View Single Post
Old November 19, 2012, 02:22 AM   #118
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
all 4 quotes different posts + 3 different TFL members (2 quotes are entire posts)

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.


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.


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?? 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.


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.

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 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  
Page generated in 0.05777 seconds with 7 queries