Woman Pulls Gun On Flasher

Status
Not open for further replies.
thump_rrr said:
Was her life in danger?
Was she justified in pulling out her gun?
Click to expand...
I'm not familiar with Washington's laws so I won't speculate on the legality of her actions other than to note that laws vary widely from state to state. In some states, mine for example, it's not necessary for a person's life to be in danger to legally display a firearm at, or shoot, a person.
 
It would be justified in Texas due to a child being present. Also what he did in the laws of this state was to commit a sexual assault by exposure. (Legal wording of the charge could be a little different.)

Besides you do not know what the man would do later. The woman was in a park with her 6 year old child, and man not only exposed himself he stated that the woman should watch. Who knows what he would have done or tried next.
 
I suppose in some ways the lady is fortunate that she was in a situation in which her assailants hands were busy, giving her time to insert a magazine and chamber a round. Such is not always the case, to say the least.

I would think that a woman who elucidated a fear of sexual assault would be justified almost anywhere guns are legal, and such a fear for herself or her child would seem reasonable in this circumstance. In many jurisdictions, interrupting a forcible felony is justification; in others, any felony. Laws specific to that jurisdiction would have to be looked at carefully, but one can only imagine the uproar that would ensue if a prosecutor filed charges against a young mother who chased off a flasher.
 
In California you can physically defend yourself from someone who is uttering "Terroristic Threats" at you, so in CA there is a way to handle someone who is not in the process of harming you.

But one guy recently had to fight hard against assult charges after he chased down the street after a burglar he caught in the act, and beat him a few times with a baseball bat. I'm convinced that public opinon kept him out of the cage.

I'm not sure what would happen to this woman if she had shot the guys privates off. I wonder if she got charged with concealed carry or brandishing a weapon.

Remember the "Death Wish" guy in the subway stations?

Det
 
Detonator said:
In California you can physically defend yourself from someone who is uttering "Terroristic Threats" at you,...
Click to expand...
Please provide a citation to proper legal authority.

If you are going to make these kinds of claim, you need to be prepared to back them up with evidence.

Detonator said:
...But one guy recently had to fight hard against assult charges after he chased down the street after a burglar he caught in the act, and beat him a few times with a baseball bat. I'm convinced that public opinon kept him out of the cage...
Click to expand...
Again, provide documentation please. And the way you describe it, his use of force would have been unjustified. Assault charges probably would have been appropriate.

Detonator said:
...Remember the "Death Wish" guy in the subway stations?
Click to expand...
If you're referring to Bernard Goetz, he was accosted by a group creating a disparity of force situation. He was tried, and the jury bought his self defense claim. But he was convicted and sent to jail for having an unregistered gun.
 
I hope she knows to carry with a mag in the gun now. Absolutely she was justified, you have to assume that a person who does this is a rapist who intends to do more than just show her his package.
 
publius said:
...Absolutely she was justified, you have to assume that a person who does this is a rapist...
Click to expand...
Why does one have to assume that? Do you have any evidence that one has to assume that? Do you have any evidence that most exhibitionists are also rapists? In fact, I believe that is not true.

This woman might indeed get a pass on this, primarily because prosecutors have discretion; and a prosecutor would probably rather avoid the controversy. But in general, displaying a gun in a threatening manner will get one into hot water unless he can justify it by demonstrating a reasonable fear of death or grave bodily injury.
 
In some states, mine for example, it's not necessary for a person's life to be in danger to legally display a firearm at, or shoot, a person.
Click to expand...

Don H

I did not think there was a state that you could legally shoot someone if you were not in fear for your life or someone else's.

Can you cite something of Utah's law stating what you posted?
 
I did not think there was a state that you could legally shoot someone if you were not in fear for your life or someone else's.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find plenty, including my state of Louisiana, where a person can use deadly force when he "reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm." [La. R.S. 14:20]

Specific verbiage will vary from state to state (maybe "great bodily injury," instead of "great bodily harm"), but the intent is the same. But clearly, in some jurisdictions, the threat doesn't have to rise to the level of "death."
 
Nebraska's laws mention prevention of rape...... and I think the prosecutor would not only have a hard time finding a jury that would convict her if she shot him in the junk, but if he did bring charges, he (or his boss) would find such a prosecution politically ...... problematic.
 
Sure, Shortwave:
76-2-402. Force in defense of person -- Forcible felony defined.
(1) (a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that force or a threat of force is necessary to defend the person or a third person against another person's imminent use of unlawful force.
(b) A person is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to the person or a third person as a result of another person's imminent use of unlawful force, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(2) (a) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in Subsection (1) if the person:
(i) initially provokes the use of force against the person with the intent to use force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant;
(ii) is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or
(iii) was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement, unless the person withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so and, notwithstanding, the other person continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.
(b) For purposes of Subsection (2)(a)(iii) the following do not, by themselves, constitute "combat by agreement":
(i) voluntarily entering into or remaining in an ongoing relationship; or
(ii) entering or remaining in a place where one has a legal right to be.
(3) A person does not have a duty to retreat from the force or threatened force described in Subsection (1) in a place where that person has lawfully entered or remained, except as provided in Subsection (2)(a)(iii).
(4) (a) For purposes of this section, a forcible felony includes aggravated assault, mayhem, aggravated murder, murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, and aggravated kidnapping, rape, forcible sodomy, rape of a child, object rape, object rape of a child, sexual abuse of a child, aggravated sexual abuse of a child, and aggravated sexual assault as defined in Title 76, Chapter 5, Offenses Against the Person, and arson, robbery, and burglary as defined in Title 76, Chapter 6, Offenses Against Property.
(b) Any other felony offense which involves the use of force or violence against a person so as to create a substantial danger of death or serious bodily injury also constitutes a forcible felony.
(c) Burglary of a vehicle, defined in Section 76-6-204, does not constitute a forcible felony except when the vehicle is occupied at the time unlawful entry is made or attempted.
(5) In determining imminence or reasonableness under Subsection (1), the trier of fact may consider, but is not limited to, any of the following factors:
(a) the nature of the danger;
(b) the immediacy of the danger;
(c) the probability that the unlawful force would result in death or serious bodily injury;
(d) the other's prior violent acts or violent propensities; and
(e) any patterns of abuse or violence in the parties' relationship.
Click to expand...


76-6-202. Burglary.
(1) An actor is guilty of burglary who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or any portion of a building with intent to commit:
(a) a felony;
(b) theft;
(c) an assault on any person;
(d) lewdness, a violation of Section 76-9-702;
(e) sexual battery, a violation of Section 76-9-702.1;
(f) lewdness involving a child, in violation of Section 76-9-702.5; or
(g) voyeurism under Section 76-9-702.7.
(2) Burglary is a third degree felony unless it was committed in a dwelling, in which event it is a second degree felony.
(3) A violation of this section is a separate offense from any of the offenses listed in Subsections (1)(a) through (g), and which may be committed by the actor while in the building.
Click to expand...
76-6-102. Arson.
(1) A person is guilty of arson if, under circumstances not amounting to aggravated arson, the person by means of fire or explosives unlawfully and intentionally damages:
(a) any property with intention of defrauding an insurer; or
(b) the property of another.
(2) A violation of Subsection (1)(a) is a second degree felony.
(3) A violation of Subsection (1)(b) is:
(a) a second degree felony if:
(i) the damage caused is or exceeds $5,000 in value; or
(ii) as a proximate result of the fire or explosion, any person not a participant in the offense suffers serious bodily injury as defined in Section 76-1-601;
(b) a third degree felony if:
(i) the damage caused is or exceeds $1,500 but is less than $5,000 in value;
(ii) as a proximate result of the fire or explosion, any person not a participant in the offense suffers substantial bodily injury as defined in Section 76-1-601; or
(iii) the fire or explosion endangers human life;
(c) a class A misdemeanor if the damage caused is or exceeds $500 but is less than $1,500 in value; and
(d) a class B misdemeanor if the damage caused is less than $500.
Click to expand...
76-6-301. Robbery.
(1) A person commits robbery if:
(a) the person unlawfully and intentionally takes or attempts to take personal property in the possession of another from his person, or immediate presence, against his will, by means of force or fear, and with a purpose or intent to deprive the person permanently or temporarily of the personal property; or
(b) the person intentionally or knowingly uses force or fear of immediate force against another in the course of committing a theft or wrongful appropriation.
(2) An act is considered to be "in the course of committing a theft or wrongful appropriation" if it occurs:
(a) in the course of an attempt to commit theft or wrongful appropriation;
(b) in the commission of theft or wrongful appropriation; or
(c) in the immediate flight after the attempt or commission.
(3) Robbery is a felony of the second degree.
Click to expand...
Note the highlighted portion in the Robbery statute. This appears to allow one to use lethal force on a perpetrator fleeing from a robbery or robbery attempt. I don't know if there is case law that supports this or not but I certainly wouldn't care to be a test case.

Let's look at the Defense of Habitation statute:
76-2-405. Force in defense of habitation.
(1) A person is justified in using force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's unlawful entry into or attack upon his habitation; however, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if:
(a) the entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner, surreptitiously, or by stealth, and he reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person, dwelling, or being in the habitation and he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence; or
(b) he reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony in the habitation and that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.
(2) The person using force or deadly force in defense of habitation is presumed for the purpose of both civil and criminal cases to have acted reasonably and had a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury if the entry or attempted entry is unlawful and is made or attempted by use of force, or in a violent and tumultuous manner, or surreptitiously or by stealth, or for the purpose of committing a felony.
Click to expand...

Edited to add: None of the highlighted portions of the statutes require one to be in fear of death or serious bodily injury to use lethal force.
 
[1] The laws of some States permit the use of lethal force for other than preventing imminent death or grave bodily injury.

[2] But if you look at those laws, the use of lethal force is still limited.

[3] It may be justified to prevent an imminent forcible felony, arson, robbery, in the case of a forcible break-in of ones home or under a few other narrowly described circumstances. Those crimes are crimes in which there is a strong likelihood that the victim is in significant physical danger.

[4] I'm not aware of any use-of-force law that could be read as authorizing lethal force against indecent exposure.
 
Frank Ettin said:
Don H,

If you're going to cite a statute, you have to identify the State.
Click to expand...
Sorry, Frank. In my earlier post I used the phrase " In some states, mine for example", and Shortwave asked his question in reference to that, so I just blithely gave the cites knowing that my state is shown below my name. In the future I'll prominently identify the state in the text.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top