Woman Pulls Gun On Flasher

[OldMarksman]

Posted by youngguzforlife: ...her mag was actually already in the firearm(just not punched all the way in).

That's the way it was reported in at least one account. It was reported differently in others.

if you saw someone approaching you to attack and had time to load your weapon, does that mean you weren't in any danger or threatened? of course not.

One--just one-- of the issues that is routinely evaluated in any self defense case, whether or not force was used, is the speed at which the incident unfolded. It pertains to the very critical legal questions of immediate necessity and of imminent threat.

She had every right with absolutely no question to pull her weapon, morally, legally, ethically, in the realms of common sense, etc.

Are you aware of some evidence that she had reason to believe it immediately necessary to protect herself or her child against the use of presently threatened unlawful force by another? That's the legal threshold for justification in that jurisdiction.

I might be wrong on terminiology, but I don't think she brandished her weapon(as I said not positive about this one). I believe brandish is just to show the weapon by pulling up your shirt, making a nonverbal communication to the effect that I can use this on you, and so-on.

The term "brandish" has different meanings, and it would not be used in the Sate of Washington, where the law refers to persons who "exhibit, display, or draw" any firearm,... in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons." In Missouri, the law refer to one who "exhibits a weapon...in an angry or threatening manner." The question in both jurisdictions is whether there was evidence of lawful justification.

Those are weapons offenses. In most states (but not Washington, where only the weapons offense would apparently apply), the more serious charge is aggravated assault.

There are no behind the scenes chatter, investigation, Anything going on about anything she did wrong...no verbal warnings, nothing. He does have a point that something like that would probably be mentioned.....

Difficult to prove a negative, but you seem to think you can do it.

Why would you expect "verbal warnings?"

But you can bet your last dollar that authorities continued to evaluate the evidence and discuss her testimony after the police interviews and that no decision on charging had been made. A decision to not charge may have been made by others by now. Or not. But it is likely, I think, that she will not be charged..

Frank ... I read some posts(not from you) talking about "politics". No, it's not politics.

In Post #38, Frank said "She'll probably suffer no legal repercussions. But that will most likely be more a question of politics."

This one was an opened and closed book and someone probably said: "Next" while asking for another coffee.

Pure speculation, but at what conference, involving whom, do you assert that that probably happened?

News crews usually don't get interviews from criminals(at least on purpose) while 'painting them as heroes'. That might be too strong of an expression, but she is pretty much labeled as the 'goodguy'.

There have been a number of well publicized cases in the last two or three years in which persons have been considered to have acted heroically, and have given interviews, and have ended up later being criminally charged and sometimes convicted.

Not likely to happen here, but do not believe that it does not.

 

[youngunz4life]

That's the way it was reported in at least one account. It was reported differently in others.

it came from the woman's own mouth during the televised interview(someone posted a link if you are interested). I have no reason to doubt her, and I believe her as well.

Are you aware of some evidence that she had reason to believe it immediately necessary to protect herself or her child against the use of presently threatened unlawful force by another? That's the legal threshold for justification in that jurisdiction.

yes, and I will not answer that question again. The man committed an assault on this woman and child; if caught he can face the possibility of being a registered sex-offender for life. I for one would like to know his record & if he was involved in the previous incident. As you mentioned in your other posts, the legal threshold for shooting this man in self-defense is higher. She did not fire the weapon though. It was not necessary for her to do so. Do you have evidence that this situation was "political" as you mentioned earlier?

The term "brandish" has different meanings, and it would not be used in the Sate of Washington, where the law refers to persons who "exhibit, display, or draw" any firearm,... in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons." In Missouri, the law refer to one who "exhibits a weapon...in an angry or threatening manner." The question in both jurisdictions is whether there was evidence of lawful justification.

Those are weapons offenses. In most states (but not Washington, where only the weapons offense would apparently apply), the more serious charge is aggravated assault.

thank you for the clarification and/or explanation about the brandishing issue. As I mentioned, I wasn't sure about that one. You almost never hear about it unless the reason was egregious: man doing it because he wants to frighten off someone flirting with his girlfriend, roadrage, etc. The charge is also tacked on when the cops want to throw the book at an idiot with as much as they can. In a situation like this, it wouldn't even be an issue.

Why would you expect "verbal warnings?"

But you can bet your last dollar that authorities continued to evaluate the evidence and discuss her testimony after the police interviews and that no decision on charging had been made. A decision to not charge may have been made by others by now. Or not. But it is likely, I think, that she will not be charged..

verbal warnings are extremely common. Case in point: "Ma'am, we respect what you did to protect yourself and your child but just keep in mind....yada yada yada." Basically there are nice people out there that would look out for this woman + give her advice if she was walking a fine line. It happens a lot when a cop gives a break to a criminal or someone less respected as well. It also can come from higher up.

But you can bet your last dollar that authorities continued to evaluate the evidence and discuss her testimony after the police interviews and that no decision on charging had been made.

I can't take that bet. I think the focus on the investigation was catching this perp. Staright from the bottom to the top the recommendation was probably that this woman was not at fault in any way. It seems the media was informed about a possible linked, previous incident & a description was fed to the public to try and catch this person. Even the most hardcore prosecutors probably didn't give this one a second glance. As mentioned earlier, that doesn't mean the issue can't be revisited if other stuf comes to light.

Pure speculation, but at what conference, involving whom, do you assert that that probably happened?

that was watercooler talk...a joke so-to-speak

Not likely to happen here, but do not believe that it does not.

I know this happens. you misunderstood me if you thought otherwise.

 

[teeroux]

Some of you guys I just don't get. Naked scumbag perfoming sexual acts in front of a woman and child is capable of just about anything beyond that. Crazy or not the current actions of the perp give more than a reasonable expectation that person may harm you. The lady didn't shoot the guy she threatend to shoot him. Can't blame her either. What happens beyond that is on the naked nutjob.

 

[barstoolguru]

I will say this; this is an active sex crime and as such most police are limited on what they say or divulge to the public but when you read enough of these news articles you get a general idea if that particular paper or reporter is holding something back. I don't sense this here but it could be, not ruling it out. they gave a fair amount of detail as to the gun and how she handled it so I can only surmise that if she was arrested or charged it would have been in print; after all dirty laundry sells print!

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by youngunz4life: The man committed an assault on this woman and child;

Do you have a legal basis for that assertion?

But it wouldn't matter, not one iota; the question is, is there evidence supporting a reasonable belief that unlawtul force was presently threatened.

From the standpoint of whether she was lawfully justified, that's it. Period.

In Post #111, I did suggest two other reasons why she may not be charged with a serious crime, and I have repeatedly said that I so not believe she will be.

if caught he can face the possibility of being a registered sex-offender for life.

That is completely irrelevant to the question of justification.

You almost never hear about it [(persons being charged with the unlawful exhibition of of firearms)] unless the reason was egregious: man doing it because he wants to frighten off someone flirting with his girlfriend, roadrage, etc. The charge is also tacked on when the cops want to throw the book at an idiot with as much as they can. In a situation like this, it wouldn't even be an issue.

Don't believe it for a minute. We have seen law abiding persons who have been convicted and who have lost their right to possess firearms for life for pointing a gun at a trepassers on their own property, in "gun friendly" juridictions; we have had persons who were initially treated as heroes charged for pointing guns at persons they erroneously thought to have been burglars; Florida imposes a long mandatory prison sentence when firearm is pointed when there is not evidence of the justification of deadly force, even though pointing the gun does not constitute deadly force per se, and we know of examples.

Do not draw you weapon unless you have an immediate reason that would stand up to legal investigation, or be prepared to lose it for life.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by teeroux: Some of you guys I just don't get. Naked scumbag perfoming sexual acts in front of a woman and child is capable of just about anything beyond that. Crazy or not the current actions of the perp give more than a reasonable expectation that person may harm you.

Well, OK, but that has nothing to do with the threshold for justification in the jurisdiction at hand.

 

[TailGator]

So what is a gun if it's not loaded.... a club!!

This incident demonstrates that such hyperbole is, indeed, hyperbole. There are instances in which a defender has the time to chamber a round. The problem is that a defender doesn't always have the time to chamber a round.

I carry chambered, but I have also pointed out more than once that some methods of carry that do not raise such vehement objections - kangaroo pouches, ankle holsters, belly bands, tuckable holsters, for example - create similar delays in presentation, at least in some situations, and often require two hands. I am not saying that carrying without a round chambered is preferable, but neither is a person who chooses to carry thus as helpless as someone without a firearm. No offense, but it is not a club - it is a firearm that, with a certain amount of training and awareness, can be made ready for defense in fairly short order.

 

[youngunz4life]

But it wouldn't matter, not one iota; the question is, is there evidence supporting a reasonable belief that unlawtul force was presently threatened.

From the standpoint of whether she was lawfully justified, that's it. Period.

unfortunately you are incorrect. things are not that black and white.

That is completely irrelevant to the question of justification.

Sir, you are way off base and therefore out of line. A lawyer can much more easily prove substantiation(not sure if that's a word) if his client pulls a gun on a convicted sex offender with past issues rather than an 18yr old valedictorian who has never had any problems with the law. You can tell me until you turn blue it doesn't matter, but it won't change the realism in it. There are often many factors that make a difference in 'crimes' not based solely on a definition in a book...another example is how one's size, gender, etc can be perceived as threatening in an argument.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by youngunz4life in response to "the question is, is there evidence supporting a reasonable belief that unlawtul force was presently threatened.": unfortunately you are incorrect. things are not that black and white.

What is it about the law in Washington State that you believe would support that position?

Sir, you are way off base and therefore out of line.

In what way?

A lawyer can much more easily prove substantiation(not sure if that's a word) if his client pulls a gun on a convicted sex offender with past issues rather than an 18yr old valedictorian who has never had any problems with the law.

There are states in which the perp's background, if unknown to the actor, might well make a difference. Do you know which ones they are?

But Washington is not one of them.

And if you commit a crime, and if you haven't done so before, that may make a difference in sentencing, but it will not affect the question of guilt.

You can tell me until you turn blue it doesn't matter, but it won't change the realism in it.

Do you have a legal basis for that assertion?

 

[MLeake]

OldMarksman, I am not a lawyer. However, I have been told by former prosecutors and defense experts that the alleged perpetrator's background can be brought up in almost any jurisdiction, as it pertains to past patterns of behavior and their relevance to the behavior the shooter/defender claims to have seen evinced.

In other words, if a BG has a prior history of using a crowbar to threaten and then attack people as they get out of their car, in their driveway, and if the client claims that the BG threatened him with a crowbar as he was getting out of his car, then the odds are good that past history will be allowed, at least as it relates to that specific MO.

OTOH, the simple fact of the BG's prior history is otherwise irrelevant, unless the client can prove they had prior knowledge of that history.

Example, a woman knows that a particular man in her neighborhood has previously been convicted of rape or sexual assault. If she can establish that she knew that prior to her encounter with the man, then his history (or what she knew of his history) would be relevant.

Frank Ettin or Spats, please feel free to correct me.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I am not a lawyer. However, I have been told by former prosecutors and defense experts that the alleged perpetrator's background can be brought up in almost any jurisdiction, as it pertains to past patterns of behavior and their relevance to the behavior the shooter/defender claims to have seen evinced....

As you know, I am a lawyer, and I'm afraid that you've misunderstood.

In the prosecution of the "perpetrator", i. e., the person whose conduct was defended against, the prosecutor can introduce evidence of that person's past conduct to show a pattern or "common plan or design."

But in a prosecution of the "defender", in defense of which the defender claims self defense, the "defender" can not introduce evidence of the "perpetrator's" past acts, reputation for violence or criminal record unless (1) the "defender" can establish the he/she knew those things; or (2) the prosecutor has put on evidence of the perpetrator's good character to challenge the "defender's" story about what the "perpetrator" did.

So --

...In other words, if a BG has a prior history of using a crowbar to threaten and then attack people as they get out of their car, in their driveway, and if the client claims that the BG threatened him with a crowbar as he was getting out of his car, then the odds are good that past history will be allowed, at least as it relates to that specific MO...

No, in the self defense case, that would generally not be admissible into evidence. It doesn't establish that the defendant claiming self defense reasonably perceived a lethal threat. The only way it would get into evidence in the self defense case would be if the prosecutor, for example, put on character witnesses for the Bad Guy who claimed that he wasn't the kind of guy to go around swinging crowbars.

However, if the crowbar wielder was being prosecuted, the prosecutor could put on that criminal history evidence to show MO.

...OTOH, the simple fact of the BG's prior history is otherwise irrelevant, unless the client can prove they had prior knowledge of that history...

Correct.

...A lawyer can much more easily prove substantiation(not sure if that's a word) if his client pulls a gun on a convicted sex offender with past issues rather than an 18yr old valedictorian who has never had any problems with the law....

But as I've noted above, the Bad Guy's history is generally not going to get into evidence if your defending yourself in court claiming self defense.

 

[youngunz4life]

What is it about the law in Washington State that you believe would support that position?

In what way?

I explained both of those quotes.

There are states in which the perp's background, if unknown to the actor, might well make a difference. Do you know which ones they are?

But Washington is not one of them.

And if you commit a crime, and if you haven't done so before, that may make a difference in sentencing, but it will not affect the question of guilt.

we are in the end humans, not robots. It matters in Washington too. Last I heard one is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This woman is pretty much as far away as guilty as you can get(since it is a dream to think she would be arrested for anything in the first place). Sir, you never answered the politics question...forget about that and please forget about waht you think will happen. That being said, do you believe this woman is and/or was guilty of a crime? Please answer if possible and thank you.

 

[Frank Ettin]

... Last I heard one is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This woman is pretty much as far away as guilty as you can get(since it is a dream to think she would be arrested for anything in the first place). Sir, you never answered the politics question...forget about that and please forget about waht you think will happen. That being said, do you believe this woman is and/or was guilty of a crime? Please answer if possible and thank you...

Settle down!

No one is accusing this woman of having committed a crime. No one has finally decided that her conduct was not justified.

We are discussing the standards that apply to determining whether a defensive threat or use of lethal force is legally justified and that the assessment of whether or not it was justified must go beyond the mere fact that it was a good result that we all can applaud.

 

[youngunz4life]

Frank I can appreciate your post, but I wasn't worked up during my post. I honestly am curious with my question + consider it valid.

I feel like this thread is like kirk and spock(even way before I jumped back in)....as in, who is right...there's always two sides to every coin.

No one is accusing this woman of having committed a crime.

One could argue that it was leaning in that direction. I am sure at least some posters felt like they had to defend this woman...you as well as anyone probably know the law isn't always like this even though the justice system is its own kind of (emotional) animal...

 

[MLeake]

Frank,

I would have sworn that in one class I attended, where Harold Fish was a topic of discussion, the point was made that one of Fish's bases for appeal was that the man he shot had a past pattern of behavior that exactly matched what Fish described as having been displayed toward him.

In the original trial, the defense was not allowed to prevent that evidence.

The instructor of the class I attended said that was a specific point on which the appellate court said the trial judge had erred. Because the past pattern of behavior matched so perfectly with what Fish had described to investigators, it should have been allowed to support Fish's veracity.

It's entirely possible the instructor of the class was in error, but this is what he told us.

 

[youngunz4life]

I meant Spock and McCoy as if it matters...

yes MLeake, no doubt you are right. That is one major point of law in traffic or criminal courts(habitual offenders//those ones are easy).

OldMarksMan, I hope you don't feel like I am trying to call you out or put you down. I just feel like you are unwilling to budge(you might see it the same from your point of view).

 

[MLeake]

younggunz4life, OldMarksman and Frank Ettin make some very good points - which should come as no surprise to you or me.

Now, would I as potential juror convict the woman? No... but that might require deliberate jury nullification on my part, because Washington law might call for a guilty verdict were charges to be pressed.

Counting on jury nullification is not a strategy I would recommend.

 

[youngunz4life]

Nobody would; they would just hope for that strategy once they are already in a bind. It doesn't change the fact here what you just stated isn't even an extreme stretch, Frank has pretty much conceded this woman probably wouldn't, won't, andor shouldn't be charged(please correct me if I am wrong & I apologize if it appears I am putting words in your mouth, as I am not trying to).

 

[Frank Ettin]

..I honestly am curious with my question + consider it valid...

And I think it's leading us off topic. Let's focus on the discussion of the standards that apply to determining whether a defensive threat or use of lethal force is legally justified and that the assessment of whether or not it was justified must go beyond the mere fact that it was a good result that we all can applaud.

...I would have sworn that in one class I attended, where Harold Fish was a topic of discussion, the point was made that one of Fish's bases for appeal was that the man he shot had a past pattern of behavior that exactly matched what Fish described as having been displayed toward him....

Ah, but the reason excluding that sort of evidence from the defense was reversible error in Fish was because of the manner in which Fish's credibility was challenged by the prosecution "opened the door" to that evidence. Also, the ruling of the appellate court was very narrow. The appellate court did not rule that the information was admissible. The appellate ruling merely clarified and defined the standards to be applied by the trial court in deciding whether to admit the testimony.

 

[youngunz4life]

And I think it's leading us off topic. Let's focus on the discussion of the standards that apply to determining whether a defensive threat or use of lethal force is legally justified and that the assessment of whether or not it was justified must go beyond the mere fact that it was a good result that we all can applaud.

I can agree with what you are saying above because I can see that straying the topic.

I would like to add though...this is sort of a question that doesn't need to be answered...you and MLeake realize I was talking about past offenses amongst other factors 'coming into play' before court proceedings, right? As in, these factors can play a major or minor role in decisions of an arrest not being made in the first place....

In which case, it doesn't matter whether it can or cannot be added into evidence.