Interesting comments on this. Comments about use of force in this situation, initially unchambered round, etc. are relevant. All others are inappropriate.
Printable View
Interesting comments on this. Comments about use of force in this situation, initially unchambered round, etc. are relevant. All others are inappropriate.
My understanding of the article was he didn't only expose his genitals but was also "performing a sex act" and encouraging her to watch. While I agree from the sound of it he was looking for an audience, not a participant - I'm not letting someone get close enough to me to hit me or transmit a deadly disease if I can help it. Not saying I completely agree with how she handled it, and I certainly don't carry around an unloaded weapon, but I also believe if I let someone get close enough to put hands (or anything else) on me, I've likely lost the fight before it really got started.Quote:
Originally Posted by noway2
We'll probably never know what the outcome would have been if she wasn't armed but whatever she did certainly worked. I don't doubt that she'll begin carrying more often now.
His weapon was on half cock.
I was just pondering this myself (whether this would be a legally defensible use of a firearm). Remember the full context of the situation:Quote:
Originally Posted by noway2
-the woman is walking at a lake on a dark & foggy night (presumably with no one nearby to intervene on her behalf, no vehicle nearby, etc)
-woman is alone except for her 6-year old child, which significantly limits her ability to escape and heightens her defensive instincts
-the man "the man approached her “aggressively" and began performing a sex act, saying "you need to watch this"
I wouldn't have shrugged this off as a garden variety flasher. This man has probably been fantasizing about forcing sexual interactions with a stranger (aka "rape") and is now acting on those impulses. This encounter could have quickly escalated into an actual rape, with devastating consequences.
Obviously the woman in this situation made a lot of dumb decisions (putting herself in a risky situation, carrying an unloaded gun, sicking her dog on the perp AFTER he'd already fled...) - but I wouldn't say she was wrong for using her weapon. In the same scenario, I'd probably have begun moving away immediately, and if the perp attempted to follow me - that would be my line in the sand.
If it takes the presense of a firearm to force a pervert to beat feet, I'm all for it.
The problem is had she not have drawn her weapon would the degenerate have become more aggressive or violent.Quote:
Originally Posted by noway2
And learn how and when to use it properly.Quote:
Originally Posted by pgrass101
Was there and immediate threat of grave bodily harm or death? Would the woman be justified if she had actually used deadly force? If the answer was "no" for either one of those questions, than she was not justified in using the threat of deadly force.
Maybe. Only maybe. She needed to leave, period.Quote:
Originally Posted by msgt/ret
OTOH, she had her son with her, that she also had to protect and that would be a liability slowing her down.
I'm not going to interpret her impression of 'aggressive' from my couch, not to mention her mother's instincts kicking in. This has happened to me a few times and I just laughed at them and left. And reported them. She had less options that way, if followed, she couldnt get away as quickly.
I think she kept her head pretty well.
In my opinion this could be argued as to what her perception was, she may have concluded his actions did present an immediate threat.Quote:
Originally Posted by steffen
Was he within 22 feet? If so he could have been on her before she could draw OR escape with a 6 yr old. Fast retreat was hampered by the child. It was up to her to determine 'aggressive'.Quote:
Originally Posted by steffen
I agree it's questionable but I can see how it could have been appropriate.
Exactly. Speaking to that topic:Quote:
Originally Posted by msgt/ret
Quote:
More Than a Nuisance - Are Exhibitionists Dangerous?
There are three groups of exhibitionists. The first type of offender is generally inhibited, introverted, or socially adequate. He is frequently anxious, impulsive, obsessional, and sexually confused. The second group is that of individuals who are unaware of their actions due to mental retardation, an organic brain disorder, and/or extreme alcohol intoxication. These two groups are generally more dangerous to themselves than they are to others.
The third group of exhibitionists demonstrates significantly more psychopathology. The sexual culmination is more important than the shock value of exposing oneself, and always involves masturbation. This offender has a more assaultive character. He often has concurrent paraphilias which may include voyeurism, pedophilia, scatologia (compulsive use of obscene language), and frotteurism (touching and rubbing against a non-consenting person). A number of these individuals (approximately 10%) escalate into a hands-on sexual contact of victims as opposed to the typical hands-off exhibitionistic behavior. It is individuals in this third group who are more likely to progress onto more aggressive sexual offenses, including rape or the sexual assault of a minor.
http://www.lawofficer.com/article/ne...e-exhibitionis
And everyone is assuming the reporter is relaying it accurately. There is a chance there is some journalistic licensing going on here also. Maybe she had one in the pipe and just had to cock it.
Yes, there's definitely some real sick stuff in there, however they also feed off of the reactions of their intended victims. Maybe, as distasteful as it sounds, young women need some instruction in how to deal with such situations, the way we teach kids how to handle strangers?Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsHB
I found laughter worked as the best weapon in those cases, but then again, I always had the means to leave quickly.