Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Firearms in the Media > Flasher runs when woman pulls gun on him

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-23-2012, 12:46 PM   #31
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: West, by God, Funroe,Louisiana
Posts: 18,707
Liked 9199 Times on 5056 Posts
Likes Given: 74

Default

And if he'd decided to go ahead and rape her? In front of the child? What then?



__________________
trip286 is offline  
 
Old 11-23-2012, 12:55 PM   #32
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JonM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Rochester WI,Rochester WI
Posts: 17,129
Liked 5272 Times on 2748 Posts
Likes Given: 333

Default

Usually news stories leave details missing.

But in my opinion an individual woman or not approached by a naked person with what we now know about real life naked zombies chewing off other peoples faces i too would have pulled a firearm and aimed it at the lunatic.

So did she have a right and was justified?? Yes, the presentation of deadly force or threat of deadly force was there. If you dont think that human teeth and fingers arent deadly i would suggest googling the before and after pics of the victim of the zombie attack in california.

Remember however we are all entitled to an opinion and this isnt a court of law so please keep that in mind when typing out your arguments



__________________

"Gun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound." — L. Neil Smith

The problem with being stupid is you cannot simply decide to stop doing dumb things...

JonM is offline  
texaswoodworker Likes This 
Old 11-23-2012, 06:22 PM   #33
No Longer a NY Resident.
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
kfox75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Erie County PA,
Posts: 2,429
Liked 1489 Times on 913 Posts
Likes Given: 7330

Default

Doc. IMHO I would much rather pay bail and a lawyer's retainer for my wife or daughter, then ever have to pay for a funeral or their medical bills. It is far better to be judged by 12, then it is to be carried by 6.

__________________

Is it better to do the right thing for the wrong reason, or to do the wrong thing for the right reason? If you do the wrong thing for the right reason, is it still the wrong thing?

Si vis pacem parabellum.

To those who wish to take away our Second Amendment rights. What will you do when we, all 100,000,000 of us, stand as one, and say no?

kfox75 is offline  
texaswoodworker Likes This 
Old 11-24-2012, 12:26 PM   #34
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Jacksonville,FL
Posts: 2,831
Liked 1764 Times on 987 Posts
Likes Given: 1302

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trip286 View Post
And if he'd decided to go ahead and rape her? In front of the child? What then?
Shoot him if he even attempts it. Deadly force is now permitted... and this is the important part...by law. Not by emotion, by law. The key part is, by her own admission there was no attempt at rape. None. No threat of great bodily harm or forceable felony? No deadly force or threat of deadly force.
__________________
Doc3402 is offline  
Chainfire Likes This 
Old 11-24-2012, 12:40 PM   #35
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Chainfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,274
Liked 1090 Times on 705 Posts
Likes Given: 276

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc3402 View Post
Shoot him if he even attempts it. Deadly force is now permitted... and this is the important part...by law. Not by emotion, by law. The key part is, by her own admission there was no attempt at rape. None. No threat of great bodily harm or forceable felony? No deadly force or threat of deadly force.
Agreed.

Another truth here is weenie waggers are rarely rapist, and rapist are rarely weenie waggers. Exhibitionists get their thrills from people seeing them, rapist get their thrills from terror and brutality, the sex is less important then the fear.
__________________

"It is better to be too skeptical then too credulous"

Carl Sagan

Chainfire is offline  
 
Old 11-24-2012, 12:55 PM   #36
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Chainfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,274
Liked 1090 Times on 705 Posts
Likes Given: 276

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonM View Post
Usually news stories leave details missing.

But in my opinion an individual woman or not approached by a naked person with what we now know about real life naked zombies chewing off other peoples faces i too would have pulled a firearm and aimed it at the lunatic.

So did she have a right and was justified?? Yes, the presentation of deadly force or threat of deadly force was there. If you dont think that human teeth and fingers arent deadly i would suggest googling the before and after pics of the victim of the zombie attack in california.

Remember however we are all entitled to an opinion and this isnt a court of law so please keep that in mind when typing out your arguments
Jon, the highlighted portion of your text could face the scrutiny of a jury. A cop may not arrest, a prosecutor may not prosecute, a jury may not convict, and a judge may overrule a jury verdict. But, the opposite may happen. Simple display of one's genitalia, without other acts to indicate that the pervert was about to commit a forceable felony, could easily be a jury question. Win or lose the case, the woman's life would never be the same.

If you are not in immediate danger of serious bodily harm, (which has specific legal meaning) the gun should stay in the holster.

The entire issue would change if the pervert gave an indication that he intends to elevate the crime to a more serious crime. You just can't kill a person for weenie wagging; if you can't kill them, neither can you threaten them with a firearm; the rules are the same.

The whole point of the argument is to get people to think about their potential actions, ahead of time, so that if the situation presents itself, you don't make a serious mistake.

Know your state's laws, don't guess, don't use "common sense", don't use forum logic or advice, including this advice. The law is not always logical. (or fair)
__________________

"It is better to be too skeptical then too credulous"

Carl Sagan

Chainfire is offline  
 
Old 11-24-2012, 12:57 PM   #37
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
jjfuller1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: a place between here and there.
Posts: 4,357
Liked 1098 Times on 713 Posts
Likes Given: 625

Default

thats pretty funny right there

__________________
I have been a silent witness
to all of America's finest hours.
But my finest hour comes
when I am torn into strips and used as bandages
for my wounded comrades on the battlefield,
When I fly at half-mast to honor my soldiers,
Or when I lie in the trembling arms
of a grieving mother
at the graveside of her fallen son.
jjfuller1 is offline  
 
Old 11-24-2012, 01:05 PM   #38
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: West, by God, Funroe,Louisiana
Posts: 18,707
Liked 9199 Times on 5056 Posts
Likes Given: 74

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc3402 View Post
Shoot him if he even attempts it. Deadly force is now permitted... and this is the important part...by law. Not by emotion, by law. The key part is, by her own admission there was no attempt at rape. None. No threat of great bodily harm or forceable felony? No deadly force or threat of deadly force.
And once he's within 21 feet of her (he already was), how do you expect her to get to her firearm once he's overpowered her and begins shoving his penis forcibly into orifices where they don't belong, and right in front of her child? Not trying to be vulgar here, but that is what the act of rape entails. Tell me, if someone has pounced on you, and shoved a penis into your rectum, even if you manage to fight them off, how damaging is that to you and your child, who is watching the whole thing?

What if he were to jump on the kid? Sure, your in a much better position to fight someone off of a child than to fight them off of yourself, but how will that affect him 10 years from now? 10 seconds from now?

Now what are you gonna do? Someone shoving their genitals down your child's throat or between their legs or up their rectum by force of overpowering strength?

You already ****ed up if you haven't taken steps to negate the threat and they are within 1 second's distance of laying hands on you. No, he didn't try to rape her, but she's not a mind reader and neither are you. Someone who would think it's okay to make a woman and her child watch them masturbate are obviously deranged and cannot be counted on to act rationally, decently, or morally (freaking duh), and it can not even be speculated on what they may or may not do.

Chainfire and Doc, I would like to know where you got your degree on criminal psychology, and how you expect everyone else to have the same education in the matter. It does say in the article, that he "approached her aggressively".

At that point, he was showing aggression, which can be seen as equal to hostile intent, especially in conjunction with committing a lewd act. You can talk about laws and emotion all you want, but one very key argument in the justification of the use of deadly force is "fear for one's life or permanent or severe bodily injury". There's all the emotion and law that one needs in most states these days to justify it.

Oh, wait, I decided to take a break and look up the law...
So, unless you, or anyone else, can PROVE that the pervert had no intention of rape,and that the woman likely knew, or should have reasonably known he had no intention of rape I would think a jury of peers could very likely find that a person could reasonably "apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished" From this situation. A woman. Alone with a child. Aggressively approached. By a man. Masturbating.

Will they? Who the hell knows, our legal system is so ****ed up there's never any telling. But, by state law, any lawyer worth his/her salt should be able to have her home for dinner as a free woman.

You can talk all you want about what a "weenie wagger" would or wouldn't do, but unless you are the weenie wagger in question (judging by y'all's reaction, it make's me wonder what y'all do for fun), then you CANNOT say what a person would or wouldn't do, but the victim very easily could "apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished" which automatically makes your liberal logic in defense of the pervert a moot point, and makes it a matter to be decided by a jury of peers.

RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.


Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.

[2011 c 336 § 354; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.050.]


Edited to add source. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?Cite=9A.16.050
Edit to add: words in royal blue.
__________________

Last edited by trip286; 11-24-2012 at 01:11 PM.
trip286 is offline  
3
People Like This 
Old 11-24-2012, 01:13 PM   #39
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Chainfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,274
Liked 1090 Times on 705 Posts
Likes Given: 276

Default

"What if" is not at all important, what the jury hears is "what happened". What the jury is instructed on is state law, and definitions of issues, such as "forceable felony".

Again, speculation, legal opinions and emotions aside,

"Know your state's laws"

__________________

"It is better to be too skeptical then too credulous"

Carl Sagan

Chainfire is offline  
 
Old 11-24-2012, 01:22 PM   #40
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: West, by God, Funroe,Louisiana
Posts: 18,707
Liked 9199 Times on 5056 Posts
Likes Given: 74

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainfire View Post
"What if" is not at all important, what the jury hears is "what happened". What the jury is instructed on is state law, and definitions of issues, such as "forceable felony".

Again, speculation, legal opinions and emotions aside,

"Know your state's laws
"
I just quoted the state's law in that matter. "What if" actually can be construed as "reasonable ground to apprehend a design". All it would take is for a decent lawyer to present the argument and for a jury to be convinced that his client was reasonably able to believe there was a threat of rape or other felony. IT SAYS THIS RIGHT THERE IN THE LAW!!! PULL YOUR HEAD OUT AND LOOK!!! He approached her in an aggressive manner while masturbating while she was out with her young child.

Your argument is cold. Know the state's laws? Maybe she didn't at the moment, but you do now, so now your just acting silly.

I'll break that down word for word, just for you, stand by for my next post.


__________________
trip286 is offline  
rocshaman Likes This 
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Xd pulls to the right lbwar15 XD Forum 6 11-12-2012 12:26 PM
Dry Runs? danf_fl Survival & Sustenance Living Forum 8 07-20-2010 01:11 PM
Why is it that a single woman is thinner then a married woman? opaww The Club House 4 05-31-2010 10:16 PM
Anyone besides me like straight pulls? FALPhil General Rifle Discussion 11 09-27-2007 06:46 PM