The Firing Line Forums

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old November 17, 2012, 04:33 PM   #51
Skadoosh
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,776
Quote:
pax wrote: He told her to watch him yank off.
According to report, he did not order her to do anything. The report states:
Quote:
He allegedly sat down and began performing a sex act and said she should watch.
That is a suggestion, not an order, no?
__________________
NRA Life Member (2003)
USN Retired
I think that one of the notions common to the anti-gunner is the idea that being a victim is 'noble'; as if it is better to be noble in your suffering than disruptive in your own defense.
Skadoosh is offline  
Old November 17, 2012, 04:45 PM   #52
pax
Staff
 
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: Washington state
Posts: 6,981
From http://www.kgw.com/news/local/Flashe...179658621.html

Quote:
Around 8 p.m. on Wednesday the woman was at Lake Sacajawea with her 6-year-old son and a dog when a man approached her aggressively while masturbating and suggested she should watch him.
Video interview with the victim here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkg-4uUTEBg

Her 6 year old son is terminally ill, and the dog is his service dog.

Original local news story here: http://tdn.com/news/local/woman-pull...9bb2963f4.html

pax
__________________
Kathy Jackson
My personal website: Cornered Cat
pax is offline  
Old November 17, 2012, 04:49 PM   #53
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 2,021
She would not have been justified in displaying the firearm in that manner under Missouri law, or that of many other states.

The law in the state of washington clearly does permit the display of a firearm in some circumstances in which the threat of death or serious bodily harm is not imminent. However,mI do not know enough about the legal definitions and case law of the State of Washington to judge whether saying that someone should watch something would amount to the "presently threatened use of force". Pax lives there, but lacking more background, I'm dubious.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old November 17, 2012, 05:33 PM   #54
jhenry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2006
Location: Ozarks
Posts: 1,813
I believe she would have been legally justified in brandishing the firearm in Missouri as I read RsMO 571.030 and 563.031
__________________
"A Liberal is someone who doesn't care what you do, as long as it's mandatory". - Charles Krauthammer
jhenry is offline  
Old November 17, 2012, 06:22 PM   #55
youngunz4life
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
I agree w/Pax 100%.

I disagree w/oldsmarksman(people have already noted/posted valid arguments).

Frank, I edit my original post. Yes, it would be wise for me to proofread upon posting...thank you. I also have to side w/some arguments explaining their side with you, but you made some good points.

First we are talking about a woman(it does matter), then we are talking about a young child of the mother, then we are talking about the location. It is common knowledge that most pervs do escalate when they get away with stuff: one of example of many - peeping tom's many times can graduate to rapists andor breaking and entering. Take that into account when one can easily feel threatened(we all realize this depends on the person not state law) and have reason to believe that this individual had very bad intent, is on drugs or highly drunk, andor might easily have some mental issues. One can not take the chance. She didn't brandish her firearm...she pulled it out for protection and got it at the ready. She didn't fire but would've been justified if this individual posed any further danger to her and her child(example: charged them). Who knows what would've happened, but as I mentioned in my original post: "Things can escalate quick...."
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864
youngunz4life is offline  
Old November 17, 2012, 06:33 PM   #56
barstoolguru
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 31, 2011
Posts: 180
She was wrong for not having the gun ready and had to do all after pulling it and this would have been a great time for a can of pepper spray instead of a gun as a first choice. I shot in the face and one more in the privates would have been righteous
barstoolguru is offline  
Old November 17, 2012, 06:38 PM   #57
youngunz4life
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
Quote:
She was wrong for not having the gun ready....
you may be right, but that is an opinion. Everybody has to make their own choice of how to carry their firearm: one in the chamber, mag installed, etc, etc. I give her credit for having a firearm for a CCW(some people choose to leave it at home) and for having a plan: inserting her mag and making her CCW "hot" without hesitation. She didn't seem clueless.
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864
youngunz4life is offline  
Old November 17, 2012, 06:44 PM   #58
Microgunner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 6, 2006
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by pax
The situation called for an immediate, strong dose of pepper spray to the guy's wanker.
I wonder if that would hurt???
__________________
Proud NRA Patron Member
Microgunner is offline  
Old November 17, 2012, 06:47 PM   #59
jhenry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2006
Location: Ozarks
Posts: 1,813
Yes.
__________________
"A Liberal is someone who doesn't care what you do, as long as it's mandatory". - Charles Krauthammer
jhenry is offline  
Old November 17, 2012, 06:48 PM   #60
dayman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Location: The Woods
Posts: 1,136
Due to an unfortunate prank escalation several years ago - when I was still in college - I can say definitively that yes, it would hurt.
__________________
si vis pacem para bellum
dayman is offline  
Old November 17, 2012, 06:53 PM   #61
barstoolguru
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 31, 2011
Posts: 180
Quote:
you may be right, but that is an opinion. Everybody has to make their own choice of how to carry their firearm: one in the chamber, mag installed, etc, etc. I give her credit for having a firearm for a CCW(some people choose to leave it at home) and for having a plan: inserting her mag and making her CCW "hot" without hesitation. She didn't seem clueless.
So what is a gun if it's not loaded.... a club!! What if this guy jumps up and takes the gun from her while she is fumbling with the mag and shoots the woman and kid? Sorry I give her no credit for carrying a gun and not having the confidence to carry proper. She got lucky this time but next maybe not so
barstoolguru is offline  
Old November 17, 2012, 06:59 PM   #62
jhenry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2006
Location: Ozarks
Posts: 1,813
I would bet that has been pointed out to her in a couple of ways by this time. Whether she learns from the experience is up to her.
__________________
"A Liberal is someone who doesn't care what you do, as long as it's mandatory". - Charles Krauthammer
jhenry is offline  
Old November 17, 2012, 08:49 PM   #63
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by pax
From http://www.kgw.com/news/local/Flashe...179658621.html

Quote:
Around 8 p.m. on Wednesday the woman was at Lake Sacajawea with her 6-year-old son and a dog when a man approached her aggressively while masturbating and suggested she should watch him.
Video interview with the victim here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkg-4uUTEBg

Her 6 year old son is terminally ill, and the dog is his service dog.

Original local news story here: http://tdn.com/news/local/woman-pull...9bb2963f4.html...
This is the sort of additional information that can significantly change the legal evaluation of the situation. Being able to articulate an aggressive approach by the perpetrator and having an especially vulnerable child in tow help support her actions as reasonable.

I've mentioned before that the details can make a difference. Here's an example.
__________________
"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, 08:51 PM   #64
youngunz4life
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
I understand your points

barstool, would've she didn't have a gun in the first place and he beat them both to death with his bare hands? Would've it jammed and she didn't have a backup gun, or would've he was on pcp and she ran out of bullets for whatever reason and didn't have a reload? I'm not trying to be funny. Maybe sometime she'll decide to carry your way and have a negligent discharge. Don't get me wrong, I carry my CCW fully loaded. I am just saying it still is a free country, and this woman might want to do things her way. There are plenty of people who leave their CCW home when they go out(many have admitted it on this forum). I give her credit because she he had a firearm on her, and using her CCW protected her and her son that day(100% speculation...but there is no way to know what would've happened if she had no firearm...I believe that scenario is extremely dangerous but that is a personal opinion). This guy might've been a child molester; for some reason he thought it was ok to ask her to watch like she might enjoy it or something.
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864
youngunz4life is offline  
Old November 17, 2012, 09:19 PM   #65
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,936
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pax
The situation called for an immediate, strong dose of pepper spray to the guy's wanker.


I wonder if that would hurt???
Bet he would have put Jessie Owens track record to shame.

A good dose of pepper spray in that area would surely keep him from doing that specific sexual act for a good while. At least till the burnt and blistered skin healed up.
shortwave is offline  
Old November 17, 2012, 09:47 PM   #66
tomrkba
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2011
Posts: 620
All I am going to say is we put up with far too much bad behavior in this country. The result is an excessive amount of legal wrangling over obvious evil acts and those performing those acts become accustomed to getting away with their crimes.

She was absolutely in the moral right to draw he gun and point it at him. Whether or not this satisfies the silly legal requirements of her state is a different problem. Most of us know the law has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with a bunch of idiots sitting in a room in the capitol deciding how everyone should behave.
tomrkba is offline  
Old November 17, 2012, 09:52 PM   #67
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: TEXAS!
Posts: 1,478
"IT DEPENDS"

It depends on a lot of factors.

"IF" it comes to that, and there are women on the grand jury, I'd bet a week of lunches for a no-bill (assuming that's the process in Washington State). If it goes to a jury, same bet.

To the contrary, Austin Texas previously had an uber leftwing prosecuting attorney (Ronnie Earle, who also went after high profile politicians for bogus charges) who was looking to re-legislate gun control locally. He chose on numerous occasions to file against lethal force self defense cases, sometimes multiple charges (murder, unlawful discharge, ...) as an attempt to bankrupt the defendant with a gun.
__________________
!أنا لست إرهابي
TXAZ is offline  
Old November 17, 2012, 10:12 PM   #68
Elapid
Junior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2012
Location: North Mississippi
Posts: 2
I can't cite anything on this, but I believe in Texas you can protect your property with deadly force without fear for you life. Texas has some lenient laws on the use of deadly force. I'm sure somebody from Texas can clear this up for me. I have read that repo agents don't like Texas laws on this.
Elapid is offline  
Old November 17, 2012, 10:35 PM   #69
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomrkba
...She was absolutely in the moral right to draw he gun and point it at him. Whether or not this satisfies the silly legal requirements of her state is a different problem. Most of us know the law has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with a bunch of idiots sitting in a room in the capitol deciding how everyone should behave.
And in this case, especially, you're wrong. The law of self defense has its roots in the Common Law of England. Those roots are 500 or so years deep.

We need to understand that our society frowns on one human intentionally hurting or killing another. However, our laws, going back to the Common Law of England on which our system is based (and even before then in other systems), recognize that there are situations in which an intentional act of extreme violence against another person can be justified -- for example when absolutely necessary to defend an innocent (whether oneself or another) against an otherwise unavoidable threat of being killed or gravely injured by another person's intention act.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elapid
I can't cite anything on this, but I believe in Texas you can protect your property with deadly force without fear for you life. Texas has some lenient laws on the use of deadly force. I'm sure somebody from Texas can clear this up for me....
Yes, Texas law is especially lenient in this regard, but it isn't as simple as you make it out. There are a number of requirements that would need to be satisfied to make the use of lethal force justified.

However, a discussion of Texas use-of-force law is off topic for this thread.
__________________
"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, 11:00 PM   #70
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
Florida not only allows ANY citizen to use force, up to and including lethal force to prevent certain "aggravated" felonies but it also allows same force to be used to detain the person to prevent escape YOU personally witness in the commission of same AF crimes...

So I see a guy light fire to a structure and I order him to stop for police to arrest him... If he attempts to flee, he can expect to become a plumbum sponge...

This being true up to a couple years ago... So before any of my fellow florida residents takes my info as gospel... I would research it to make sure it hasn't recently changed... The "legal aid" group in my county doesn't seem to have a current law library for regular citizens to peruse...

Brent
hogdogs is offline  
Old November 17, 2012, 11:24 PM   #71
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 2,021
Quote:
Posted by jhenry: I believe she would have been legally justified in brandishing the firearm in Missouri as I read RsMO 571.030 and 563.031
Unfortunately or fortunately, your reading of the statutes would not be determinative, and is incorrect.

Unless, of course, she could present some evidence that the offender in this case actually presented a threat of physical force or violence (i.e., committed a forcible felony).

Same thing in Washington, which is more relevant. A significant difference is that in the State of Washington, a citizen need not retreat.

Last edited by OldMarksman; November 17, 2012 at 11:39 PM.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old November 17, 2012, 11:59 PM   #72
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by hogdogs
Florida not only allows ANY citizen to use force, up to and including lethal force to prevent certain "aggravated" felonies...
Actually, the term used in Florida law is "forcible" felony. Do you know what a forcible felony is under Florida law?

First, see Florida Statutes 776.012:
Quote:
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;...
Then "forcible felony" is defined in 776.08 (emphasis added):
Quote:
776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
Note that a core attribute of a forcible felony under Florida law it the threat or use of physical force or violence. That is consistent with the general rule in Florida recognizing lethal force as justified:
Quote:
...to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another ...
A forcible felony, as define, will most likely present a reasonable risk of death or great bodily harm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hogdogs
Florida ...allows same force to be used to detain the person to prevent escape YOU personally witness in the commission of same AF crimes...
How about a citation to the law? You were a bit fuzzy on the lethal force question. while most jurisdictions recognize "citizen arrest" in some form, the requirements and the consequences of being wrong need to be understood.
__________________
"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 18, 2012, 12:46 AM   #73
barstoolguru
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 31, 2011
Posts: 180
@ youngunz4life : you bring up some valid points BUT she had an unloaded gun so what IF he would have beat her to death before she could load the gun? Point being she had time to find it, load it and rack the slide so IMO she wasn't under no real threat of harm because if she was chances are she would have panicked and fumbled with the loading process. The gun was an LCP and with an 8-9 lb trigger pull you just about have to stand on it to go off. On top of that if she was under threat of harm that gun is no picnic to rack back and the loss of eye/hand dexterity under stress makes it a very difficult task
barstoolguru is offline  
Old November 18, 2012, 01:09 AM   #74
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
Frank, The statute number is what I am having a hard time finding without a law library and a person to help me go through them...

And not all "forcible felony" crimes requires a person to be immediately at risk of death or GBH... Arson is one... It does not require the structure to be a dwelling nor occupied...


Here is what I find in a quickie search and think this is the statute to what we discuss but I could be wrong or missing some sub components...

Quote:
Title XLVI
CRIMES

Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

View Entire Chapter
776.07 Use of force to prevent escape.—
(1) A law enforcement officer or other person who has an arrested person in his or her custody is justified in the use of any force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody.
Brent
hogdogs is offline  
Old November 18, 2012, 01:38 AM   #75
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by hogdogs
...And not all "forcible felony" crimes requires a person to be immediately at risk of death or GBH... Arson is one... It does not require the structure to be a dwelling nor occupied......
Arson has long been considered a violent crime against a person or persons. Among other things, whether a building is or is not occupied is generally unknown by the arsonist; fires can spread unpredictably and indiscriminately creating a risk of injury to those in proximity; and fires present grave risks to those who fight them.

As for 776.07, that presumes a person in custody as a result of an arrest. But what are the rules applicable to a citizen lawfully performing an arrest?

We shouldn't get sidetracked. The point is that the use of force is often not as simple as some might think.
__________________
"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  
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 12:47 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 0.14698 seconds with 7 queries