Things to Not Do

K

Kleanbore

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
17,478
Some years ago, a woman in Murfreesboro, TN was putting groceries in her car in a store parking lot when she heard a man behind her.

The man was speaking to her and approaching her.

She had up her hand to warn him to stop. but he continued. She drew a handgun and pointed it at him. He turned and ran. He reported the incident to the police.

Her story was that she had felt threatened. But police interviews of others who were present, and their review of store video, persuaded them that she had not had a basis for reasonably believing that she had been threatened.

His story was that he had asked her if she had a cigarette lighter.

She was arrested and charged with aggravated assault, and another crime. Bond was set at $15,000.

That's as far as the news report goes, but my recollections from the Law of Self Defense blog post on this go farther.

She continued to dig the hole deeper.

She said that she could not believe that she, a law abiding citizen, aws being charged with a serious crime. Attorneys tell us that that that is not an uncommon reaction among citizens charged with crimes after what they considered to have been justified use of force incidents.

She decided to take her outrage to the media. She invited television reporters into her house to tell them what she thought about the situation.

As I recall, she ultimately received a suspended sentence for the criminal charges, but she ran afoul of things in a civil tort case. Attorney Andrew Branca suggested that her case (the civil one) was not helped by her fancy living room and its luxurious contents being shown on television.

There are several important things to be learned from this incident, and it behooves all of us to learn them.
 
By golly....had she just given a stern look and in a stern voice said "Easy there Tiger, that's close enough" and enforced her own chosen personal boundary, as I recommend, she would have been guilty of nothing more than hurting someone's feelings or maybe even dissuading a potential assault upon her person.

A reasonable person, especially a lone woman, COULD believe was using the "can I have a light/do you have the time/can I use your phone" dodge to get close enough to commit a hands-on assault. This is one of the more common pretextual approaches used by turds to gauge potential prey. How many times have you read about assaults on persons that began that way?

Of course, once again, you are probably going to assert that I am advocating her gunning the panhandler down, or punching babies, or kicking blind kids, or throwing puppies off bridges, then selectively parse what I actually typed and claim I meant something else. If you could at least pretend to be intellectually honest once, then you would admit that she may not have been off base in being made to feel unsafe or even threatened by being approached in that manner in a parking lot.
 
Creaky_Old_Cop said:
A reasonable person, especially a lone woman, COULD believe was using the "can I have a light/do you have the time/can I use your phone" dodge to get close enough to commit a hands-on assault.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that the did believe that, though according to the report, she did not realize that he was asking to use a lighter.

But that does not mean that her belief was reasonable under the circumstances, which is something that is decided by others afterward based on the evidence available.

To lawfully threaten or use force of any kind, the actor must not only believe that that so doing was immediately necessary to defend against an imminent threat, that belief must be reasonable.

Creaky_Old_Cop said:
and enforced her own chosen personal boundary, as I recommend,
Click to expand...
Citizens do not have a lawful right to "enforce their own personal boundary" in a public place. They can maintain distance, but that may involve moving away.
 
Creaky_Old_Cop said:
A reasonable person, especially a lone woman, COULD believe was using the "can I have a light/do you have the time/can I use your phone" dodge to get close enough to commit a hands-on assault. This is one of the more common pretextual approaches used by turds to gauge potential prey.
Click to expand...

This is true. However, it appears that the subsequent investigation didn't prove that was the case:

Kleanbore said:
But police interviews of others who were present, and their review of store video, persuaded them that she had not had a basis for reasonably believing that she had been threatened.
Click to expand...

We have to remember that our actions will ultimately be judged by people who weren't present when the incident occurred. She was convicted and given a suspended sentence. I don't know if she was convicted in a bench trial or jury trial but either way, a court found that her action wasn't reasonable after reviewing the evidence. This case does a good job of debunking the gun culture myth that the magic words "I was in fear for my life" are a get out of jail free card.

One needs to learn how to read people. That science isn't perfect either but there are a lot of visual cues that an attack is imminent. A class on body language probably won't be as much fun as a class on the range but it might be more useful.
 
Jeff White said:
A class on body language probably won't be as much fun as a class on the range but it might be more useful.
Click to expand...
It should be pretty interesting.

I've come across a number of writings on the subject, but I have never seen a class offered to the general public.
 
An online search brought up a lot of online classes, I was unable to find any in person classes for private citizens. I have no experience with any of the online classes so I can't speak to their quality. I would think that with the current popularity of self defense training that someone would offer a class for private citizens.
 
1- make good tactical choices 2- work the problem you are being faced with right now, not the problem that may play out in the future 3- you have the right to an attorney, so shut up and exercise that right. Once you have been cuffed and/or mirandized, you are in an adversarial relationship with the authorities. That is definitely the time to understand that you aren't going to just explain yourself and go home to live the rest of your life as if nothing happened. And none of this is any guaranty that all will ever be well.
 
Jeff White said:
An online search brought up a lot of online classes, I was unable to find any in person classes for private citizens. I have no experience with any of the online classes so I can't speak to their quality. I would think that with the current popularity of self defense training that someone would offer a class for private citizens.
Click to expand...
I went to a free USCCA class last year. They try to sell a membership like about as hard as possilbe, but - the class was informative and you can ask questions. Aside from the annoying sales pitches and push to sign up and pay money, I found the free class worth going to. It was about what I expected from a free class.
 
film495 said:
I went to a free USCCA class last year. They try to sell a membership like about as hard as possilbe, but - the class was informative and you can ask questions. Aside from the annoying sales pitches and push to sign up and pay money, I found the free class worth going to. It was about what I expected from a free class.
Click to expand...
Good to know.
 
Jeff White said:
A class on body language probably won't be as much fun as a class on the range but it might be more useful.
Click to expand...
Classes like these are sometimes found in sales/management training. At one point in my life I participated in and then taught them as part of a training course.
 
As said earlier there is no current legal definition of personal space however one needs to remember that for the past five years the people have been inundated with enforced mandates, policies, and recommendations concerning "personal space" on both public and private properties.

The law may tell us we have no personal space, but that old human survival instinct is hard to overcome.

Years ago spitting on someone was a way to start a schoolyard fight, now it is considered battery.
I would not be surprised if we were to see a legal definition in the future.




Most situational awareness classes I've sat through refer to the "personal space" issue and even give examples.
Any good sit awareness class should at least touch on kinesics and some of the best examples come from police body cam video.
 
Creaky_Old_Cop said:
By golly....had she just given a stern look and in a stern voice said "Easy there Tiger, that's close enough" and enforced her own chosen personal boundary, as I recommend, she would have been guilty of nothing more than hurting someone's feelings or maybe even dissuading a potential assault upon her person.
Click to expand...
Isn't that what she did? Put her hand up, tell him not to come any closer and he came closer?

Not everybody listens. When they invented cops, that's why gave you sticks to hit people with. And even that didn't work, so they gave you guns, tasers, and pepper spray.

Besides she's not a cop, and she doesn't have any more right to her space in that parking lot than he does. If he keeps coming, walk around the car and get away from the guy.

Pulling the gun out where the guy can see it is kind of a dumb move unless you have to shoot the guy.
 
Easy to quarterback this one based on her actions. What we don’t know is was he wearing a business suit (doubtful) or did he look like he just came out of a biker bar. Those are important distinctions which the average citizen bases threat assessments on.

I can’t remember the last time someone asked me for a light let alone approach me across/in a parking lot to do it. Predators assess victims based on the threat they may pose to them and a successful get away as much as citizens assess the threat of a potential criminal. Women often are seen as an easy mark and I’m sure it adds to their anxiety in these instances.

I know the law is the law but I’ve often felt that the law and justice in many instances are two different things these days. Seems the DA could have used discretion and reviewed her background and if clean directed a mandatory training session on use of force applicable in the state and assed her a fine vs. the court action.

No defending her post encounter behavior. I would really like to know why the guy didn’t stop and if he had a criminal background.
 
I have no information about this event beyond what has been presented above.

However, I would guess that the cause of the woman's subsequent legal troubles was likely her inability to assess and articulate whether her gut sense of being threatened with great harm was reasonable.

Without such an assessment and description, threatening with a firearm could only be ascribed to blind fear.

All self defenders need to learn to recognize the differences between situations that lead to blind fear and those that create reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.

AND to understand how to describe these differences to others.

If she had learned these differences beforehand, and learned to describe them clearly, it is unlikely that she would have drawn her gun unnecessarily, been criminally prosecuted and convicted, and successfully sued for damages.

Yes, reading people correctly and objectively really is that important.

Mas Ayoob's excellent piece on this process has been posted here before; I'll repeat it for newcomers. It was also a component of the MAS40 course I attended. May I suggest that all self-defenders, both experienced and new, study and internalize Mas' lessons?

www.backwoodshome.com

Body language and threat recognition - Backwoods Home Magazine

By Massad Ayoob Issue #87 • May/June, 2004 Reader mail indicates that while some Backwoods Home readers turn to this column for advice on putting wild game on the table or keeping four-footed poachers out of the garden, others are more interested in firearms for self-defense in lonely places...
www.backwoodshome.com
 
Last edited:
Kleanbore said:
I'm sure that the did believe that, though according to the report, she did not realize that he was asking to use a lighter.

But that does not mean that her belief was reasonable under the circumstances, which is something that is decided by others afterward based on the evidence available.

To lawfully threaten or use force of any kind, the actor must not only believe that that so doing was immediately necessary to defend against an imminent threat, that belief must be reasonable.


Citizens do not have a lawful right to "enforce their own personal boundary" in a public place. They can maintain distance, but that may involve moving away.
Click to expand...
Once again you use....."creative editing and quoting" ...to remove context and therefore remove the meaning of a clear statement in order to make a fallacious point. She drew a gun instead of issue the verbal warning as I recommend. The "Golly gee..." is an indicator of irony. Yet, you parse that out to make a false assertion and argue facts not in evidence. You have zero integrity Oh Grand Poobah.
 
Frulk said:

What we don’t know is was he wearing a business suit (doubtful) or did he look like he just came out of a biker bar.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant.

Frulk said:
Those are important distinctions which the average citizen bases threat assessments on.
Click to expand...
Never a good idea.
Frulk said:
Predators assess victims based on the threat they may pose to them and a successful get away as much as citizens assess the threat of a potential criminal. Women often are seen as an easy mark and I’m sure it adds to their anxiety in these instances.
Click to expand...
Very true.
Frulk said:
Seems the DA could have used discretion and reviewed her background and if clean directed a mandatory training session on use of force applicable in the state and assed her a fine vs. the court action.
Click to expand...
The dA had eyewitness and earwitness testimony and video evidence indicating that she committed a serious crime.

I think we can assume that the fact that the did not receive a sentence of jail time reflected her clean record.

She did incur civil liability.
 
Maybe something less lethal like pepper spray would have been more appropriate in her situation. Either way, you guys saying that she should have moved away seem to forget that she was loading groceries in her car. Where was she supposed to go? Leave the car? Do y’all really think that?
 
As I said, my best recollection of the LoSD blog post on this is that the woman received a suspended sentence.

I do not know whether that was in return for a guilty plea, but I suspect that it was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Creep on the Porch
2 3 4
Replies
83
Views
5K
mitchshrader
M
Deaf Smith
  • Locked
Police shot 17 year old girl
Replies
2
Views
301
Kleanbore
K
S
  • Locked
Pit Bull Attack
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Cosmoline
C
J
  • Locked
How NOT to respond to road rage
2
Replies
46
Views
4K
George P
George P
F
  • Locked
Incident report: Goblin encounter
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
Gordon
Gordon
Back
Top