Woman Pulls Gun On Flasher

Status
Not open for further replies.
you may be right, but that is an opinion. Everybody has to make their own choice of how to carry their firearm: one in the chamber, mag installed, etc, etc. I give her credit for having a firearm for a CCW(some people choose to leave it at home) and for having a plan: inserting her mag and making her CCW "hot" without hesitation. She didn't seem clueless.
Click to expand...

So what is a gun if it's not loaded.... a club!! What if this guy jumps up and takes the gun from her while she is fumbling with the mag and shoots the woman and kid? Sorry I give her no credit for carrying a gun and not having the confidence to carry proper. She got lucky this time but next maybe not so
 
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.
 
pax said:
From http://www.kgw.com/news/local/Flasher-flees-after-woman-pulls-gun-on-him-179658621.html

Around 8 p.m. on Wednesday the woman was at Lake Sacajawea with her 6-year-old son and a dog when a man approached her aggressively while masturbating and suggested she should watch him.
Click to expand...

Video interview with the victim here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkg-4uUTEBg

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-pul...cle_66bab166-2f9a-11e2-9af1-0019bb2963f4.html...
Click to expand...
This is the sort of additional information that can significantly change the legal evaluation of the situation. Being able to articulate an aggressive approach by the perpetrator and having an especially vulnerable child in tow help support her actions as reasonable.

I've mentioned before that the details can make a difference. Here's an example.
 
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.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pax
The situation called for an immediate, strong dose of pepper spray to the guy's wanker.


I wonder if that would hurt???
Click to expand...

Bet he would have put Jessie Owens track record to shame. :D

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.
 
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.
 
"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.
 
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.
 
tomrkba said:
...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.
Click to expand...
And in this case, especially, you're wrong. The law of self defense has its roots in the Common Law of England. Those roots are 500 or so years deep.

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.

Elapid said:
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....
Click to expand...
Yes, Texas law is especially lenient in this regard, but it isn't as simple as you make it out. There are a number of requirements that would need to be satisfied to make the use of lethal force justified.

However, a discussion of Texas use-of-force law is off topic for this thread.
 
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
 
Posted by jhenry: I believe she would have been legally justified in brandishing the firearm in Missouri as I read RsMO 571.030 and 563.031
Click to expand...
Unfortunately or fortunately, your reading of the statutes would not be determinative, and is incorrect.

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:
hogdogs said:
Florida not only allows ANY citizen to use force, up to and including lethal force to prevent certain "aggravated" felonies...
Click to expand...
Actually, the term used in Florida law is "forcible" felony. Do you know what a forcible felony is under Florida law?

First, see Florida Statutes 776.012:
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;...
Click to expand...

Then "forcible felony" is defined in 776.08 (emphasis added):
776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
Click to expand...

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:
...to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another ...
Click to expand...

A forcible felony, as define, will most likely present a reasonable risk of death or great bodily harm.

hogdogs said:
Florida ...allows same force to be used to detain the person to prevent escape YOU personally witness in the commission of same AF crimes...
Click to expand...
How about a citation to the law? You were a bit fuzzy on the lethal force question. while most jurisdictions recognize "citizen arrest" in some form, the requirements and the consequences of being wrong need to be understood.
 
@ 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
 
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...

Title XLVI
CRIMES

Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

View Entire Chapter
776.07 Use of force to prevent escape.—
(1) A law enforcement officer or other person who has an arrested person in his or her custody is justified in the use of any force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody.
Click to expand...

Brent
 
hogdogs said:
...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......
Click to expand...
Arson has long been considered a violent crime against a person or persons. Among other things, whether a building is or is not occupied is generally unknown by the arsonist; fires can spread unpredictably and indiscriminately creating a risk of injury to those in proximity; and fires present grave risks to those who fight them.

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.
 
Posted by Frank Ettin: As for 776.07, that presumes a person in custody as a result of an arrest.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does.

But what are the rules applicable to a citizen lawfully performing an arrest?
Click to expand...
In order to lawfully employ force in the course of an arrest, a citizen must have been summoned or directed by a sworn officer to assist in the arrest.

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Over my many years of being on this earth I have made two of them. Something’s an officer can make an arrest from witness statements and sometimes by the citizen doing it, it makes a stronger case. in this case there was a sexual act, disturbing of the peace, endangerment of a child so it would have been a solid case and if she was to use deadly force. I could only assume because of the child it would have been justified in any state
 
Last edited:
Posted by barstoolguru: in this case there was a sexual act, disturbing of the peace, endangerment of a child so it would have been a solid case and if she was to use deadly force. I could only assume because of the child it would have been justified in any state.
Click to expand...
Said use of deadly force could not be justified as having been immediately necessary for the lawful defense of the woman or the child against a serious crime, and it would therefore be very unlawful indeed.

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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top