Woman Pulls Gun On Flasher

Status
Not open for further replies.
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...

And, of course, Texas, under a variety of circumstances, some very specific, but even for such things as the protection of property where you feel shooting is necessary because you otherwise will not get that property back.

Here is an example. A thirteen year old kid was stealing poults with a buddy. The owner of the chickens shot and killed the 13 year old while he was attempting to flee with the owner's property (at night). The shooting was legal. The kid was even shot in the back which was also legal becasue first the owner of the chickens was justified in his use of lethal force despite the fact that he was not in fear for his life or the life of another human.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64313&highlight=stealing+chickens
 
Double Naught Spy said:
And, of course, Texas, under a variety of circumstances, some very specific,..,
Click to expand...
Texas law is unique and broader on this point than the law of any other State. It is irrelevant unless you are in Texas.
 
This could have gone horribly wrong for her in so many ways.
Click to expand...

Why the negative Nancy? Everything turned out all right. This was a positive use of a gun against a real sicko. I applaud the lady.

I wonder if she carries with the Mag in it now?
 
if the article was NOT incorrect, this woman (for starters) was being assaulted. Things can escalate quick; I see no issue with this woman drawing a firearm if this happened to her and her child.
 
Last edited:
The report that she had time to put the magazine in her gun and racked the slide after drawing it would seem to indicate that the man did not present an imminent danger of serious harm.

More importantly, it indicates that she would have been in a world of hurt if he had,
 
i would have to look up the R.C.W.(revised code of Washington) but i think it was a justified because the lady did have her young son with her.
 
The report that she had time to put the magazine in her gun and racked the slide after drawing it would seem to indicate that the man did not present an imminent danger of serious harm.
Click to expand...

Time to put a mag in the gun and charge it isn't hardly a good criterion for whether or not she was in imminent danger. Her life could have still be threatened and she had time to react and load her gun for whatever reason, if anything just because the flasher was inept or otherwise busy (as previously noted), had he had bad intentions.

I certainly know folks who can load and make ready a gun to fire quicker that others can draw from ankle carry. Would that mean that if you have the time to draw from ankle carry that you are not in imminent danger?

I do agree that she wasn't in any apparent imminent danger. The flasher was not reported with any sort of gun or knife, did not threaten bodily harm, and more importantly...

He allegedly sat down and began performing a sex act and said she should watch.
Click to expand...

If he is sitting, he can't kick her. Sitting and doing what he was doing does not indicate that he is about to jump her or otherwise give chase. No knife, gun, or any other type of projected force weapon was seen, so following typical self defense instructions, she should have been watching his hands if anything and seen the lack of weapons he could have used to hurt her from his seated position. :o

He was a perv and she drew down on him. Personally, I don't see the need for it. The only known threat was visual-only and easily mitigated. He wasn't threatening anything to her or her belongings. I think most people face greater threats commonly in shopping situations (Black Friday will have several), driving (road rage), and social situations such as at bars or parties where actual threats are made by people who are angry, but those are situations where drawing down on a person would not be appropriate at all in most cases.

That this guy might have done something more (assuming he must be a rapist because he is a flasher) isn't sufficient for drawing down on him either. No doubt we encounter people every day that might do something. To assume he must be a rapist because he is a flasher would be like assuming that because somebody got angry with you that they are going to kill you. After all, people suffer severe bodily harm and even murder as a result of confrontations that start off with just some angry words.

Probably the most prudent action which was not taken by the woman would have been to immediately start putting distance between herself and the pervert, taking her child with her thereby mitigating the threat to both. She could still have been drawing and readying her gun during that time and that likely would have been most reasonable given her apparent fear. Remaining in proximity to a perceived danger who has not threatened you (or one who has) is not prudent. She was not trapped in a confined space such as an elevator that would have made it necessary for her to remain in place.

She may have been 100% within the law to do what she did, which is great if that is the case. Hopefully with all the time she spent with the guy, she had a chance to get a very good description of him.
 
Time to put a mag in the gun and charge it isn't hardly a good criterion for whether or not she was in imminent danger. Her life could have still be threatened and she had time to react and load her gun for whatever reason, if anything just because the flasher was inept or otherwise busy (as previously noted), had he had bad intentions.
Click to expand...
True, but depending upon the distance, I think it begs the question.
 
had he had bad intentions.
Click to expand...

What qualifies as bad intentions? Was not what he was doing the mark of a depraved mind? Could he be recognized as anything but someone with mental problems and as such, very unpredictable?

Maybe he preparing to rape her. She did good. People do not do such things in public, and a reasonable and prudent person would draw down on a perv such as this. He had focused his attention on her and spoke to her in a depraved and unpredictable state. Nuff said.
 
youngunz4life said:
if the article was incorrect, this woman (for starters) was being assaulted....
Click to expand...
Do you have any evidence that the article was incorrect and that she actually was being physically assaulted? If not, we need to stick with what we know.

We're discussing an actual event. Let's not turn this into a discussion of an imaginary event.
 
Does anyone here know what Washington State laws would apply in this case?
This is why I found this to be an interesting news story to post.
There seems to be a lot of interpretation to the intentions or mindset of the perpetrator.
 
I am failing to see any issue with this woman doing what she did to protect her child and herself. Good for her.
 
Woman, child, large dog, perv , gun.
Yes there are mistakes . She should have immediately left the area and reported it.
If he followed she first should have told the dog to 'get him'.
If that didn't work she should have drawn the gun.
Carrying an unloaded gun is stupid !!!! He could have disarmed her while she's trying to load !!!
Avoid stupid statements to the perv like "I'll blow your head off" Looks very bad in court.Don't engage in conversation with any BG.
Don't assume things like 'most pervs aren't rapists ".:(
 
We can absolutely not attribute any mistakes to this lady because she won and is ok. Perhaps she could have handled it differently or ascribed some continuim of force protocol, but having won, that's all moot.
 
To bad she didn't sick the dog on him whilst he was in the middle of his sex act.

Would have made a bored cops day to show up on the scene with rover attached to the pervs. junk. :D
 
jhenry said:
I am failing to see any issue with this woman doing what she did to protect her child and herself...
Click to expand...
Except that she and her child were most likely not in any physical danger and could have left the area. That means that a threat with lethal force was most likely not legally justified.

I know we all find it very pleasing that this woman was able to send a pervert scurrying. The mental image of him startled by her display of a gun is very satisfying. We like these kinds of happy endings. But that doesn't make this incident a good illustration of an appropriate use of lethal force in self defense.

She'll probably suffer no legal repercussions. But that will most likely be more a question of politics.
 
"Most likely not in danger" is your assessment in the cold light of day. It was not her assessment apparently. Unless the dog was trained to attack that part of the equation is moot. The sex offender could have easily, in her mind and in fact, have been a serious threat to life and limb. Turning one's back on him is not something I would recommend either. She did not open fire, she did warn him off, and in this state at least, what she did would not be considered brandishing in that he was in the act of committing a crime against her and her child. Good for her.
 
jhenry said:
"Most likely not in danger" is your assessment in the cold light of day. It was not her assessment apparently. Unless the dog was trained to attack that part of the equation is moot. The sex offender could have easily, in her mind and in fact, have been a serious threat to life and limb....
Click to expand...
She's probably fortunate that she's is probably not going to have to try to make that argument. The vast majority of flashers do not present a physical risk. And it is a "reasonable person" test.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top