The Firing Line Forums

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old November 18, 2012, 02:41 PM   #101
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmorris
Seems like if she had killed the man the fact that a gun was "in play" and dead people can't tell their side of the story, ....
Actually, dead people often tell their side of the story -- in the form of physical evidence, body position, autopsy findings, etc. And sometimes there are witnesses one might not immediately be aware of.

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
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old November 18, 2012, 03:09 PM   #102
barstoolguru
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!
barstoolguru is offline  
Old November 18, 2012, 03:30 PM   #103
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by barstoolguru
...OR the paper would have mention "SHE" was questioned, "SHE" was detained, "SHE" might be facing charges...
Why? What if the reporter didn't know at the time? What if all that came after the story was written? What if the reporter wasn't really all that good.

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
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old November 18, 2012, 03:42 PM   #104
TennJed
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2010
Posts: 1,512
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.
TennJed is offline  
Old November 18, 2012, 03:48 PM   #105
TheGoldenState
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2010
Posts: 1,191
Quote:
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.
SO they should get rid of indecent exposure charges in leu of attempted forced rape charges.

Got it.


Wouldn't have been justified.
__________________
The Day You Get Comfortable Is The Day You Get Careless...
TheGoldenState is offline  
Old November 18, 2012, 03:53 PM   #106
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by TennJed
...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....
But the legalities are important.

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
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old November 18, 2012, 04:19 PM   #107
Microgunner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 6, 2006
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,906
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 Patron Member
Microgunner is offline  
Old November 18, 2012, 04:33 PM   #108
barstoolguru
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 31, 2011
Posts: 180
Quote:
If she is not charged, the decision
Quote:
will likely constitute a reasonable political call
, and it will say nothing to the legality of her action.
Cop is not voted into office and are under no pressure to be political so why are you bringing it up. Maybe, just maybe they seen a woman that felt like her life and wellbeing and the wellbeing of her child was in danger.

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
barstoolguru is offline  
Old November 18, 2012, 04:42 PM   #109
TennJed
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2010
Posts: 1,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin View Post
But the legalities are important.

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.
I agree that they are important, but a man masterbating in front of a woman and child should be considered extremely unstable and dangerous. What he was doing is without question in my mind aggressive. If he grabs the child you have lost your opportunity to pull your weapon and fleeing is not an option. Fleeing immediately would be a poor choice in my mind also. If he chased her while she was carrying the child she would not stand a chance
TennJed is offline  
Old November 18, 2012, 04:46 PM   #110
Skadoosh
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,772
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 (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 18, 2012, 05:24 PM   #111
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,908
Quote:
Posted by barstoolguru: Cop is not voted into office and are under no pressure to be political so why are you bringing it up.
The police do not make the charging decision.

Quote:
Maybe, just maybe they seen a woman that felt like her life and wellbeing and the wellbeing of her child was in danger.
If she ends up not being charged, there are several possibilities, including the following:
  1. There exists some evidence supporting a basis for a reasonable belief that unlawful force had in fact been threatened; that is not clear from the article.
  2. The authorities have decided that on balance, it would not further the cause of justice to charge the woman, even if there is no evidence that would support a defense of justification.
  3. The charging authorities believe that a decision to charge would be unpopular, but that not charging her would not constitute a material failure of the justice sytem; that would be a political decision.

Last edited by OldMarksman; November 18, 2012 at 05:46 PM. Reason: phraseology
OldMarksman is offline  
Old November 18, 2012, 05:41 PM   #112
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,908
Quote:
Posted by Skadoosh: How about we just chalk this one up to the good guys/girls?
Let's hope we can do that.

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.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old November 18, 2012, 05:43 PM   #113
jmorris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 22, 2006
Posts: 1,563
Quote:
Based on the fact that the article did not mention whether the police were charging the woman with an unlawful act, seems like any argument whether she is culpable or not.
Yeah, and I'm not sure they could convict her on her own testimony and it's unlikely that the guy is going to turn himself in to testify against her.
jmorris is offline  
Old November 18, 2012, 05:57 PM   #114
Amsdorf
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.
Amsdorf is offline  
Old November 18, 2012, 07:11 PM   #115
Dragline45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 30, 2010
Posts: 2,365
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.
Dragline45 is offline  
Old November 18, 2012, 07:17 PM   #116
barstoolguru
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 31, 2011
Posts: 180
Quote:
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.
See I have to agree with this and this is why I always recommend and carry a less then lethal weapon. She did have time to use one because she had time to load and charge a LCP. If she used pepper spray first and then had to use a gun it would have made her look better
barstoolguru is offline  
Old November 18, 2012, 07:18 PM   #117
Amsdorf
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.

Amsdorf is offline  
Old November 19, 2012, 02:22 AM   #118
youngunz4life
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:
The law in some states permits a citizen to employ force to effect a citizen's arrest without having been requested by an officer to assist. The requirements vary among jurisdictions, but no one in his right mind would want to expose himself the civil liability.
see it all the time(on "Cops" to name one): citizens not allowing someone to leave a store drunk, citizens holding down shoplifters, citizens even probably crossing the line because someone left their child in a vehicle and then attempted to leave upon returning before police get there. another one is a cop in need of assistance. if one would want to be technical, maybe a good citizen shouldn't intervene? commonsense trumps, good people will assist if a poilicewoman is being beat up on the side of the road by a drunk person that has been pulled over.

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:
SO they should get rid of indecent exposure charges in leu of attempted forced rape charges.

Got it.


Wouldn't have been justified.
that's all speculation because it didn't happen. We don't know if it would or wouldn't have been justified unless that happened. Case in point: she draws weapon, perv charges saying I'm gonna kill you....or...perv starts the indecent act and woman draws weapon and without saying something decides to execute perv........or.... more probable, something in between two scenarios listed.

///

Quote:
The lady should have just left the scene. Why would any sane person want to shoot someone for exposing themselves? Especially when it occured in a public place that could have been easily vacated.
purely speculation that is, Sir. The mother never stated she wanted to shoot anybody, and more importantly nobody was shot. Many people run thinking they can vacate and end up biting the dust. Also, many times running is a sign of panic when actually staying calm and keeping your cool while standing face is the better option. At any rate, this woman cut thru the bull and went to endgame instead of worrying about being followed, whether her son could even move fast(a 6yr old??...my children are slow movers), and she felt threatened justifiably without question during this assault. Who knows, maybe she saw the newscast about the preceding event that happened in the area and decided to carry a firearm for protection at that point. It is of course possible this scumbag was interested in children. If she had no firearm he could've been kidnapped and lived his childhood somewhere else. If she saved anyone's child or just one innocent child, I'm on her side period. I don't mean to get deep, but one must Wonder what thoughts and intentions a man like this has or had.

///

Quote:
Why? What if the reporter didn't know at the time? What if all that came after the story was written? What if the reporter wasn't really all that good.

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.
I thought you said we needed to "stick with what we know" in your post31 when you corrected me? I did make an edit in the post25 you were speaking about due to my typing error and mentioned it in a later post.

Quote:
Which means what, exactly? The fact that something isn't mentioned in an article doesn't mean it didn't happen. The fact that something isn't mentioned in an article doesn't mean it didn't happen until after the article was published.
you were responding to barstool. I don't necessarily disagree with your points, and the first part I mentioned above about posts #25&31 is neither here nor there, but barstool has a good point. There are no behind the scenes chatter, investigation, Anything going on about anything she did wrong...no verbal warnings, nothing. He does have a point that something like that would probably be mentioned.....
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864
youngunz4life is offline  
Old November 19, 2012, 02:36 AM   #119
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by youngunz4life
...
Quote:
Why? What if the reporter didn't know at the time? What if all that came after the story was written? What if the reporter wasn't really all that good.

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.
I thought you said we needed to "stick with what we know" in your post31 when you corrected me? I did make an edit in the post25 you were speaking about due to my typing error and mentioned it in a later post.

Quote:
Which means what, exactly? The fact that something isn't mentioned in an article doesn't mean it didn't happen. The fact that something isn't mentioned in an article doesn't mean it didn't happen until after the article was published.
you were responding to barstool. I don't necessarily disagree with your points, and the first part I mentioned above about posts #25&31 is neither here nor there, but barstool has a good point. There are no behind the scenes chatter, investigation, Anything going on about anything she did wrong...no verbal warnings, nothing. He does have a point that something like that would probably be mentioned.....
An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. One can not simply draw an inference from the fact that something isn't mentioned in a news article that it didn't happen. All you can know is that it wasn't mentioned.

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
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old November 19, 2012, 04:06 AM   #120
youngunz4life
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
youngunz4life is offline  
Old November 19, 2012, 08:11 AM   #121
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,908
Quote:
Posted by youngguzforlife: ...her mag was actually already in the firearm(just not punched all the way in).
That's the way it was reported in at least one account. It was reported differently in others.

Quote:
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.
One--just one-- of the issues that is routinely evaluated in any self defense case, whether or not force was used, is the speed at which the incident unfolded. It pertains to the very critical legal questions of immediate necessity and of imminent threat.


Quote:
She had every right with absolutely no question to pull her weapon, morally, legally, ethically, in the realms of common sense, etc.
Are you aware of some evidence that she had reason to believe it immediately necessary to protect herself or her child against the use of presently threatened unlawful force by another? That's the legal threshold for justification in that jurisdiction.

Quote:
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.
The term "brandish" has different meanings, and it would not be used in the Sate of Washington, where the law refers to persons who "exhibit, display, or draw" any firearm,... in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons." In Missouri, the law refer to one who "exhibits a weapon...in an angry or threatening manner." The question in both jurisdictions is whether there was evidence of lawful justification.

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:
There are no behind the scenes chatter, investigation, Anything going on about anything she did wrong...no verbal warnings, nothing. He does have a point that something like that would probably be mentioned.....
Difficult to prove a negative, but you seem to think you can do it.

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:
Frank ... I read some posts(not from you) talking about "politics". No, it's not politics.
In Post #38, Frank said "She'll probably suffer no legal repercussions. But that will most likely be more a question of politics."

Quote:
This one was an opened and closed book and someone probably said: "Next" while asking for another coffee.
Pure speculation, but at what conference, involving whom, do you assert that that probably happened?

Quote:
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'.
There have been a number of well publicized cases in the last two or three years in which persons have been considered to have acted heroically, and have given interviews, and have ended up later being criminally charged and sometimes convicted.

Not likely to happen here, but do not believe that it does not.

Last edited by OldMarksman; November 19, 2012 at 08:17 AM.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old November 19, 2012, 09:03 AM   #122
youngunz4life
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
Quote:
That's the way it was reported in at least one account. It was reported differently in others.
it came from the woman's own mouth during the televised interview(someone posted a link if you are interested). I have no reason to doubt her, and I believe her as well.

Quote:
Are you aware of some evidence that she had reason to believe it immediately necessary to protect herself or her child against the use of presently threatened unlawful force by another? That's the legal threshold for justification in that jurisdiction.
yes, and I will not answer that question again. The man committed an assault on this woman and child; if caught he can face the possibility of being a registered sex-offender for life. I for one would like to know his record & if he was involved in the previous incident. As you mentioned in your other posts, the legal threshold for shooting this man in self-defense is higher. She did not fire the weapon though. It was not necessary for her to do so. Do you have evidence that this situation was "political" as you mentioned earlier?

Quote:
The term "brandish" has different meanings, and it would not be used in the Sate of Washington, where the law refers to persons who "exhibit, display, or draw" any firearm,... in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons." In Missouri, the law refer to one who "exhibits a weapon...in an angry or threatening manner." The question in both jurisdictions is whether there was evidence of lawful justification.

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.
thank you for the clarification and/or explanation about the brandishing issue. As I mentioned, I wasn't sure about that one. You almost never hear about it unless the reason was egregious: man doing it because he wants to frighten off someone flirting with his girlfriend, roadrage, etc. The charge is also tacked on when the cops want to throw the book at an idiot with as much as they can. In a situation like this, it wouldn't even be an issue.

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..
verbal warnings are extremely common. Case in point: "Ma'am, we respect what you did to protect yourself and your child but just keep in mind....yada yada yada." Basically there are nice people out there that would look out for this woman + give her advice if she was walking a fine line. It happens a lot when a cop gives a break to a criminal or someone less respected as well. It also can come from higher up.

Quote:
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.
I can't take that bet. I think the focus on the investigation was catching this perp. Staright from the bottom to the top the recommendation was probably that this woman was not at fault in any way. It seems the media was informed about a possible linked, previous incident & a description was fed to the public to try and catch this person. Even the most hardcore prosecutors probably didn't give this one a second glance. As mentioned earlier, that doesn't mean the issue can't be revisited if other stuf comes to light.

Quote:
Pure speculation, but at what conference, involving whom, do you assert that that probably happened?
that was watercooler talk...a joke so-to-speak

Quote:
Not likely to happen here, but do not believe that it does not.
I know this happens. you misunderstood me if you thought otherwise.
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864
youngunz4life is offline  
Old November 19, 2012, 09:16 AM   #123
teeroux
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2006
Posts: 1,489
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.
teeroux is offline  
Old November 19, 2012, 09:39 AM   #124
barstoolguru
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!
barstoolguru is offline  
Old November 19, 2012, 10:05 AM   #125
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,908
Quote:
Posted by youngunz4life: The man committed an assault on this woman and child;
Do you have a legal basis for that assertion?

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:
if caught he can face the possibility of being a registered sex-offender for life.
That is completely irrelevant to the question of justification.

Quote:
You almost never hear about it [(persons being charged with the unlawful exhibition of of firearms)] unless the reason was egregious: man doing it because he wants to frighten off someone flirting with his girlfriend, roadrage, etc. The charge is also tacked on when the cops want to throw the book at an idiot with as much as they can. In a situation like this, it wouldn't even be an issue.
Don't believe it for a minute. We have seen law abiding persons who have been convicted and who have lost their right to possess firearms for life for pointing a gun at a trepassers on their own property, in "gun friendly" juridictions; we have had persons who were initially treated as heroes charged for pointing guns at persons they erroneously thought to have been burglars; Florida imposes a long mandatory prison sentence when firearm is pointed when there is not evidence of the justification of deadly force, even though pointing the gun does not constitute deadly force per se, and we know of examples.

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.
OldMarksman 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 10:00 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 0.14873 seconds with 7 queries