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
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.
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.
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 decision can be a long time in coming
We cannot tell whether a present threat of unlawful force existed.
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.Posted by Edward429451: I think we can [tell whether a present threat of unlawful force existed]. We had a lone female with child in tow and the perv starts acting aggressive and pawing himself. Do we not believe the lady?
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.Posted by davem: So a guy goes up to a strange woman and flashes. I'd say he may be capable of anything.
She came though it OK, but a lot of that was dumb luck. See Post #148.She did the right thing.
Not sure what you mean by "leeway".Why should an INNOCENT woman have to grant any leeway to a possible male attacker?
Not sure what you mean by "leeway".
People who do not understand that concept are likely to get into a lot of trouble.
See below.Posted by Edward429451: 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.
Could have=speculation.Posted by TennJed: The trouble this lady could have gotten into by not drawing her gun outweighs (I'm my mind) everything else.
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.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
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.
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.
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.
Good.Posted by TennJed: I don't think anyone here is advising on drawing their weapon on anyone they think might be dangerous.
How might that weigh in,in terms of lawful justification?This man crossed a line. There is no question that he is mentally unstable and that he was fixed on this lady.
And?His actions were much more than abnormal.
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
just not to a level that society likes or which would allow for his behaviors legally
Good.
How might that weigh in,in terms of lawful justification?
And?