View Full Version : Holy moly, she didn't need a gun!

September 8, 2006, 07:45 PM
Woman strangles burglar (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/08/nurse.intruder.ap/index.html)

PORTLAND, Oregon (AP) -- A nurse returning from work discovered an intruder armed with a hammer in her home and strangled him with her bare hands, police said.

Susan Kuhnhausen, 51, ran to a neighbor's house after the confrontation Wednesday night. Police found the body of Edward Dalton Haffey 59, a convicted felon with a long police record.

Police said there was no obvious sign of forced entry at the house when Kuhnhausen, an emergency room nurse at Providence Portland Medical Center, got home from work shortly after 6 p.m.

Under Oregon law people can use reasonable deadly force when defending themselves against an intruder or burglar in their homes. Kuhnhausen was treated and released for minor injuries at Providence.

Haffey, about 5-foot-9 and 180 pounds, had convictions including conspiracy to commit aggravated murder, robbery, drug charges and possession of burglary tools. Neighbors said Kuhnhausen's size -- 5-foot-7 and 260 pounds -- may have given her an advantage.

Holy moly, she was a big momma!

I hope she is at peace with what she did to protect her own life from someone who has indicated in the past a willingness to commit murder.

I certainly am at peace with what she did.

More people ought to fight back against criminals as vigorously as she did. We would have a better world.


September 8, 2006, 08:49 PM
Good for her, and I too hope she is at peace with what she has done. She rightfully defended herself, though it's still not easy to take a life. Of course, that's the biggest difference between us and them: we have a sanctity for human life and they do not.

I hope a cop or two (or more) from the local department spend some time with her, reassuring her that she did right.

September 8, 2006, 08:50 PM
It not only took a lot of physical strength to do that, but I would imagine it took a great deal of determination/rage/something to actually choke someone to death. It's one thing to point a gun and shoot, it's another thing to take, what, 3-5 minutes of prolonged hands on effort. Not sure I could do that.


September 8, 2006, 09:22 PM
Wow that burglar screwed up bad. Hammer is ****ing dangerous. Ok maybe he screwed up good.

September 8, 2006, 09:28 PM
It not only took a lot of physical strength to do that, but I would imagine it took a great deal of determination/rage/something to actually choke someone to death. It's one thing to point a gun and shoot, it's another thing to take, what, 3-5 minutes of prolonged hands on effort. Not sure I could do that.


I think you could have. I mean once you start something like that you have no choice but to keep going until the threat is neutralized or the cops show up with "other means". If she had let go before the threat was neutralized then she might as well considered herself dead because he wouldn't have had any consideration to her life after that (not that he would have before).

+1 for the good guys.

September 8, 2006, 10:37 PM
I don't belive it would be 3-5 minutes of actual choking, for the record. The various choke holds that exist can be applied and render someone "out" in far less time than that. While I'd have to research it I believe you can choke someone into unconsciousness in less than 1 minute (perhaps less 45 seconds or less) and choke them to death in under two minutes. That would seem an eternity, but this woman was fighting for her life so she certainly had an iron grip on that man's throat.

September 8, 2006, 10:51 PM
How about we take up a collection and buy her a beer, and a gun


September 8, 2006, 11:38 PM
What does the state of oregon mean by " you can use reasonable deadly force." Maybe there you can not use a firearm.:eek:

September 9, 2006, 12:17 AM
I got the sense that they probably meant you can use deadly force if it's reasonable.

"Reasonable deadly force" seems a meaningless term, since deadly force is deadly force. Are there "degrees of deadly"? A certain number of Newtons applied to the throat is reasonable, but a certain few more Newtons would be unreasonable? :rolleyes: "Reasonable deadly force" seems like "a little bit pregnant." You either use deadly force or you do not, but you don't use "degrees" of deadliness. Just what kind of minute control over the deadliness would be expected or required of the defender??


September 9, 2006, 07:35 AM
Back in the day when they were still teaching us choke holds, we learned through practical exercise that a properly executed choke hold will render a person unconscious within 7 seconds.

silicon wolverine
September 9, 2006, 08:10 AM
In my army training they taught us that even if a person is unconcious after 7-10 seconds they are still alive and can still resist. They taught us to hold them for a hundred count to make sure. IF you guys start a collection for her ill donate.


Double Naught Spy
September 9, 2006, 08:13 AM
What a great story on how being disarmed NOT meaning a person is defenseless or doesn't have the right to self defense! I have to laugh whenever some guy posts how he doesn't like being "defenseless" at work, church, in certain businesses, the courts, etc. because there is a policy or law forbidding weapons, especially guns, in a given area. If being without a gun makes you defenseless as a citizen in the US, then you aren't all that serious about your own personal defensive safety as you haven't bothered to learn anything about self defense beyond carrying a gun.

"Reasonable deadly force" seems a meaningless term, since deadly force is deadly force.

While some force is considered deadly in various states (such as firearms discharges) almost by definition, people are sometimes rendered dead by what is believed to be non or less lethal force. The use of force may have resulted in being deadly, but it was a reasonable use for the circumstance. A possible example would be taser use resulting in a person's death. Obviously, use of the taser was lethal force as it killed the person, but it was reasonable force to be used in the situation.

In the case of the quote from the officer, it would appear that "reasonable deadly force" isn't a comment on the level of force being applied. So it isn't about the definition of deadly force. Instead, it is about whether or not the deadly force used was reasonable for the situation. The rest of us would probably refer to it as a justified/unjustified use of lethal force.

There is actually Oregon law pertaining to LEOs on this matter...

While the cop in the story might have used the phrase "reasonable deadly force," I doubt he meant it in the LEO-applicable definition format of the term except to say that it was reasonable for the situation.

September 9, 2006, 09:01 AM
The phrase 'reasonable deadly force'
has it's origin in the perception of the attacked that their life is threatened, and, that they may defend themselves, using deadly force. "Reasonable" applies to the mental perception of the victim. "Unreasonable" might be if a two year old was pointing a water pistol at you, and you strangled the child. Your belief that you were in fear for your life, under those circumstances, would be unreasonable, and, you would not have the privilege to use deadly force in response.

"The privilege to use force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm exists if, but only if, the actor reasonably believes that the other's conduct threatens him with death or serious bodily harm or ravishment."

In other words, it's the belief of the ATTACKED person that their life is in danger, not anyone elses. This is helpful when an little old lady threatens you, and trys to rob you, with a water pistol, and, not knowing it's a water pistol, you shoot her. You would have to argue that you had a 'reasonable' belief, since it was your mother-in-law, that you knew to be insane, and had hated you since the day you first dated your daughter, that you REALLY, 'reasonably' believed she would shoot you, and, had a REAL gun.

As with much legalize, it gets twisted in the mouth of the police, who are not trained sufficently, and used improperly.

Quick story about a similar situation, as described in
the law section quoted.

I had just moved to Hawaii, and, had a couple black belts, plus, was in top competitive boxing shape at the time. I was looking for a place to train, and, one of the guys mentioned he was a Golden Gloves boxer. He weighed about 7 pounds less then I, so I said let's meet, and spar at the gym.

Guess in Hawaiianana, that was an invite for getting beat up. This guy called two of his prison guard buddies, one about 6'2" and 190, rock hard, the other 6'4" and 280.

I saw them hanging out, and didn't take any note. I, at the time, was about 5'11" and 160. Crossing Ke Nui road, an alley, going to my house, the smaller of the two jumped out of the bushes, and threw two, quick hooks to my jaw.
I took both, looked him straight in the eye, and said, "Who the f... are you?"

He said,
"You got a good jaw!"

I said,
"I know."

He started to circle, and I looked at him. Tatoo, ripped, shirt off, but, he had a BAD LEG. -CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED- was he thinking?
That means he can't move, and, I can kill his leg., using sweeps, and leg kicks.

Quick thought: I can leave, and this guy can't catch me, or, if I go at him, since he can't move, and, he's bigger then I am, I have to shift targets, eyes, throat, solar plex, etc. that will insure a quick end to this fight. I'm thinking maim, and, when you use such targets, death can occur.
Why, over something I know nothing about, other then this guy is attacking me, should I go there, when I can retreat? All of my masters always taught, when you have a choice, don't show what you have, and leave.

So I did. I went home, called the police, and, gave them a report. The guy on the other end of the phone, a police sarge, long time, said,

"I know who that is, I'll take care of it."

He also asked me why I didn't slaughter the guy, and I explained the above to him.

Next day, I get a phone call. Since I had just moved over, not many friends knew the phone number.
"Hi, who is this."
"Hey bra. I'm the guy that tried to beat you up in the alley."
Me thinking, "GREAT, now he has my phone."
"Why are you calling me?"
"Well, my uncle came over, and beat the s.... out of me(His uncle is the sarge I talked to at HPD). He said, if I didn't call and apologize, he was going to put me in my own prision(turns out the two big guys are prison guards: JUST GREAT!!!;-), so, I'm sorry."

"Why did you attack me?"

"Because our brudda said you wanted to fight."

"I wanted to spar..." (Haole-Hawaiian language problem of interpretation)

"Hey bra, would you teach me how to fight? We need a good a martial arts instructor."

And here, I made the BIGGEST mistake of my 10 year stay in the Islands: I said no.-(

What I learned later, was that would have been my 'in' as a Haole boy, and, that would have been invaluable, dealing with the island, etc. down the road. Once you are 'in' with the Hawaiians, they will cover your tail all the time, as I learned later, living on the Makaha side of the island, thanks to The Kealuanas, Brian in particular.
:D ;)

Thank God I spent those 10 years prior, training my tail off, getting ready to try and box in the Olympics, etc.
If not, I would have been one of those haoles they find, knocked cold, and proped up against a tree...

Can you imagine what life would have been like,or what little I would have had, if I had pulled a gun, and shot a prison guard, who was related to the police, and, then I end up in the same prision, with his brother as a guard???

Thank GOD I didn't have my gun with me at the time...

Para Bellum
September 9, 2006, 12:14 PM
I know why I have a natural fear of fat bottomed girls :o

Seriously: given her professional knowledge she just knew where to push to strangle him quickly. I fear nothing more in CQB than an M.D. with a motivation to fight.

September 9, 2006, 12:48 PM
Hahaha, don't mess with us med students! We'll kill you quick! If you get us in a melee situation!:D :D :D As for this lady, my hats off to her. I think getting a collection going for her to get a firearm would be a great idea.


September 9, 2006, 01:52 PM
No question, I admire her. Knowing me, I'd probably have gone for a target a couple of feet lower and stopped him that way. I've never seen a man that was worth much for a minute after that. (You boys are so fragile :p :D ) Of course then I would have had to think of what to do next....and quickly....


September 9, 2006, 07:32 PM
Get a grip! She indeed did! :rolleyes:

September 9, 2006, 11:35 PM
As a retired surgeon, I always admired nurses (married one - the best). I would nominate this one for Citizen Of The Year.

Arriving home at 6 PM suggests she had worked more than an 8 hour shift - possibly a 10 hour or more likely a 12 hour shift. She had probably tolerated about all the stress in her Emergency Room she could tolerate by that time and that dumb crook just picked on the wrong nurse. He sure won't do that again.:rolleyes:

The world is a much better place because of her actions and the intruder certainly asked for it!:D

September 16, 2006, 05:54 PM
Perp had a record (surpise!) and may have been hired by the hubby as a hit man?



September 16, 2006, 06:26 PM
And y'all who posited the use of a chokehold were correct. I'd had the mental picture of something out of an old movie, face to face, hands around neck...

Glad she's ok. A claw hammer could have taken her out before she had time to react.


September 16, 2006, 06:58 PM
Good on her!

Note to self: if you visit this woman, do NOT leave toilet seat up.

September 18, 2006, 04:13 PM
WOW! Bizzarre...
What some people will do to get out of 'Half'.


September 18, 2006, 06:19 PM
I applaud this women and think this is wonderful. I have no sympathy for the BG. So please don't misunderstand the following discussion: I want to point out a few technicalities. There is some time between unconsciousness and death (I don't know how much). After being chocked unconscious the "imminant threat of death or serious bodily injury" (standard general legal language describing the circumstances under which it is reasonable to use deadly force - states can use different language though) is over. This is obviousely up for interpretation. It is possible (maybe even likely?) that at the time the BG goes unconscious the threat is over and deadly force is no longer justified. However, this points out something else - the power of public sympathy. This "victim" seems like a sympathetic victim and I would be surprised if the prosecutor would press charges - even though she technically may not have met the requirements for using deadly force at the time the BG was killed. The logical converse is also true - even if deadly force is completely justified, an unsympathetic victim can be put through the wringer in the judicial system. Something to keep in mind.

September 18, 2006, 08:07 PM
Now all she has to do is strangle her ex-husband, anyone else feel my sentiments?


September 18, 2006, 09:40 PM
I have to laugh whenever some guy posts how he doesn't like being "defenseless" at work, church, in certain businesses, the courts, etc. because there is a policy or law forbidding weapons, especially guns, in a given area. If being without a gun makes you defenseless as a citizen in the US, then you aren't all that serious about your own personal defensive safety as you haven't bothered to learn anything about self defense beyond carrying a gun.

I have to laugh at the wild generalizations you so frequently make.

You are so quick to write off those of us who feel "defenseless" when we are forbidden the use of guns, as though you would just turn into Superman if you were in a high rise office building and some crazed day trader came storming in with several firearms.

You alleging that we should be able to use the hand-to-hand skills you imply we are remiss in learning to take on a guy who has entered the building with an AK clone? :rolleyes:

What is it about self defense that we could have "bothered to learn" that is so effective in a someone's-going-postal situation?


September 18, 2006, 10:18 PM
I think what he means is that some focus too tighly on the firearm as their weapon of choice and forgoe any hand-to-hand training, edged weapons training etc.

Then they truly feel defenseless since the one tool in their toolbox is "missing"

That old saying "if your only tool is a hammer then everything looks like a nail"

Just like United 93 ...being undergunned does not put you out of the fight

It just means your tactics (or luck) need to be better

There have been school shootings where the bad guy was tackled (and disarmed) by other, unarmed students

It is about not giving up...just because you don't have a bigger/better weapon

I always wondered about the Lubby's Cafeteria shooting...were there NO steak Knives in the building???

Talk is cheap, but I would rather get shot trying to stop the bad guy than cowering behind a table hoping he shoots someone else

Easy E
September 19, 2006, 03:20 PM
OOPS! already been posted.