|
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 17, 2012, 04:33 PM | #51 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2010
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 2,016
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member USN Retired |
||
November 17, 2012, 04:45 PM | #52 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
From http://www.kgw.com/news/local/Flashe...179658621.html
Quote:
Her 6 year old son is terminally ill, and the dog is his service dog. Original local news story here: http://tdn.com/news/local/woman-pull...9bb2963f4.html pax |
|
November 17, 2012, 04:49 PM | #53 |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
She would not have been justified in displaying the firearm in that manner under Missouri law, or that of many other states.
The law in the state of washington clearly does permit the display of a firearm in some circumstances in which the threat of death or serious bodily harm is not imminent. However,mI do not know enough about the legal definitions and case law of the State of Washington to judge whether saying that someone should watch something would amount to the "presently threatened use of force". Pax lives there, but lacking more background, I'm dubious. |
November 17, 2012, 05:33 PM | #54 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 27, 2006
Location: Ozarks
Posts: 1,840
|
I believe she would have been legally justified in brandishing the firearm in Missouri as I read RsMO 571.030 and 563.031
__________________
"A Liberal is someone who doesn't care what you do, as long as it's mandatory". - Charles Krauthammer |
November 17, 2012, 06:22 PM | #55 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
|
I agree w/Pax 100%.
I disagree w/oldsmarksman(people have already noted/posted valid arguments). Frank, I edit my original post. Yes, it would be wise for me to proofread upon posting...thank you. I also have to side w/some arguments explaining their side with you, but you made some good points. First we are talking about a woman(it does matter), then we are talking about a young child of the mother, then we are talking about the location. It is common knowledge that most pervs do escalate when they get away with stuff: one of example of many - peeping tom's many times can graduate to rapists andor breaking and entering. Take that into account when one can easily feel threatened(we all realize this depends on the person not state law) and have reason to believe that this individual had very bad intent, is on drugs or highly drunk, andor might easily have some mental issues. One can not take the chance. She didn't brandish her firearm...she pulled it out for protection and got it at the ready. She didn't fire but would've been justified if this individual posed any further danger to her and her child(example: charged them). Who knows what would've happened, but as I mentioned in my original post: "Things can escalate quick...."
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864 |
November 17, 2012, 06:33 PM | #56 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 31, 2011
Posts: 180
|
She was wrong for not having the gun ready and had to do all after pulling it and this would have been a great time for a can of pepper spray instead of a gun as a first choice. I shot in the face and one more in the privates would have been righteous
|
November 17, 2012, 06:38 PM | #57 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
|
Quote:
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864 |
|
November 17, 2012, 06:44 PM | #58 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 6, 2006
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,324
|
Quote:
__________________
Proud NRA Benefactor Member |
|
November 17, 2012, 06:47 PM | #59 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 27, 2006
Location: Ozarks
Posts: 1,840
|
Yes.
__________________
"A Liberal is someone who doesn't care what you do, as long as it's mandatory". - Charles Krauthammer |
November 17, 2012, 06:48 PM | #60 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Location: The Woods
Posts: 1,197
|
Due to an unfortunate prank escalation several years ago - when I was still in college - I can say definitively that yes, it would hurt.
__________________
si vis pacem para bellum |
November 17, 2012, 06:53 PM | #61 | |
Junior member
Join Date: May 31, 2011
Posts: 180
|
Quote:
|
|
November 17, 2012, 06:59 PM | #62 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 27, 2006
Location: Ozarks
Posts: 1,840
|
I would bet that has been pointed out to her in a couple of ways by this time. Whether she learns from the experience is up to her.
__________________
"A Liberal is someone who doesn't care what you do, as long as it's mandatory". - Charles Krauthammer |
November 17, 2012, 08:49 PM | #63 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
I've mentioned before that the details can make a difference. Here's an example.
__________________
"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 17, 2012, 08:51 PM | #64 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
|
I understand your points
barstool, would've she didn't have a gun in the first place and he beat them both to death with his bare hands? Would've it jammed and she didn't have a backup gun, or would've he was on pcp and she ran out of bullets for whatever reason and didn't have a reload? I'm not trying to be funny. Maybe sometime she'll decide to carry your way and have a negligent discharge. Don't get me wrong, I carry my CCW fully loaded. I am just saying it still is a free country, and this woman might want to do things her way. There are plenty of people who leave their CCW home when they go out(many have admitted it on this forum). I give her credit because she he had a firearm on her, and using her CCW protected her and her son that day(100% speculation...but there is no way to know what would've happened if she had no firearm...I believe that scenario is extremely dangerous but that is a personal opinion). This guy might've been a child molester; for some reason he thought it was ok to ask her to watch like she might enjoy it or something.
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864 |
November 17, 2012, 09:19 PM | #65 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,970
|
Quote:
A good dose of pepper spray in that area would surely keep him from doing that specific sexual act for a good while. At least till the burnt and blistered skin healed up. |
|
November 17, 2012, 09:47 PM | #66 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 29, 2011
Posts: 751
|
All I am going to say is we put up with far too much bad behavior in this country. The result is an excessive amount of legal wrangling over obvious evil acts and those performing those acts become accustomed to getting away with their crimes.
She was absolutely in the moral right to draw he gun and point it at him. Whether or not this satisfies the silly legal requirements of her state is a different problem. Most of us know the law has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with a bunch of idiots sitting in a room in the capitol deciding how everyone should behave. |
November 17, 2012, 09:52 PM | #67 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
|
"IT DEPENDS"
It depends on a lot of factors.
"IF" it comes to that, and there are women on the grand jury, I'd bet a week of lunches for a no-bill (assuming that's the process in Washington State). If it goes to a jury, same bet. To the contrary, Austin Texas previously had an uber leftwing prosecuting attorney (Ronnie Earle, who also went after high profile politicians for bogus charges) who was looking to re-legislate gun control locally. He chose on numerous occasions to file against lethal force self defense cases, sometimes multiple charges (murder, unlawful discharge, ...) as an attempt to bankrupt the defendant with a gun.
__________________
Cave illos in guns et backhoes |
November 17, 2012, 10:12 PM | #68 |
Junior Member
Join Date: November 13, 2012
Location: North Mississippi
Posts: 2
|
I can't cite anything on this, but I believe in Texas you can protect your property with deadly force without fear for you life. Texas has some lenient laws on the use of deadly force. I'm sure somebody from Texas can clear this up for me. I have read that repo agents don't like Texas laws on this.
|
November 17, 2012, 10:35 PM | #69 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
We need to understand that our society frowns on one human intentionally hurting or killing another. However, our laws, going back to the Common Law of England on which our system is based (and even before then in other systems), recognize that there are situations in which an intentional act of extreme violence against another person can be justified -- for example when absolutely necessary to defend an innocent (whether oneself or another) against an otherwise unavoidable threat of being killed or gravely injured by another person's intention act. Quote:
However, a discussion of Texas use-of-force law is off topic for this thread.
__________________
"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 17, 2012, 11:00 PM | #70 |
Staff In Memoriam
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
|
Florida not only allows ANY citizen to use force, up to and including lethal force to prevent certain "aggravated" felonies but it also allows same force to be used to detain the person to prevent escape YOU personally witness in the commission of same AF crimes...
So I see a guy light fire to a structure and I order him to stop for police to arrest him... If he attempts to flee, he can expect to become a plumbum sponge... This being true up to a couple years ago... So before any of my fellow florida residents takes my info as gospel... I would research it to make sure it hasn't recently changed... The "legal aid" group in my county doesn't seem to have a current law library for regular citizens to peruse... Brent |
November 17, 2012, 11:24 PM | #71 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Unless, of course, she could present some evidence that the offender in this case actually presented a threat of physical force or violence (i.e., committed a forcible felony). Same thing in Washington, which is more relevant. A significant difference is that in the State of Washington, a citizen need not retreat. Last edited by OldMarksman; November 17, 2012 at 11:39 PM. |
|
November 17, 2012, 11:59 PM | #72 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
First, see Florida Statutes 776.012: Then "forcible felony" is defined in 776.08 (emphasis added): Note that a core attribute of a forcible felony under Florida law it the threat or use of physical force or violence. That is consistent with the general rule in Florida recognizing lethal force as justified: A forcible felony, as define, will most likely present a reasonable risk of death or great bodily harm. 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, 12:46 AM | #73 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 31, 2011
Posts: 180
|
@ youngunz4life : you bring up some valid points BUT she had an unloaded gun so what IF he would have beat her to death before she could load the gun? Point being she had time to find it, load it and rack the slide so IMO she wasn't under no real threat of harm because if she was chances are she would have panicked and fumbled with the loading process. The gun was an LCP and with an 8-9 lb trigger pull you just about have to stand on it to go off. On top of that if she was under threat of harm that gun is no picnic to rack back and the loss of eye/hand dexterity under stress makes it a very difficult task
|
November 18, 2012, 01:09 AM | #74 | |
Staff In Memoriam
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
|
Frank, The statute number is what I am having a hard time finding without a law library and a person to help me go through them...
And not all "forcible felony" crimes requires a person to be immediately at risk of death or GBH... Arson is one... It does not require the structure to be a dwelling nor occupied... Here is what I find in a quickie search and think this is the statute to what we discuss but I could be wrong or missing some sub components... Quote:
|
|
November 18, 2012, 01:38 AM | #75 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
As for 776.07, that presumes a person in custody as a result of an arrest. But what are the rules applicable to a citizen lawfully performing an arrest? We shouldn't get sidetracked. The point is that the use of force is often not as simple as some might think.
__________________
"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 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|