|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 21, 2012, 01:30 PM | #151 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Was she knowledgeable of the law? I don't know. Quote:
People who do not understand that concept are likely to get into a lot of trouble. I'm going to put in another plug for MAG-20. For anyone who thinks it costly, consider the possibility of losing everything due to not having an understanding of the use of force laws. And in the interim, order a copy of The Cornered Cat-- a Woman's Guide to Concealed Carry. Even if you are a man. Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
November 21, 2012, 01:49 PM | #152 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 12, 2000
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado
Posts: 9,494
|
Quote:
Normal people do not go around exposing themselves to women or anyone. To behave in this manner clearly shows that he at least has a mental problem, and at most anything could happen. So she played it safe and drew on him. He could have jumped on her in an instant. Are we trying to advocate this type of behavior as somehow being ok because of what John law may do, or some silly continuum of force ladder? With a woman? That's preposterous and would create loopholes for pervs. Continuum of force is for men. |
|
November 21, 2012, 02:30 PM | #153 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2010
Posts: 1,536
|
The trouble this lady could have gotten into by not drawing her gun outweighs (I'm my mind) everything else. If he grabs her kid, then what? If he charges her and she tries to fleeing while carrying the child what are her chances. She could get into the ultimate "trouble" by giving this mentally defective man an opportunity at the upper hand
|
November 21, 2012, 06:13 PM | #154 | |||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But you cannot draw on them until you have some indication that it is immediately necessary to do so, or you will likely go to jail. The lady here may well have had that indication; we weren't there. But one cannot go around drawing on people because of that they might do, or what "could happen", or because they are behaving abnormally. That's been true for centuries, screen fiction notwithstanding. One may lawfully use force, or deadly force, and in some jurisdictions such as Washington State and a few others, display a firearm, when it is necessary to do so to protect and defend, but not to administer justice, or to indicate disapproval for abnormal behavior, or to take into account what could happen. The key word is necessary---immediately necessary. The old formula of A, O, J, and P applies well, except that when the threshold is to defend against "presently threatened unlawful physical force" as it is here, "Ability" is defined differently from its traditional meaning in the context of self defense. |
|||
November 21, 2012, 07:54 PM | #155 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2010
Posts: 1,536
|
Quote:
An obviously unstable man making threatening sexual gestures is quite a bit different than the average person you meet on the street that looks bad. What he was doing up the chances that the "what if" and "might" . His actions were much more than abnormal. You are comparing this to normal day to day strangeness. This is much more than your abnormal behavior. 99% of SD situations involve some degree of what if. Is that really a gun in his pocket? You have to make quick decisions. His actions were a clear indication of a man that is more than abnormal I might agree with your argument if she pulled the trigger. In this case she did what was the safest thing for her and her child when put in a situation that is much worse than normal |
|
November 21, 2012, 09:43 PM | #156 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,717
|
Quote:
I think people have freaked out because "aggressive" was used, but in how it was used does not necessarily indicate actual aggression. Quote:
I appreciate your forthright statements
__________________
"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 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
||
November 21, 2012, 10:00 PM | #157 | |||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
November 21, 2012, 11:30 PM | #158 |
Junior member
Join Date: November 12, 2000
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado
Posts: 9,494
|
...and it was the weaker sex, a female. OM, your excused from jury duty.
If it was a man then I'd agree with you. |
November 21, 2012, 11:55 PM | #159 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2010
Posts: 1,536
|
Quote:
Quote:
This lady could only assume what this man's intent was. Given the fact he has directed his action at her and he is unable to seperate legal from illigal acts (your words) why should she assume he is not dangerous? Please shed some more light on your "level that society likes" comment.
__________________
Find out just how tall I am By jumping in the middle of a river |
||
November 22, 2012, 12:13 AM | #160 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2010
Posts: 1,536
|
Quote:
We obviously differ on his mental state and potential danger. That is fine we should agree to disagree. I see his actions as that of someone who is very likely dangerous and wanting to act in a dangerous manner. Sexual crimes are usually violent and dangerous to the victim. This man has crossed the line into not caring/knowing what is legal/moral. When that involves sexual activities, then that is dangerous path to be on. Someone who does this is crossing a line (IMHO) that warrants this lady putting her and her child's life before questions of legality. That us not to say I think we should put legal issues aside, I just feel sexual assault tends to be one type of activity that has more potential to be violent and dangerous. **edit to add, I do not think someone should knowingly act in an illegal maner, but self defense involves quick actions. This woman did not pull the trigger. She kept the situation from esculating and she kept her family safe. I think we both agree that there needs to be "imminent danger of physical harm" Where we differ is on what is "immediate danger" There is no black and white or easy way to define this. In my opinion, a sexual crime directed at a person is "imminent danger of harm" Last edited by TennJed; November 22, 2012 at 12:26 AM. |
|
November 22, 2012, 12:28 AM | #161 |
Junior member
Join Date: November 12, 2000
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado
Posts: 9,494
|
Objection, the man's medical stability is irrelevant, she's no Doctor, and has no duty to perform.
Perhaps he can be checked out after he puts his pee pee away and quits talking to the women, if he lives that long. I believe it's possible that the perverse nature of the aggression thereby created exigent circumstances for the Lady because she had a Child Charge with her. So there. I rest, Your Honor. Last edited by Edward429451; November 22, 2012 at 12:34 AM. |
November 22, 2012, 08:04 AM | #162 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
But ability is only one factor. Last edited by OldMarksman; November 22, 2012 at 08:57 AM. Reason: grammar |
|
November 22, 2012, 08:56 AM | #163 | |||||||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That's in her jurisdiction. In most states, the threshold would be one of reasonable belief that he had the ability, the opportunity, and the intent to cause death or great bodily harm, and that she had no alternative but to draw. But one more time, we're basing our discussion of her particular case on news reports, and we just don't know. Quote:
Quote:
Taking a chance on losing one's ability to own a firearm does not promote one's safety. Quote:
Quote:
On the other hand, I have seen individuals watching women walking to their cars and looking around for witnesses; I have stopped a robbery by recognizing the signs; my doctor's wife has witnessed two car-jackings in the same place. These were the dangerous ones. And again, potential does not justify drawing a firearm in any state or US territory. The point is to draw when you have to and to do so timely, and to not draw when you don't have to. A high court ruling in one state really got my attention. The ruling was that if someone pointed a gun when it was not justified, the other person, even if in violation of a law, could justify the lawful shooting the first person as self defense. There is a natural tendency for people here to identify with, and have sympathy for, someone who has employed a firearm in some kind of encounter. We've seen it in the case of a pharmacist who shot a robber and was later convicted of first degree murder; that of a person who pointed a gun at a trespasser and received a mandatory prison sentence; of someone who shot a teen who had fled from his house; and in cases still pending. We need to be more objective and to avoid that tendency. |
|||||||
November 22, 2012, 10:15 AM | #164 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Getting repetitive -- nothing new here. Time to stop.
__________________
"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 |
Tags |
attack , self-defense |
|
|