barstoolguru
Moderator
No matter what is gained or lost here this has been a very interesting tread. And yes we don't have a lot to go on but like with any good mystery we have to use logic and reasoning to fill in the blanks
Woman Pulls Gun On Flasher
- Thread starter thump_rrr
- Start date
- Status
Double Naught Spy
New member
So being the "is capable of just about anything beyond that" assessment is valid how?
We are all capable of some pretty horrific things. BTK was married and the deacon of his church and folks knew he wasn't capabe of such horrific acts for which he was accused, but he was. Capability really isn't the issue here, is it? If so, then a lot of us are in potential trouble even though we have done anything wrong (or anything anyone currently knows about).
Prior bad acts by your opponent, if they were not known to you the defender at the time you harmed him, are normally not allowed into evidence. They did not have any bearing on the decision you made, the decision for which you are being judged.
Two cases in Massachusetts, Commonwealth v. Adjutant and Commonwealth v. Pring-Wilson, go against that according to that state's supreme court; ditto Arizona in Arizona v. Harold Fish. And in any state, as Frank Ettin has pointed out, if the prosecution "opens the door" with an argument like "you can't believe a nice guy like X would try to harm someone like the defendant," the judge can set the rule aside.
Two cases in Massachusetts, Commonwealth v. Adjutant and Commonwealth v. Pring-Wilson, go against that according to that state's supreme court; ditto Arizona in Arizona v. Harold Fish. And in any state, as Frank Ettin has pointed out, if the prosecution "opens the door" with an argument like "you can't believe a nice guy like X would try to harm someone like the defendant," the judge can set the rule aside.
OldMarksman
Staff
^^^^
I almost went into that myself.
Learned it at MAG-20 last year.
I almost went into that myself.
Learned it at MAG-20 last year.
OldMarksman
Staff
Some Things to Keep in Mind
- The fact that you are a "nice guy" with a clean record will not do a lot for you in terms of a charging decision, if you cannot produce sufficient evidence in support of justication after what would normally be an unlawful act.
- The character of the person whom you shot or threatened will make no material difference, except as noted by Mas.
- The laws and case law justifying the presentation of a firearm vary widely among jurisdictions; some very fine people have learned that the hard way, much to their surprise. Some states have severe mandatory penalties. It is essential to knw the rules of the road where you live and travel, and it is a good idea to refrain from drawing a firearm unless you have to.
- What you say during a defensive incident can come back to haunt you and can be very damaging to your case.
- Likewise, what you say afterward can do you in, and afterward is a long time.
- In virtually no jurisdictions is it permissible to draw on, threaten, strike, or shoot someone because of the kind of person he is, or because of what he has done (with a few very limited exceptions), unless he presents some kind of immediate danger, the last of these varying according to the jurisdiction.
- The authorities will weigh all of the evidence that they have; in this case, we have a woman with a disabled child, and some indication that the person approached "aggressively", and both will likely enter into the decision. And we do not know all of the facts.
- The decision can be a long time in coming.
Last edited:
youngunz4life
New member
good points oldsmarksman, that being said:
sometimes it will, sometimes it won't depending on the incident but one obviously should never rely on this. It can't hurt though, and many times(and many times not) it does make a difference at sentencing.
While this is true Sir, one can argue via the perp's actions reasonable fears andor concerns (amongst other things) that they felt threatened. Therefore, it isn't out-of-line for this woman(or anyone one looking out for her best interest) to claim that she didn't know what type of sicko this guy was or that she was scared this individual was a sicko.
this can often be the case, but I stand by my position firmly that the decision has already been made in this case. The weapon was deemed legal as well as the CCW, and there is no indication that this one is leaning in any other direction.
sometimes it will, sometimes it won't depending on the incident but one obviously should never rely on this. It can't hurt though, and many times(and many times not) it does make a difference at sentencing.
While this is true Sir, one can argue via the perp's actions reasonable fears andor concerns (amongst other things) that they felt threatened. Therefore, it isn't out-of-line for this woman(or anyone one looking out for her best interest) to claim that she didn't know what type of sicko this guy was or that she was scared this individual was a sicko.
this can often be the case, but I stand by my position firmly that the decision has already been made in this case. The weapon was deemed legal as well as the CCW, and there is no indication that this one is leaning in any other direction.
youngunz4life
New member
dang you actually let me get the last word on that one.....
OldMarksman
Staff
OK, now that we're past the emotion, let's summarize this from the standpoint of tactics and training.
The original question was whether the woman went too far in drawing her gun. Pax has shown us that justification under the law in her jurisdiction would depend upon whether she had reason to believe that doing so was necessary to protect herself or her child from presently threatened unlawful force.
That's it. Nothing else really matters. Whether we may we have an actor for whom we may be sympathetic-and we do, a woman with a disabled child--doe not show up in the code, nor does our opinion of the person she threatened. Those who insist on believing otherwise need to study more, and to consider some of the very upstanding citizens who have been convicted of felonies after having drawn when it was later not deemed justified, and some of the criminals who have won acquittals in self defense cases.
The threshold in other jurisdictions is different. Penalties for violation very widely.
There may be those who contend that when the outcome is favorable, the actor did the right thing. That doesn't follow. Luck will not always smile on us. We can learn from after action reports on successful encounters as well as from failures.
Personally, I do not think that carrying a semiautomatic pistol without the magazine, or with the magazine unseated, depending upon which report is accurate, is a very good idea at all. True, she was not overcome, disarmed, raped, or beaten, but it is a very good idea to be able to react very quickly to a rapidly unfolding attack. The consequences of failure can be very severe indeed.
We cannot judge from news reports whether drawing was either justified or a good idea. The man reportedly approached "aggressively." We cannot tell whether a present threat of unlawful force existed.
Personally, I do not think it very bright at all to shout "I'll blow your brains out" when pointing a gun at someone who is seated. Had things gone bad, and had there been an earwitness, that could have tipped the scales against her, all other things being equal.
Did she do anything right? Yes indeed. She contacted the police immediately. We talk about that all the time here.
Yes, she is a sympathetic character. Yes, the other guy is anything but sympathetic. Yes, she came out of it unhurt, and most probably legally OK.
But there are a number of things she did that she could have done a lot better.
The original question was whether the woman went too far in drawing her gun. Pax has shown us that justification under the law in her jurisdiction would depend upon whether she had reason to believe that doing so was necessary to protect herself or her child from presently threatened unlawful force.
That's it. Nothing else really matters. Whether we may we have an actor for whom we may be sympathetic-and we do, a woman with a disabled child--doe not show up in the code, nor does our opinion of the person she threatened. Those who insist on believing otherwise need to study more, and to consider some of the very upstanding citizens who have been convicted of felonies after having drawn when it was later not deemed justified, and some of the criminals who have won acquittals in self defense cases.
The threshold in other jurisdictions is different. Penalties for violation very widely.
There may be those who contend that when the outcome is favorable, the actor did the right thing. That doesn't follow. Luck will not always smile on us. We can learn from after action reports on successful encounters as well as from failures.
Personally, I do not think that carrying a semiautomatic pistol without the magazine, or with the magazine unseated, depending upon which report is accurate, is a very good idea at all. True, she was not overcome, disarmed, raped, or beaten, but it is a very good idea to be able to react very quickly to a rapidly unfolding attack. The consequences of failure can be very severe indeed.
We cannot judge from news reports whether drawing was either justified or a good idea. The man reportedly approached "aggressively." We cannot tell whether a present threat of unlawful force existed.
Personally, I do not think it very bright at all to shout "I'll blow your brains out" when pointing a gun at someone who is seated. Had things gone bad, and had there been an earwitness, that could have tipped the scales against her, all other things being equal.
Did she do anything right? Yes indeed. She contacted the police immediately. We talk about that all the time here.
Yes, she is a sympathetic character. Yes, the other guy is anything but sympathetic. Yes, she came out of it unhurt, and most probably legally OK.
But there are a number of things she did that she could have done a lot better.
Edward429451
Moderator
I think we can. We had a lone female with child in tow and the perv starts acting aggressive and pawing himself. Do we not believe the lady?
Now if it was a man then you may be right. As it was, there was a disparity of force with aggression involved.
So a guy goes up to a strange woman and flashes. I'd say he may be capable of anything. All bets are off the table as far as I am concerned. How would you like if if that woman was your wife, mother, sister? She did the right thing. Why should an INNOCENT woman have to grant any leeway to a possible male attacker?
OldMarksman
Staff
She said he "approached "aggressively" and sat down. Can we infer from that that she believed he was about to strike or grab her and that she had to draw to stop him? I don't know.
Was she knowledgeable of the law? I don't know.
Look--it's not a matter of what he may be capable of, though that is one element. It is all about what she reasonably believed that he was likely going to do, right then and there, at that moment, if she didn't prevent it.
People who do not understand that concept are likely to get into a lot of trouble.
I'm going to put in another plug for MAG-20. For anyone who thinks it costly, consider the possibility of losing everything due to not having an understanding of the use of force laws.
And in the interim, order a copy of The Cornered Cat-- a Woman's Guide to Concealed Carry. Even if you are a man.
She came though it OK, but a lot of that was dumb luck. See Post #148.
Not sure what you mean by "leeway".
Edward429451
Moderator
Holding off on the draw until he declared physical intention to harm? Perhaps she should have said excuse me Sir, do wish to do me harm today or perhaps rape me in front of my child?
Normal people do not go around exposing themselves to women or anyone. To behave in this manner clearly shows that he at least has a mental problem, and at most anything could happen. So she played it safe and drew on him. He could have jumped on her in an instant.
Are we trying to advocate this type of behavior as somehow being ok because of what John law may do, or some silly continuum of force ladder? With a woman? That's preposterous and would create loopholes for pervs. Continuum of force is for men.
The trouble this lady could have gotten into by not drawing her gun outweighs (I'm my mind) everything else. If he grabs her kid, then what? If he charges her and she tries to fleeing while carrying the child what are her chances. She could get into the ultimate "trouble" by giving this mentally defective man an opportunity at the upper hand
OldMarksman
Staff
See below.
Could have=speculation.
If...if...could.... Here's the rub: everyone one meets in a remote park might grab a kid or charge. Someone sitting on a bench with his clothing open and occupied with himself, however abnormal that behavior may be, most probably constitutes less of a threat of imminent danger of physical harm than someone casting furtive glances at the child, looking around, and continuing to approach.
But you cannot draw on them until you have some indication that it is immediately necessary to do so, or you will likely go to jail.
The lady here may well have had that indication; we weren't there. But one cannot go around drawing on people because of that they might do, or what "could happen", or because they are behaving abnormally. That's been true for centuries, screen fiction notwithstanding.
One may lawfully use force, or deadly force, and in some jurisdictions such as Washington State and a few others, display a firearm, when it is necessary to do so to protect and defend, but not to administer justice, or to indicate disapproval for abnormal behavior, or to take into account what could happen.
The key word is necessary---immediately necessary. The old formula of A, O, J, and P applies well, except that when the threshold is to defend against "presently threatened unlawful physical force" as it is here, "Ability" is defined differently from its traditional meaning in the context of self defense.
I don't think anyone here is advising on drawing their weapon on anyone they think might be dangerous. This man crossed a line. There is no question that he is mentally unstable and that he was fixed on this lady.
An obviously unstable man making threatening sexual gestures is quite a bit different than the average person you meet on the street that looks bad. What he was doing up the chances that the "what if" and "might"
. His actions were much more than abnormal. You are comparing this to normal day to day strangeness. This is much more than your abnormal behavior. 99% of SD situations involve some degree of what if. Is that really a gun in his pocket? You have to make quick decisions. His actions were a clear indication of a man that is more than abnormal
I might agree with your argument if she pulled the trigger. In this case she did what was the safest thing for her and her child when put in a situation that is much worse than normal
Double Naught Spy
New member
I am not sure what "approached aggressively" is beyond being a stranger that walked toward her that she did not want walking toward her. You can certainly approach aggressively without being aggressive to the person. If I walk up to you quickly to get your attention, I could be described as approaching aggressively, but isn't the same as being aggressive when approaching.
I think people have freaked out because "aggressive" was used, but in how it was used does not necessarily indicate actual aggression.
Actually, you have no idea if he was mentally stable or not. He could have been perfectly stable, just not to a level that society likes or which would allow for his behaviors legally. He may be mentally ill, but stable in his illness. Also, there were two victims to witness the event. How do you know he wasn't fixated on the kid?
I appreciate your forthright statements
OldMarksman
Staff
Good.
How might that weigh in,in terms of lawful justification?
And?
Edward429451
Moderator
...and it was the weaker sex, a female. OM, your excused from jury duty.
If it was a man then I'd agree with you.
If it was a man then I'd agree with you.
I said he was fixated on the woman. The report said he told her she needed to watch. That was directed at her.
Lets look at this statement more closely. "Not that society likes" I am sorry but his actions are not proper in any society. This is not an issue of our society not allowing something that is no big deal, what he did is a very big deal. The fact that he would do this shows clear unstableness. You said yourself his actions do not allow for legal behavior, are we to assume that this situation would not get worse? People that are "stable in their mental illiness" should be able to seperate legal from illigal acts. If they cannot they are not "stable" enough to be free in society. Someone who should not be free in society should be considered dangerous and safety should then come first
This lady could only assume what this man's intent was. Given the fact he has directed his action at her and he is unable to seperate legal from illigal acts (your words) why should she assume he is not dangerous?
Please shed some more light on your "level that society likes" comment.
Oldmarksman, if I came across as saying it was legally justified then that was not my intent. You may very well be correct about this type of situation as it stands in a court of law. I believe everyone should be well versed in the legalities of carrying a firearm, but situations will always come up that are in a bit of a grey area (like this) I have tried to state my opinion is, in a situation like this, that I would want my loved ones to put their safety first.
We obviously differ on his mental state and potential danger. That is fine we should agree to disagree. I see his actions as that of someone who is very likely dangerous and wanting to act in a dangerous manner. Sexual crimes are usually violent and dangerous to the victim. This man has crossed the line into not caring/knowing what is legal/moral. When that involves sexual activities, then that is dangerous path to be on. Someone who does this is crossing a line (IMHO) that warrants this lady putting her and her child's life before questions of legality. That us not to say I think we should put legal issues aside, I just feel sexual assault tends to be one type of activity that has more potential to be violent and dangerous.
**edit to add, I do not think someone should knowingly act in an illegal maner, but self defense involves quick actions. This woman did not pull the trigger. She kept the situation from esculating and she kept her family safe. I think we both agree that there needs to be "imminent danger of physical harm" Where we differ is on what is "immediate danger" There is no black and white or easy way to define this. In my opinion, a sexual crime directed at a person is "imminent danger of harm"
Last edited:
- Status