|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 18, 2012, 07:54 AM | #76 | ||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
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. |
||
November 18, 2012, 08:28 AM | #77 | |
Junior member
Join Date: May 31, 2011
Posts: 180
|
Quote:
Last edited by barstoolguru; November 18, 2012 at 09:02 AM. |
|
November 18, 2012, 08:47 AM | #78 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2010
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 2,016
|
...this thread should be moved to law and civil rights.
__________________
NRA Life Member USN Retired |
November 18, 2012, 09:25 AM | #79 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Anyone who believes that one would be justified in using deadly force in a case of indecent exposure, disturbance of the peace, or mere verbal threats would be well advised to leave his or her firearm at home until he or she has learned just a little bit more about the use of force laws. A really good place to start would be Ayoob's MAG-20. Expensive? Inconvenient? Not nearly as costly or as "inconvenient" as the consequences of believing and acting upon that kind of terrible advice. |
|
November 18, 2012, 09:43 AM | #80 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 31, 2011
Posts: 180
|
As stated before this is a multi-state forum and as such it’s hard to say what the laws are in other states BUT in Texas (my state) she was well with in her rights to protect herself and child against a sexual predator. To say all he is going to do is sit there and pleasure himself is a guess and might be a fatal mistake. a sexual assault does not have to employ physical contact but can be a verbal and visual
PC §9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. |
November 18, 2012, 09:52 AM | #81 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 27, 2006
Location: Ozarks
Posts: 1,840
|
Quote:
The statute, 563.031 states "reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person". There is no requirement for the unlawful force to be at a felony level level as you assert. He approached her in an aggressive manner while she had the responsibility of providing protection for her disabled minor son. He was also in the act of committing a crime which coupled with his aggressive demeanor could easily and reasonably cause the mother to be in fear of an imminent assault. The only requirement for the aggressor to be in the act of a "forcible felony" is if deadly force was used. It was not. She did nothing which a reasonable person would understand could cause the loss of life or limb. Brandishing, even when it is contrary to the law, is not the use of deadly force.
__________________
"A Liberal is someone who doesn't care what you do, as long as it's mandatory". - Charles Krauthammer |
|
November 18, 2012, 09:57 AM | #82 | ||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Quote:
But we digress. The incident took place in the State of Washington; deadly force was not employed; the woman did not attempt to effect a citizen's arrest. The key, and unanswered, question is whether or not she was defending herself against the use of presently threatened unlawful force. |
||
November 18, 2012, 09:58 AM | #83 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 3, 2009
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 3,930
|
I had stated early on that the woman would be justified in her use of force in Texas. Back in the mid 1980's my aunt shot a man in the junk with rock salt from a 20 ga. shot gun from about 15 yards. He was in the yard masterbating while children where playing in the yard across the alley. While he was on the ground screaming and holding himself she let him know that the next one was buck shot, and if he ran, or made a sudden move she would give it to him.
The cops that arrived on scene told her "good shooting." The man was convicted of a felony later on for the event. She stated that the cops who saw where she put the shot shuddered when they heard where she shot the guy.
__________________
No matter how many times you do it and nothing happens it only takes something going wrong one time to kill you. |
November 18, 2012, 10:04 AM | #84 |
Member
Join Date: November 17, 2012
Location: Northern Missouri
Posts: 20
|
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.
|
November 18, 2012, 10:20 AM | #85 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
But she did not do that. She didn't touch him. She threatened deadly force. Do we know any case law on the distinction? Do we have a qualified legal opinion? But that would be of academic interest only. There was no report of any threat of the imminent use of unlawful force. None. And as long as we are discussing Missouri, since when was not inside her residence or automobile on property that she owned or leased, there's also the little matter of a duty to retreat, unless she could show that retreat had not been safely possible. Long-standing common law here. Not that Missouri law matters here. |
|
November 18, 2012, 10:27 AM | #86 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
sp
Quote:
First, the "cops" are not the final decision authority; second, one may always be charges at any later date up to and until (1) one has been tried and acquitted; (2) one has been pardoned (but that won't shield against civil liability); (3) the statute of limitations has run out; or (4) one dies. We often advise people to limit what they say after a defensive action. That advice applies for a very long time. Last edited by OldMarksman; November 18, 2012 at 11:11 AM. |
|
November 18, 2012, 10:32 AM | #87 | |
Junior member
Join Date: May 31, 2011
Posts: 180
|
Quote:
As I stated: a sexual assault does not have to employ physical contact but can be a verbal and visual. This paragraph does not state physical contact has to be made but implied Sec. 22.011. SEXUAL ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person: (b) A sexual assault under Subsection (a)(1) is without the consent of the other person if: (7) the actor compels the other person to submit or participate by threatening to use force or violence against any person, and the other person believes that the actor has the ability to execute the threat; just incase you missed it, you don't have to wait for it to happen but fear it will: PC §9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another: B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. Last edited by barstoolguru; November 18, 2012 at 10:40 AM. |
|
November 18, 2012, 10:34 AM | #88 |
Junior member
Join Date: July 24, 2011
Location: Saint Louis, Missouri
Posts: 849
|
I say, good for the lady and hopefully it makes the pervert think twice before exposing himself again. I'm gladly she demonstrated great restraint by not shooting off the offending appendages.
|
November 18, 2012, 11:09 AM | #89 | |||||||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But why does Texas matter here? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Sections (b) (1)-(11) simply define conditions under which such penetration or contact is considered to have been made without the consent of the victim. Quote:
Nor will "will" cut it, ether. The threat must be imminent. Now. I strongly suggest that you consult an attorney before relying on your interpretations or making reckless statements upon which other unfortunates may rely. |
|||||||
November 18, 2012, 11:23 AM | #90 | |
Junior member
Join Date: May 31, 2011
Posts: 180
|
PC §9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another: B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
Quote:
|
|
November 18, 2012, 11:26 AM | #91 |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
^^^
It would seem from the report that the person against whom the deadly force was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied vehicle. Under Texas law, the actor's belief that deadly force was immediately necessary to defend himself or herself is presumed to be reasonable under such circumstances. Last edited by OldMarksman; November 18, 2012 at 11:35 AM. |
November 18, 2012, 11:48 AM | #92 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 31, 2011
Posts: 180
|
the point being who is to say what fear is to anyone. what fear is to you may not be what fear is to me. this lady on a park bench with her kid was /can be in fear of her safety by this man and has the right to defend herself
PC 9.22 Necessity: reasonably believe the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm |
November 18, 2012, 12:02 PM | #93 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"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 |
|
November 18, 2012, 12:11 PM | #94 | ||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
What the lady in Houston reportedly said is completely irrelevant. The reported evidence would justify her action--or no. Appears that it would, here, from the report. It still remains to be seen. Quote:
We cannot judge whether such a threat existed. I haven;t seen any indication that it dis, but I will not rely on news reports. The threshold for the use of deadly force is much higher. Her personal level of trepidation would not enter into the question. |
||
November 18, 2012, 12:25 PM | #95 | |
Junior member
Join Date: May 31, 2011
Posts: 180
|
I went back and reread the article and it mentions nothing about her getting arrested for brandishing OR threating another person. On top of that it supports her right to self-defense by saying she went to the police station and looked through mug shots later that evening
Quote:
|
|
November 18, 2012, 12:35 PM | #96 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
And if you're going to cite a statute, use a complete and proper citation so that the rest of us can find what you're referring to.
__________________
"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 |
||
November 18, 2012, 12:38 PM | #97 |
Junior member
Join Date: November 12, 2000
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado
Posts: 9,494
|
Plus, the fact that she was Female sure didn't hurt the legality of the incident. A female would be easily considered to be more at risk in this situation than a male for obvious reasons. They might frown on it if a male had drawn down on a flasher. So being Female, it was an acceptable response from her.
|
November 18, 2012, 12:44 PM | #98 | ||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
But again, we don't know all the facts. Quote:
When and under what circumstances it is lawful to present a firearm varies by jurisdiction. Minnesota, Texas, and Washington State are rather "permissive", and Arizona is unique in that it permits "defensive display" (but not drawing) under some circumstances in which deadly force is not justified. Of course, people to get by with it from time to time when the authorities deem the action reasonable under somewhat questionable circumstances. That may be what happened here. But if she expected to face any real, imminent danger, I suggest that carrying the weapon unloaded was not a prudent thing to do. She may end up being very lucky on more than one count. |
||
November 18, 2012, 01:10 PM | #99 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Location: The Woods
Posts: 1,197
|
It seems to me that things worked out about as well as they could have.
The fact that she was with a child - and therefor less able to leave quickly - seems to me to make her decision to draw her weapon perfectly reasonable to me. Fortunately that's all it took to drive him off, so - in my mind - shooting him would have not been reasonable. Hopefully, If I ever need to draw my weapon, I get the same outcome.
__________________
si vis pacem para bellum |
November 18, 2012, 02:17 PM | #100 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 22, 2006
Posts: 3,076
|
Quote:
Officers of the law must have more wiggle room, they shoot unarmed people from time to time. |
|
Tags |
attack , self-defense |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|