Things to Not Do

[Kleanbore]

From my point of view, the woman's reaction in her parking experience was appropriate.

Well, from the point of view of those who count it turned out to constitute the commission of a serious felony.

Being alert and exercising caution is a very good thing, but one may not draw a firearm because of what thinks might happen--anywhere in this country.

For her action to have been appropriate--lawfully justified--she would have had to have a basis for a reasonable belief that a deadly force attack was imminent--was about to happen.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Proves the point, doesn't it?

No, because both were dressed "normally".

 

[JERRY]

Got a light? I don't smoke.
Got the time? I don't have a watch.
Do you know where.... is? I just moved here.

Standard answers and I don't care what they think while I'm smoking and looking at my Rolex while wearing a local business youth league supporter tshirt.

 

[old lady new shooter]

I have three friends who are bikers. The duck, the dog, and the spider. The spider used to be the squirrel until he found out everybody called him the squirrel because he was squirrely. Not for... whatever reason he thought "Squirrel" was a cool nickname. His feelings were really hurt, so they let him pick out his own nickname, and he was "Spider".

They just like dressing up like Marlon Brando and riding their Harley Davidson motorcycles.

I think it's a waste of time to try to differentiate what organization someone belongs to whether it's a biker gang, street gang, football team or whatever. I can see clothing or appearance being a factor if it's a guy with a ski mask on a hot day. Or a hood pulled over his face like Kenny on South Park and it's 90 degrees out. Or a rain coat on a hot sunny day. Someone concealing his identity or a weapon might be suspicious.

Funny story re hoodies, shortly after I moved to Arizona I went to the park one day, just to sit and watch the ducks in the pond. I see two young guys enter the park wearing hoodies and coming in my direction, my Cali antennae immediately went up. After observing them for awhile I realized they were just there to enjoy the park also... and after living in Arizona awhile your blood thins out and you dress warmly for anything under 80. <g> (In fact that's called "sweater weather".)

 

[Kleanbore]

Regarding clothing and such---

The man who is responsible for preparing and having delivered all of the food in a very large hospital near here is an educated man and an excellent manager. He visits patients to ask what he can do to improve things, and he wears "dreads". To some who might not know people who do that, he might appear threatening. The same is true of a man whom the Automobile Club has sent out on occasion. Very nice guy, and helpful. Our usual FedEx driver wears a rag on his head. It would be a mistake to judge any of them negatively, but I know people who do just that.

It is obvious that they do not choose their styles to make an impression on me---what is important to them is how they are seen by their families, friends, and neighbors. To them, they dress "normally".

 

[The Last Outlaw]

Most people don’t judge others solely on their looks, but anyone who says they never do isn’t being truthful. We have all done it, we will all do it again. Human nature does not change.

 

[Shodan]

Most people don’t judge others solely on their looks, but anyone who says they never do isn’t being truthful. We have all done it, we will all do it again. Human nature does not change.

Judging isn't always a bad thing, it's necessary to make important decisions. Some decisions are good judgement and others are bad.

 

[Tilos]

A lot of people wear bandanas and dew rags. Alone they aren’t an indicator of anything. That mode of dress that started with gang bangers has spread throughout our culture.

There are plenty of people who work 5 days a week in three piece suits who dress like outlaw bikers when they get their Harleys out on the weekends.

Yeh, but their clean clothes, $70 haircuts, and 200k bike gives them away as posers.
That and their same age, primped up, French Manicured "old Lady".
been there, seen that.
.

 

[Tilos]

Regarding clothing and such---

The man who is responsible for preparing and having delivered all of the food in a very large hospital near here is an educated man and an excellent manager. He visits patients to ask what he can do to improve things, and he wears "dreads". To some who might not know people who do that, he might appear threatening. The same is true of a man whom the Automobile Club has sent out on occasion. Very nice guy, and helpful. Our usual FedEx driver wears a rag on his head. It would be a mistake to judge any of them negatively, but I know people who do just that.

It is obvious that they do not choose their styles to make an impression on me---what is important to them is how they are seen by their families, friends, and neighbors. To them, they dress "normally".

yeh, but most who dress "that way" have to know the image they project and should expect some to judge them accordingly.
The same as most of us are judged by age/gate/mobility/etc.
.

 

[armoredman]

Well, from the point of view of those who count it turned out to constitute the commission of a serious felony.

Being alert and exercising caution is a very good thing, but one may not draw a firearm because of what thinks might happen--anywhere in this country.

For her action to have been appropriate--lawfully justified--she would have had to have a basis for a reasonable belief that a deadly force attack was imminent--was about to happen.

I think this is about as close as you can get, legally, to what she did.

13-421. Justification; defensive display of a firearm; definition

A. The defensive display of a firearm by a person against another is justified when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the use or attempted use of unlawful physical force or deadly physical force.

B. This section does not apply to a person who:

1. Intentionally provokes another person to use or attempt to use unlawful physical force.

2. Uses a firearm during the commission of a serious offense as defined in section 13-706 or violent crime as defined in section 13-901.03.

C. This section does not require the defensive display of a firearm before the use of physical force or the threat of physical force by a person who is otherwise justified in the use or threatened use of physical force.

D. For the purposes of this section, "defensive display of a firearm" includes:

1. Verbally informing another person that the person possesses or has available a firearm.

2. Exposing or displaying a firearm in a manner that a reasonable person would understand was meant to protect the person against another's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force or deadly physical force.

3. Placing the person's hand on a firearm while the firearm is contained in a pocket, purse or other means of containment or transport.

I had a guy walk up to me at a gas station two weeks ago, and I am not young, female, OR cute. A raised hand and a firm "NO" was enough to stop him right there. If you really want to know what tats to look for, check your local prison or police website and see if they have an updated page of local gangs tats.

 

[wayneinFL]

Most people don’t judge others solely on their looks, but anyone who says they never do isn’t being truthful. We have all done it, we will all do it again. Human nature does not change.

You can judge people based on their looks all you want. Just don't use it as a justification to pull a gun on them.

 

[shafter]

The fact that video and witnesses also believed her actions to be excessive carry alot of weight with me. We live in a society that gives women alot more leeway (perception not legal) when it comes to protecting themselves so if the suspect was acting threatening I believe witnesses would have been pretty quick to speak up for the woman.

 

[Kleanbore]

I think this is about as close as you can get, legally, to what she did.

What she did, as it was established, was draw and point a firearm without having a basis for a reasonable belief that doing so was justified.

In a few states, the "defensive display of a firearm" can be justified when the use of deadly force is not justified. In Arizona, that came about because a number of citizens had found themselves serving time for the series crime of aggravated assault after having done such things as simply putting their hands on a firearm that was covered by clothing when they were faced with unpleasant encounters.

In all such states, the defender must have a basis for a reasonable belief that non--deadly, physical force had been immediately necessary.

The idea may sound good to the lay person, but in a blog post on the subject, Attorney Andrew Branca described it as something of a "feel good" measure that provides little in the way of legal justification to a defender.

 

[Gun-Reck]

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.

Draw to shoot, Front Sight to hit, Trigger to fire.

Never point a gun at anything you are not preparing to destroy.
Know your target and what's behind it.

 

[Scrapiron45]

Would the woman in the original post have been in legal trouble if she had told the man "Stop, I have a gun" without producing it? Would she have to wait until he physically attacked her to produce and use her weapon? Question from my daughter in law looking for a solution to parking lot confrontations she cannot walk away from.

 

[Kleanbore]

Would the woman in the original post have been in legal trouble if she had told the man "Stop, I have a gun" without producing it?

Quite possibly. It is possible that doing so would fall under the common law definition of assault, and it could be deemed more serious than that. In Arizona in the old days. it would have constituted aggravated assault, in the absence of a basis for believing that a deadly force attack was imminent; today, a lesser threat, still justifying force, could justify that action.

I do not understand why so many people seem to believe that one who is in a public place would be entitled to order someone to stay away from them, absent some indication that they approach constituted a threat of some kind. People walk toward people in parking lots all the time. It may be that their car is behind the person. Not long ago, a man ran up to my wife, calling out to her, with three $20 bills that she had dropped. I was there, armed, and it did not bother me a bit.

Would she have to wait until he physically attacked her to produce and use her weapon?

No.

A basis for a reasonable belief of imminence would be sufficient--iff the evidence gathered after the fact and weighed by persons who were not there was sufficient to disprove a charge that the act had not been justified.

 

[.455_Hunter]

To be clear, what got the woman in trouble was the unjustified brandishing of a firearm, and NOT the attempt to verbally stop the other individual's unwanted approach. Two separate discussions that also highlight the benefits of discrete pocket carry.

 

[Scrapiron45]

I don't think she is so concerned about just walking through the parking lot as she is about getting cornered between cars while she's loading groceries and trying to get two small children buckled in.
Do the circumstances such as she's referring too verses a single adult that can simply walk away have any effect on what is considered a reasonable response by the courts?

 

[Kleanbore]

To be clear, what got the woman in trouble was the unjustified brandishing of a firearm, and NOT the attempt to verbally stop the other individual's unwanted approach. Two separate discussions that also highlight the benefits of discrete pocket carry.

Right. The former is unlawful.

 

[Kleanbore]

Do the circumstances such as she's referring too verses a single adult that can simply walk away have any effect on what is considered a reasonable response by the courts?

Well, it obviously did not.

BTW, TN is a stand-your-ground state.

 

[wayneinFL]

I don't think she is so concerned about just walking through the parking lot as she is about getting cornered between cars while she's loading groceries and trying to get two small children buckled in.
Do the circumstances such as she's referring too verses a single adult that can simply walk away have any effect on what is considered a reasonable response by the courts?

She wouldn't have to retreat and leave her kids in the car. I think there still needs to be a reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm to pull a gun.

 

[Gordon]

2015.

The evidence showed that she was not in danger.

That, too, its irrelevant.

Right--and a series of posts about how appearance would matter could go to mens rea, and weaken a legal defense of self defense.

Proves the point, doesn't it?

"The evidence showed that she was not in danger."

Yeah, right, as the prosecutor presented it in a courtroom setting. Well, I guess she should have been a mind reader or gone limp and waited for something to happen. After all, she couldn't even raise a hand and say, "Stop" Man, the legal system has gone nuts. Now we have the results. I may not have brandished but I have a lifetime of practice, avg. citizen does not even after permit training, and then the situation was kinda scary to a rational person. I think the prosecution was completely out of line


.

 

[Kleanbore]

Yeah, right, as the prosecutor presented it in a courtroom setting.

Do you know that that is shat happened?

The investigators questioned witnesses and examined video evidence and concluded that her reaction had been inappropriate and unlawful.

She received a suspended sentence, which strongly suggests that she entered a plea of guilty in exchange for that. She also incurred civil liability.

....the situation was kinda scary to a rational person.

"Kinda scary" does not justify a threat of deadly force.

I think the prosecution was completely out of line

What is it that makes you believe that the did not commit a crime?

 

[Balrog]

I wonder if she might have been raped, stabbed, kidnapped, or murdered if she had taken a less aggressive approach.

I didnt read through all the posts, so have no idea why someone thought they had a civil case against her. You generally have to show harm to prevail in a civil trial, and I do not see any harm she did. I guess the plaintiff should be happy I was not on the jury.

I also find it ironic that people think that justice is served just because our flawed court system makes a judgment in a case like this. There is not a clear correlation between court decisions and the service of justice.

I have always just been of the opinion that strange men should not surprise women they don't know in a high risk setting like a parking lot. As a result, a woman has never stuck a gun in my face.

 

[Jeff White]

We don't debate if the legal system is right or wrong here. We discuss what the legal system does. We have a legal system, not a justice system and no one should expect it to deliver justice. Since no one here has seen the video of the incident or read the transcripts of the testimony we only have what the OP reported to go on. The fact remains that she was convicted in criminal court and given a suspended sentence and that a civil trial awarded the plaintiff damages. In civil court "harm" can be pretty subjective. All you have to do is look at the TV commercials the ambulance chasers run showing all of these "happy people" bragging about how much money the attorney squeezed out of an insurance company.