Good Outcome Despite Wretched Tactics

I did this column on the incident.

Frankly, a lot of bad could have come from this. I see there is a spirited discussion, and this is good. Do I think any charges will come from this? I'm not a fan of the Clark County prosecutor's office, but it probably isn't going to go after a mom who was protecting herself and her child.

The guy in this caper is pretty lucky. Say she had plugged him. Guy on the ground plugged, pants down, cops show up.... Who do you think the police are going to believe, eh?

What does a woman do when a man exposes himself?

You’re a mom on an evening walk with your 6-year-old son and you are suddenly approached “aggressively” by a man who exposes himself and then suggests that you stand there and watch what’s next, so what do you do?

What should a woman do when a man exposes himself? - Seattle gun rights | Examiner.com

"The woman who encountered the man at Lake Sacajawea said she saw the man fumbling with his belt as he approached her and her son at Martin Dock"
If someone is fumbling with their belt, opening their pants as they are approaching me - you bet -I'm drawing. Like MrsHB said, having the child in tow significantly limits your ability to flee. I'd still try and move away, keeping my child behind me and the perve in front of me if I could but I'm not going to stop and ask him his full intentions or plans, I'm not going to turn my back and run and he's sure as heck not coming any closer. *It's a completely different senario than if he was just making leering or rude comments. I personally don't think she was wrong in pulling the weapon, I think she was wrong not having it ready if she needed it before she walked out her front door.*

It's a split second decision regarding immediate threat. Hesitate too long and it could be too late. I'm not going to assume he's harmless. I'm not going to run from somewhere I have every right to be with my child in tow who's going to slow us down and distract me from being in a good defensive position. I'm not going to risk having someone grab ahold of either one of us - I learned a long time ago that a man about the same size as me tends to have better upper body strength than I do. That you can end up flat on your back begging and crying a lot faster than you'd think. *Hesitate too long (to draw or flee) and it's too late. She wasn't in his head and didn't know how it was going to end. The article did leave out how close he was and some of the other details. It's easy to second guess something from the comfort of our own homes. If she hadn't drawn and been physically assaulted people would be saying she should have drawn sooner. As it worked out she's being criticized for overreacting. *

I agree, young women, maybe most women need some instruction in dealing with such situations, but I disagree there's anything to laugh about - I'd be teaching different tactics than that.

Looks like a ______, only smaller!

Quote:

---

"...I'm going to blow your brains out"

---

I wonder where she was aiming. http://downloads.btlarson.com/pics/roflmao.gif

[QUOTE=Lish;2454614
I agree, young women, maybe most women need some instruction in dealing with such situations, but I disagree there's anything to laugh about - I'd be teaching different tactics than that.[/QUOTE]

I didnt say I would teach that particularly...it's just worked well for me. Actually, the effective part was to just keep moving and leave. The laughing part and the look on their faces was just a bonus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lish

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.

---

True, but someone forcibly putting hands on you is an assault, which is NOT grounds for lethal force. The same thing applies with some of the other comments, such as mother's instinct, having child present, etc. All of these things make for a scary situation, but don't strictly meet the requirements for lethal force. In the absence of a "bio projectile", the defensive case could be made that this was not a lethal situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msgt/ret

The problem is had she not have drawn her weapon would the degenerate have become more aggressive or violent.

---

This could apply to any interaction with a potential assailant. This is also the realm where non lethal force (e.g. OC Spray), verbal commands, moving off the X, deescalation, etc come into play. Again, looking at this from a strict standpoint, I think the case could be made that lethal force wasn't justified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steffen

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.

---

I think that this IS where the wiggle room does exist for the justification of lethal force. Think of it along the same lines of the presence of a weapon. It is not actually necessary for them to have a weapon, it is enough that the proverbial "reasonable" person would believe that there is an immediate and imminent threat. A case could easily be made that it is not unreasonable to believe that a person who is engaging in Nature's Pride bread deviant and aggressive behavior, would be doing so as a precursor to sexual assault or rape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noway2

True, but someone forcibly putting hands on you is an assault, which is NOT grounds for lethal force. The same thing applies with some of the other comments, such as mother's instinct, having child present, etc. All of these things make for a scary situation, but don't strictly meet the requirements for lethal force. In the absence of a "bio projectile", the defensive case could be made that this was not a lethal situation.

---

What? Sorry, in most circumstances a man aggressively TRYING to put his hands on me...pants on or off....gives me the legal right to draw.

Why is he trying to hit me? What would ever make me think that he'd just hit me and walk away? Why is he doing it? My assumption (unless, as I mentioned, there are some unlikely circumstances)....is that he want to kill or do gross bodily harm/rape me. Him hitting me once could easily be enough to disable me to the point of being unable to defend myself from more harm.

If I couldnt retreat...which I certainly would if I could....I would have my firearm out and on target.

I think this may fall partly under disparity of force but I would take my chances with a jury on this if I had to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noway2

True, but someone forcibly putting hands on you is an assault, which is NOT grounds for lethal force. The same thing applies with some of the other comments, such as mother's instinct, having child present, etc. All of these things make for a scary situation, but don't strictly meet the requirements for lethal force. In the absence of a "bio projectile", the defensive case could be made that this was not a lethal situation.

---

Size disparity could be a defense. A larger, more powerful individual, can kill with their hands as easily as having a weapon. If someone much larger were going to be advancing, a retreat may, or may not, be possible. A lot of factors would need to be considered to determine if lethal force were justified. But just because an individual does not display a weapon does not automatically mean that lethal force is ruled out.

In my state forcible felony is justification for deadly force. Again, I'm not saying I would have shot THIS guy, but in my particular state it doesn't have to be a lethal situation. I WILL shoot before being raped whether I'm likely to otherwise survive the encounter or not. I'll take my chances on that one with a jury. And if he gets hands on her, she's not likely getting away - we have to take an assault and can't use lethal force?! Personally I'm not letting someone "aggressively approaching" get in touching distance! Was THIS guy going to try and rape her? Maybe, maybe not, but who knows for sure - she scared him off. How close does a woman, or anyone for that matter, need to let a guy "acting aggressively" get?! Depending on the situation and disparity of force you do not need a bio projectile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noway2

True, but someone forcibly putting hands on you is an assault, which is NOT grounds for lethal force. The same thing applies with some of the other comments, such as mother's instinct, having child present, etc. All of these things make for a scary situation, but don't strictly meet the requirements for lethal force. In the absence of a "bio projectile", the defensive case could be made that this was not a lethal situation.


This could apply to any interaction with a potential assailant. This is also the realm where non lethal force (e.g. OC Spray), verbal commands, moving off the X, deescalation, etc come into play. Again, looking at this from a strict standpoint, I think the case could be made that lethal force wasn't justified.


I think that this IS where the wiggle room does exist for the justification of lethal force. Think of it along the same lines of the presence of a weapon. It is not actually necessary for them to have a weapon, it is enough that the proverbial "reasonable" person would believe that there is an immediate and imminent threat. A case could easily be made that it is not unreasonable to believe that a person who is engaging in Nature's Pride bread deviant and aggressive behavior, would be doing so as a precursor to sexual assault or rape.

---

Without knowing the specifics, its impossible for us to make a judgement on this lady's situation. The article is written to try and make the lady sound crazy, and that comes from her own statements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noway2

True, but someone forcibly putting hands on you is an assault, which is NOT grounds for lethal force.

---

When you make a remark like that, it depends upon where you are standing in what part of the country whether it is right or not.

Out here in Washington, what you are describing is a criminal assault, and one needn't wait around to see just how far a perp is going to press the issue before reacting with whatever force is necessary in defense of one's self and, in this case, a child.

Fortunately for the pansy waver in this case there wasn't some guy strolling by who might have taken the opportunity to beat the living crap out of him. We are, after all, talking about Southwest Washington, and there are still loggers and longshoremen and other stout fellows in that region who could reduce some pervert to a quivvering mass of stomped guts, and in this sort of situation, nobody would have seen anything, sort of, kinda, if you get my drift, by your leave....

"Geeze deputy, I was just working up a thirst for a Bud and I happened to see this guy..."

From a legal standpoint, the woman could easily mount a defense if charges were ever brought by merely stating the obvious...she was fearful of sexual assault and injury to her child. She couldn't run and abandon her son so she did the next best thing...she encouraged a sudden change of plans for the perp.

No matter what they say about Washington being a Blue State..this is still north of the Columbia River. We have laws and precedents, and self-defense against sexual assault isn't a crime, it's more in the nature of a public service. Ultimately, this is unlikely to ever bring a charge.

I am pretty sure that if she had shot him in my county no charges would of been pressed against her

Ok...I've sat here and read ALL the comments so far. I'm especially disturbed by those that have said there is a question as to whether the presentation of her weapon was really necessary.

The first thought that comes to my mind is "disparity of force"...That in itself, along with the presence of her child, and the actions being performed by the perv, were more than suffiecient to present her weapon.

For those that automatically "pooh pooh" her choice to present, then look in the mirror and ask yourself "What if it were my wife, my daughter, my child, my grandchild...what if it were just a young girl walking in the park...would I want them to prepare to defend themselves, more importantly, present their weapon?" If you can still say, nahhhhh, it wasn't necessary, then I personally feel for you as a professed "man".

Someone mentioned, was the perv inside 22 feet. I could care less if it was 30 feet, 21 feet, or five feet. My feelings are she had every right to prepare to defend herself and her child. PERIOD

Should she have better training with her weapon..YUP...Should she carry loaded and ready to rock n roll...YUP...Did she and her child walk away unharmed..YUP So good job gal!!!!

Could she have presented her weapon, perhaps instead of saying "I'm gonna blow your brains out", a better choice would have been "Hold what ya got there buddy while I call 911" as she backs away with her child from his presentation...

Bottom line is, in my eyes, he's a threat to the lady...he's a threat to the child...As others have said on here, and this is an example, you don't always have to shoot when you present your weapon, but you better darn sure be prepared to if it's necessary.

This whole thread really irks me...JMO

She effectively utilized Condition 3 carry and was justified in drawing her weapon on the scumbag....well done.

Edit: Doh, looks like the mag was separate in her purse...guess she demonstrated even C4 can be more than sufficient, not that I'd ever recommend it.

I see that my last comment generated quite the response, which I am not going to try to quote and respond to each comment. Let me summarize by saying that I agree with DaveWorkman, that it does depend upon the laws of your jurisdiction. In my state, there is no "forcible felony" designation that I am familiar with and what I was referring to by hitting or grabbing would fall into the category of simple assault, which unless qualified somehow, does not justify the use of lethal force. Differences in gender and presence of a child, could but do not automatically make for sufficient disparity of force.

I think that this example highlights several important things to keep in mind when thinking through these types of scenarios. One, everyone fills in the blanks according to their own filter and this can, and obviously does, lead to different interpretations. Two, these differences are also the sort of thing that can occur on a jury. Now, were I in the same situation as this lady, I too in all livelihood would have had my weapon at the ready and he would have known I had it while I was trying to vacate the area as quickly as possible. I also doubt that any DA would attempt to charge someone in this type of situation. At the same time, I don't see that this situation categorically fits the traditional AOJ of grave bodily harm, death, or sexual assault (yes, the act is perverted, but doesn't automatically mean rape) but recognize that different interpretations and assumptions about the situation could cause some to see that it does.