The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old November 16, 2012, 02:31 PM   #1
thump_rrr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 12, 2010
Posts: 269
Woman Pulls Gun On Flasher

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...rains-out?lite

Was her life in danger?
Was she justified in pulling out her gun?

“I put the magazine in my gun. I cocked it,” the woman told The Daily News online. “I said, ‘You need to leave or I’ll shoot you. I’m going to blow your brains out.’”

Why was she carrying a pistol without the magazine in it?
thump_rrr is offline  
Old November 16, 2012, 02:49 PM   #2
teejhot.40cal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2005
Location: Western Pee-A
Posts: 334
I like that. she sent the dog after him.
__________________
Stay safe!!
teejhot.40cal is offline  
Old November 16, 2012, 02:52 PM   #3
DasGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 29, 2011
Posts: 318
This could have gone horribly wrong for her in so many ways.
DasGuy is offline  
Old November 16, 2012, 02:58 PM   #4
Don H
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by thump_rrr
Was her life in danger?
Was she justified in pulling out her gun?
I'm not familiar with Washington's laws so I won't speculate on the legality of her actions other than to note that laws vary widely from state to state. In some states, mine for example, it's not necessary for a person's life to be in danger to legally display a firearm at, or shoot, a person.
Don H is offline  
Old November 16, 2012, 03:22 PM   #5
Microgunner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 6, 2006
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,023
Good for her.
She gave that perverted clown exactly what he needed, a strong dose of reality.
__________________
Proud NRA Patron Member
Microgunner is offline  
Old November 16, 2012, 03:22 PM   #6
m&p45acp10+1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2009
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 3,310
It would be justified in Texas due to a child being present. Also what he did in the laws of this state was to commit a sexual assault by exposure. (Legal wording of the charge could be a little different.)

Besides you do not know what the man would do later. The woman was in a park with her 6 year old child, and man not only exposed himself he stated that the woman should watch. Who knows what he would have done or tried next.
__________________
No matter how many times you do it and nothing happens it only takes something going wrong one time to kill you.
m&p45acp10+1 is offline  
Old November 16, 2012, 03:58 PM   #7
Dr Big Bird PhD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 778
I like this woman a lot
__________________
I told the new me,
"Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'"
But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back."
Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor
Dr Big Bird PhD is offline  
Old November 16, 2012, 04:35 PM   #8
TailGator
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,027
I suppose in some ways the lady is fortunate that she was in a situation in which her assailants hands were busy, giving her time to insert a magazine and chamber a round. Such is not always the case, to say the least.

I would think that a woman who elucidated a fear of sexual assault would be justified almost anywhere guns are legal, and such a fear for herself or her child would seem reasonable in this circumstance. In many jurisdictions, interrupting a forcible felony is justification; in others, any felony. Laws specific to that jurisdiction would have to be looked at carefully, but one can only imagine the uproar that would ensue if a prosecutor filed charges against a young mother who chased off a flasher.
TailGator is offline  
Old November 16, 2012, 04:36 PM   #9
Detonator
Junior Member
 
Join Date: November 14, 2012
Posts: 2
In California you can physically defend yourself from someone who is uttering "Terroristic Threats" at you, so in CA there is a way to handle someone who is not in the process of harming you.

But one guy recently had to fight hard against assult charges after he chased down the street after a burglar he caught in the act, and beat him a few times with a baseball bat. I'm convinced that public opinon kept him out of the cage.

I'm not sure what would happen to this woman if she had shot the guys privates off. I wonder if she got charged with concealed carry or brandishing a weapon.

Remember the "Death Wish" guy in the subway stations?

Det
Detonator is offline  
Old November 16, 2012, 04:45 PM   #10
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Detonator
In California you can physically defend yourself from someone who is uttering "Terroristic Threats" at you,...
Please provide a citation to proper legal authority.

If you are going to make these kinds of claim, you need to be prepared to back them up with evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Detonator
...But one guy recently had to fight hard against assult charges after he chased down the street after a burglar he caught in the act, and beat him a few times with a baseball bat. I'm convinced that public opinon kept him out of the cage...
Again, provide documentation please. And the way you describe it, his use of force would have been unjustified. Assault charges probably would have been appropriate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Detonator
...Remember the "Death Wish" guy in the subway stations?
If you're referring to Bernard Goetz, he was accosted by a group creating a disparity of force situation. He was tried, and the jury bought his self defense claim. But he was convicted and sent to jail for having an unregistered gun.
__________________
"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
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old November 16, 2012, 04:48 PM   #11
publius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2005
Location: Mississippi/Texas
Posts: 2,457
I hope she knows to carry with a mag in the gun now. Absolutely she was justified, you have to assume that a person who does this is a rapist who intends to do more than just show her his package.
__________________
"Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress, but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
publius is offline  
Old November 16, 2012, 06:19 PM   #12
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by publius
...Absolutely she was justified, you have to assume that a person who does this is a rapist...
Why does one have to assume that? Do you have any evidence that one has to assume that? Do you have any evidence that most exhibitionists are also rapists? In fact, I believe that is not true.

This woman might indeed get a pass on this, primarily because prosecutors have discretion; and a prosecutor would probably rather avoid the controversy. But in general, displaying a gun in a threatening manner will get one into hot water unless he can justify it by demonstrating a reasonable fear of death or grave bodily injury.
__________________
"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
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old November 16, 2012, 06:24 PM   #13
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,936
Quote:
In some states, mine for example, it's not necessary for a person's life to be in danger to legally display a firearm at, or shoot, a person.
Don H

I did not think there was a state that you could legally shoot someone if you were not in fear for your life or someone else's.

Can you cite something of Utah's law stating what you posted?
shortwave is offline  
Old November 16, 2012, 07:37 PM   #14
dawg23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2001
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 401
Quote:
I did not think there was a state that you could legally shoot someone if you were not in fear for your life or someone else's.
I think you'll find plenty, including my state of Louisiana, where a person can use deadly force when he "reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm." [La. R.S. 14:20]

Specific verbiage will vary from state to state (maybe "great bodily injury," instead of "great bodily harm"), but the intent is the same. But clearly, in some jurisdictions, the threat doesn't have to rise to the level of "death."
__________________
.
www.PersonalDefenseTraining.net
dawg23 is offline  
Old November 16, 2012, 07:51 PM   #15
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 7,006
Nebraska's laws mention prevention of rape...... and I think the prosecutor would not only have a hard time finding a jury that would convict her if she shot him in the junk, but if he did bring charges, he (or his boss) would find such a prosecution politically ...... problematic.
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is online now  
Old November 16, 2012, 07:58 PM   #16
Don H
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,705
Sure, Shortwave:
Quote:
76-2-402. Force in defense of person -- Forcible felony defined.
(1) (a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that force or a threat of force is necessary to defend the person or a third person against another person's imminent use of unlawful force.
(b) A person is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to the person or a third person as a result of another person's imminent use of unlawful force, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(2) (a) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in Subsection (1) if the person:
(i) initially provokes the use of force against the person with the intent to use force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant;
(ii) is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or
(iii) was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement, unless the person withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so and, notwithstanding, the other person continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.
(b) For purposes of Subsection (2)(a)(iii) the following do not, by themselves, constitute "combat by agreement":
(i) voluntarily entering into or remaining in an ongoing relationship; or
(ii) entering or remaining in a place where one has a legal right to be.
(3) A person does not have a duty to retreat from the force or threatened force described in Subsection (1) in a place where that person has lawfully entered or remained, except as provided in Subsection (2)(a)(iii).
(4) (a) For purposes of this section, a forcible felony includes aggravated assault, mayhem, aggravated murder, murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, and aggravated kidnapping, rape, forcible sodomy, rape of a child, object rape, object rape of a child, sexual abuse of a child, aggravated sexual abuse of a child, and aggravated sexual assault as defined in Title 76, Chapter 5, Offenses Against the Person, and arson, robbery, and burglary as defined in Title 76, Chapter 6, Offenses Against Property.
(b) Any other felony offense which involves the use of force or violence against a person so as to create a substantial danger of death or serious bodily injury also constitutes a forcible felony.
(c) Burglary of a vehicle, defined in Section 76-6-204, does not constitute a forcible felony except when the vehicle is occupied at the time unlawful entry is made or attempted.
(5) In determining imminence or reasonableness under Subsection (1), the trier of fact may consider, but is not limited to, any of the following factors:
(a) the nature of the danger;
(b) the immediacy of the danger;
(c) the probability that the unlawful force would result in death or serious bodily injury;
(d) the other's prior violent acts or violent propensities; and
(e) any patterns of abuse or violence in the parties' relationship.

Quote:
76-6-202. Burglary.
(1) An actor is guilty of burglary who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or any portion of a building with intent to commit:
(a) a felony;
(b) theft;
(c) an assault on any person;
(d) lewdness, a violation of Section 76-9-702;
(e) sexual battery, a violation of Section 76-9-702.1;
(f) lewdness involving a child, in violation of Section 76-9-702.5; or
(g) voyeurism under Section 76-9-702.7.
(2) Burglary is a third degree felony unless it was committed in a dwelling, in which event it is a second degree felony.
(3) A violation of this section is a separate offense from any of the offenses listed in Subsections (1)(a) through (g), and which may be committed by the actor while in the building.
Quote:
76-6-102. Arson.
(1) A person is guilty of arson if, under circumstances not amounting to aggravated arson, the person by means of fire or explosives unlawfully and intentionally damages:
(a) any property with intention of defrauding an insurer; or
(b) the property of another.
(2) A violation of Subsection (1)(a) is a second degree felony.
(3) A violation of Subsection (1)(b) is:
(a) a second degree felony if:
(i) the damage caused is or exceeds $5,000 in value; or
(ii) as a proximate result of the fire or explosion, any person not a participant in the offense suffers serious bodily injury as defined in Section 76-1-601;
(b) a third degree felony if:
(i) the damage caused is or exceeds $1,500 but is less than $5,000 in value;
(ii) as a proximate result of the fire or explosion, any person not a participant in the offense suffers substantial bodily injury as defined in Section 76-1-601; or
(iii) the fire or explosion endangers human life;
(c) a class A misdemeanor if the damage caused is or exceeds $500 but is less than $1,500 in value; and
(d) a class B misdemeanor if the damage caused is less than $500.
Quote:
76-6-301. Robbery.
(1) A person commits robbery if:
(a) the person unlawfully and intentionally takes or attempts to take personal property in the possession of another from his person, or immediate presence, against his will, by means of force or fear, and with a purpose or intent to deprive the person permanently or temporarily of the personal property; or
(b) the person intentionally or knowingly uses force or fear of immediate force against another in the course of committing a theft or wrongful appropriation.
(2) An act is considered to be "in the course of committing a theft or wrongful appropriation" if it occurs:
(a) in the course of an attempt to commit theft or wrongful appropriation;
(b) in the commission of theft or wrongful appropriation; or
(c) in the immediate flight after the attempt or commission.
(3) Robbery is a felony of the second degree.
Note the highlighted portion in the Robbery statute. This appears to allow one to use lethal force on a perpetrator fleeing from a robbery or robbery attempt. I don't know if there is case law that supports this or not but I certainly wouldn't care to be a test case.

Let's look at the Defense of Habitation statute:
Quote:
76-2-405. Force in defense of habitation.
(1) A person is justified in using force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's unlawful entry into or attack upon his habitation; however, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if:
(a) the entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner, surreptitiously, or by stealth, and he reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person, dwelling, or being in the habitation and he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence; or
(b) he reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony in the habitation and that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.
(2) The person using force or deadly force in defense of habitation is presumed for the purpose of both civil and criminal cases to have acted reasonably and had a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury if the entry or attempted entry is unlawful and is made or attempted by use of force, or in a violent and tumultuous manner, or surreptitiously or by stealth, or for the purpose of committing a felony.
Edited to add: None of the highlighted portions of the statutes require one to be in fear of death or serious bodily injury to use lethal force.
Don H is offline  
Old November 16, 2012, 08:11 PM   #17
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,832
Don H,

If you're going to cite a statute, you have to identify the State.
__________________
"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
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old November 16, 2012, 08:13 PM   #18
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,936
Interesting.

Thanks Don.
shortwave is offline  
Old November 16, 2012, 08:23 PM   #19
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,832
[1] The laws of some States permit the use of lethal force for other than preventing imminent death or grave bodily injury.

[2] But if you look at those laws, the use of lethal force is still limited.

[3] It may be justified to prevent an imminent forcible felony, arson, robbery, in the case of a forcible break-in of ones home or under a few other narrowly described circumstances. Those crimes are crimes in which there is a strong likelihood that the victim is in significant physical danger.

[4] I'm not aware of any use-of-force law that could be read as authorizing lethal force against indecent exposure.
__________________
"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
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old November 16, 2012, 08:46 PM   #20
Don H
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
Don H,

If you're going to cite a statute, you have to identify the State.
Sorry, Frank. In my earlier post I used the phrase " In some states, mine for example", and Shortwave asked his question in reference to that, so I just blithely gave the cites knowing that my state is shown below my name. In the future I'll prominently identify the state in the text.
Don H is offline  
Old November 16, 2012, 09:04 PM   #21
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don H
...In the future I'll prominently identify the state in the text.
Thank you. That way we don't have to go hunting for the information or try to figure it out.
__________________
"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
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old November 16, 2012, 09:13 PM   #22
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,515
Quote:
I did not think there was a state that you could legally shoot someone if you were not in fear for your life or someone else's.
And, of course, Texas, under a variety of circumstances, some very specific, but even for such things as the protection of property where you feel shooting is necessary because you otherwise will not get that property back.

Here is an example. A thirteen year old kid was stealing poults with a buddy. The owner of the chickens shot and killed the 13 year old while he was attempting to flee with the owner's property (at night). The shooting was legal. The kid was even shot in the back which was also legal becasue first the owner of the chickens was justified in his use of lethal force despite the fact that he was not in fear for his life or the life of another human.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...aling+chickens
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old November 16, 2012, 09:25 PM   #23
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy
And, of course, Texas, under a variety of circumstances, some very specific,..,
Texas law is unique and broader on this point than the law of any other State. It is irrelevant unless you are in Texas.
__________________
"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
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old November 17, 2012, 01:52 AM   #24
Edward429451
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 12, 2000
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado
Posts: 9,494
Quote:
This could have gone horribly wrong for her in so many ways.
Why the negative Nancy? Everything turned out all right. This was a positive use of a gun against a real sicko. I applaud the lady.

I wonder if she carries with the Mag in it now?
Edward429451 is offline  
Old November 17, 2012, 03:11 AM   #25
youngunz4life
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
if the article was NOT incorrect, this woman (for starters) was being assaulted. Things can escalate quick; I see no issue with this woman drawing a firearm if this happened to her and her child.
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864

Last edited by youngunz4life; November 17, 2012 at 06:11 PM. Reason: edited due to terminology typed incorrectly the first time(capitals added w/edit)
youngunz4life is offline  
Closed Thread

Tags
attack , self-defense

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15979 seconds with 9 queries