If this case makes ever makes it into court, which doesn't look like is going to happen, it will be up to the jurors to decide if the woman is guilty of brandishing, excessive use of force or what ever. So far, the local prosecutor's inaction pretty much indicates that he/she doesn't think the woman committed a crime. How about we just chalk this one up to the good guys/girls?
__________________
NRA Life Member USN Retired |
November 18, 2012, 05:24 PM | #111 | ||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by OldMarksman; November 18, 2012 at 05:46 PM. Reason: phraseology |
||
November 18, 2012, 05:41 PM | #112 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
None of us will make the decision, nor do we have the facts to enable us to do so. What we can do is understand, and help others understand, that drawing a firearm falls under different laws in different states, and that the consequences of doing so unlawfully can be very severe indeed. It is not a good idea do so unless there is reason to believe that it is immediately necessary. But should it ever become immediately necessary, it is important to recognize that fact before it is to late, and it is essential to be able to do it very quickly indeed. We should not lose sight of the fact that she was able to produce an empty weapon, find the magazine and insert it, and rack the slide without being seriously injured and losing the firearm in the process. I suggest that either she was extremely lucky or that the perp did not really present an immediate threat. No way to tell which, but carrying an empty firearm for protection just isn't very prudent. |
|
November 18, 2012, 05:43 PM | #113 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 22, 2006
Posts: 3,076
|
Quote:
|
|
November 18, 2012, 05:57 PM | #114 |
Junior member
Join Date: July 24, 2011
Location: Saint Louis, Missouri
Posts: 849
|
The man approached her, "hat in hand" as it were, vigorously manipulating his hat and asked her to watch. She had every right to feel threatened. She did the right thing.
|
November 18, 2012, 07:11 PM | #115 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 30, 2010
Posts: 3,513
|
I'm sure this was mentioned before, but why didn't she have a magazine in her gun? A gun isn't going to chamber a round on it's own no matter how much you throw it around. The things that some women are able to convince themselves baffle me.
|
November 18, 2012, 07:17 PM | #116 | |
Junior member
Join Date: May 31, 2011
Posts: 180
|
Quote:
|
|
November 18, 2012, 07:18 PM | #117 |
Junior member
Join Date: July 24, 2011
Location: Saint Louis, Missouri
Posts: 849
|
Pepper spray on all exposed body parts...that would have definitely made an impression.
|
November 19, 2012, 02:22 AM | #118 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
|
all 4 quotes different posts + 3 different TFL members (2 quotes are entire posts)
Quote:
this woman in the story even told the news and police she informed the perv she was gonna fire in five seconds. people can be in danger and still have time to get their weapon ready...her mag was actually already in the firearm(just not punched all the way in). if you saw someone approaching you to attack and had time to load your weapon, does that mean you weren't in any danger or threatened? of course not. it is obvious by reading the thread, that there is some 'ships passing each other in the foggy night' here. arguments can be made validly on each side And things change IF this woman had just fired without letting this man retreat. She didn't do that; she pulled her firearm to protect herself and child from a pervert andor mentally unstable individual possible under the influence of drugs/alcohol. There is also concrete evidence that this isn't the first time this has happened recently in the area(basically another greenlight for her). She had every right with absolutely no question to pull her weapon, morally, legally, ethically, in the realms of common sense, etc. If she had fired, circumstances would have been changed, antes would have raised the poker pot, and details of that event would have a major role in how it unfolded in the aftermath. I might be wrong on terminiology, but I don't think she brandished her weapon(as I said not positive about this one). I believe brandish is just to show the weapon by pulling up your shirt, making a nonverbal communication to the effect that I can use this on you, and so-on. Sorry to jump back into this one late but I figured I would throw in some thoughts. /// Quote:
/// Quote:
/// Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864 |
|||||
November 19, 2012, 02:36 AM | #119 | |||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
That may be sufficient to form a hypothesis. But a hypothesis needs to be tested. You would do well to understand the difference among a fact, an hypothesis, a suspicion and a wild guess.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|||
November 19, 2012, 04:06 AM | #120 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
|
Frank let's face facts though, while everything you just stated literally hits the nail on the head, this was all a non-issue in this instance. I read some posts(not from you) talking about "politics". No, it's not politics. That does occur, but politics had nothing to do with this one. It was a a non-issue unless something popped up after-the-fact(very doubtful). This one was an opened and closed book and someone probably said: "Next" while asking for another coffee. News crews usually don't get interviews from criminals(at least on purpose) while 'painting them as heroes'. That might be too strong of an expression, but she is pretty much labeled as the 'goodguy'. I wish I could remember my english lessons...you know, the good character in the novel the teacher studies with the students?
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864 |
November 19, 2012, 08:11 AM | #121 | ||||||||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Those are weapons offenses. In most states (but not Washington, where only the weapons offense would apparently apply), the more serious charge is aggravated assault. Quote:
Why would you expect "verbal warnings?" But you can bet your last dollar that authorities continued to evaluate the evidence and discuss her testimony after the police interviews and that no decision on charging had been made. A decision to not charge may have been made by others by now. Or not. But it is likely, I think, that she will not be charged.. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Not likely to happen here, but do not believe that it does not. Last edited by OldMarksman; November 19, 2012 at 08:17 AM. |
||||||||
November 19, 2012, 09:03 AM | #122 | |||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864 |
|||||||
November 19, 2012, 09:16 AM | #123 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 12, 2006
Posts: 1,512
|
Some of you guys I just don't get. Naked scumbag perfoming sexual acts in front of a woman and child is capable of just about anything beyond that. Crazy or not the current actions of the perp give more than a reasonable expectation that person may harm you. The lady didn't shoot the guy she threatend to shoot him. Can't blame her either. What happens beyond that is on the naked nutjob.
|
November 19, 2012, 09:39 AM | #124 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 31, 2011
Posts: 180
|
I will say this; this is an active sex crime and as such most police are limited on what they say or divulge to the public but when you read enough of these news articles you get a general idea if that particular paper or reporter is holding something back. I don't sense this here but it could be, not ruling it out. they gave a fair amount of detail as to the gun and how she handled it so I can only surmise that if she was arrested or charged it would have been in print; after all dirty laundry sells print!
|
November 19, 2012, 10:05 AM | #125 | |||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
But it wouldn't matter, not one iota; the question is, is there evidence supporting a reasonable belief that unlawtul force was presently threatened. From the standpoint of whether she was lawfully justified, that's it. Period. In Post #111, I did suggest two other reasons why she may not be charged with a serious crime, and I have repeatedly said that I so not believe she will be. Quote:
Quote:
Do not draw you weapon unless you have an immediate reason that would stand up to legal investigation, or be prepared to lose it for life. |
|||
Tags |
attack , self-defense |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|