Highly unlikely that law enforcement would take action on that in my state. Actually producing a gun would change things but doubtful there would be charges based simply on telling someone to stay away and that she had a gun.
Things to Not Do
- Thread starter Kleanbore
- Start date
The evidence suggests not.
Most defendants do not risk going to trial. I do not know if this case made it that far.
Of course, civil trials do not require an unanimous verdict.
I agree with that.
Last edited:
The evidence regarding the intent of the man is unclear. It certainly could have been that he intended to do her harm, and she stopped it before it happened.
Civil trials in my state do have to be unanimous, if that is what you meant by anonymous.
Civil trials in my state do have to be unanimous, if that is what you meant by anonymous.
Witness testimony and video evidence were sufficient to convince the investigators and the charging authority that her claim of self defense was unfounded--and that her presentation of the firearm consituted aggravated assault.
Low standard to meet in a lot of jurisdictions.
The BARD standard, in all US juridictions. Would you want anything less? That is how the criminal justice sytem works. I would not want criminal cases to be decided on "the evidence ...is unclear" and "it...could have been", would you?
Drawing a firearm to persuade someone to do something or to not do something is very serious business, in spite of that we may see in screen fiction.
The lady in Murfreesboro found that out the hard way.
Yes. It may have kept her from a tragic end. She didnt really get any punishment for it. Certainly could have turned out worse for her if she had done nothing.
Perhaps you’d be happier living in a society where it was acceptable to keep anyone from violating your personal space with the threat of deadly force? I certainly don’t want to live in a world where people can threaten the use of deadly force lightly. If you point a gun at me you better be prepared to use it because I WILL use mine. That is one reason we have laws about what constitutes assault and aggravated asssult.
Yes, it could have saved her life. Please explain why the video evidence and eyewitness testimony that deadly force was not justified isn’t acceptable.
We just have a difference of opinion, and I don't think that is likely to change. It seems pretty obvious to me that a woman surprised in a parking lot by a man suddenly in her personal space would feel threatened. Women go missing often from parking lots, and the idiot that approached her should have known that.
HowardC
Member
No kidding!! I've spent the last month and a half in hospitals and nursing home. I'm amazed at the medical professionals (both doctors and nurses) wearing myriad tattoos, various ear adornments, nose rings, etc. Not to mention the 'relations counselor' at my granddaughter's school. She was a real piece of work!
Yea, I'm assuming they are 'upstanding' citizens, and they probably are. Cultural norms are changing. These fads are just more permanent than hoop skirts, zoot suits, and hair styles. The most competent wound care nurse out of several, who worked on my wife carried a whole ear length assortment of rings on one side. And she appeared probably 40 years old. I'm learning to be more accepting of the younger folks.
-West out
I guess it would have been ok if she shot him? Let's establish a new self defense standard, women may shoot any man that approaches them in a parking lot. What range would you suggest? 21 feet?
I thought the guy backed off when he saw gun?
Maybe so, but that wouldn't cut it. Never has.
One may not react with a threat of deadly force because one is surprised, or even frightened. Justification would require a basis for a reasonable belief that a deadly force attack was imminent.
Okay. But that is irrelevant to the case, and to what citizens who carry weapons should do.
What does that have to do with it?
He ran away and called the police. He had become the victim.
She ceased to be a "good guy" when she drew. That's how things work. That invisible halo falls off.
Ok, I understand what you are saying, just disagree with some of it. I think she had a reasonable belief that a deadly attack was imminent. Just my opinion based on the limited info I have. I am not saying I would have done the same thing. But then I am not as easy of a target as she probably was. I think a woman accosted by a strange man in a parking lot is being pretty reasonable if she thinks her safety is at risk. I dont see her as a good guy or a bad guy, just a woman who was in fear of her safety.
HowardC
Member
I disagree! If she was convicted of a felony she lost her gun rights, and also lost whatever the civil suit cost her. Now I'd like to see the actual description and transcript of this case.
West out
Last edited:
What’s that got to do with it? Your premise is that women are in mortal danger when they are approached by a man in a parking lot for any reason. I can see your proposed legislation now:
Because women are the weaker sex and many women have been abducted in parking lots they are permitted to use deadly force against any male that approaches within 21 feet which has been established as the distance where most people will be able to effectively respond to an attack. 21 feet will be the sole criteria in determining that a threat of death or grievous bodily harm exists.
The witnesses and evidence indicated otherwise.
It goes to the distinction between fear and reasonable fear. The latter has a legal meaning.
You are misrepresenting my premise. Women are not in mortal danger when approached by any man in a parking lot for any reason. I never said that. There would be numerous obvious examples where that would not be the case. But if a woman is startled by a stramger who has invaded her personal space, she better start paying attention quickly or it could end bad for her.
In any case, it doesn't really matter what I think, because I wasnt on her jury, but if I had been, I would have hung the jury.
Yes i know. I think she had reasonable fear. You disagree. That's OK.
I couldn't agree more.
What makes you think that she had a reason for believing that a deadly force attack was imminent? That is the legal definition.
I have not opined. I have described how witness testimony and other evidence were evaluated by others.
That is exactly your premise. You have already dismissed the video evidence and eyewitness testimony out of hand. I don’t see how can say that’s not your position if video evidence and eyewitness testimony is meaningless.
As for you being on her jury, there likely wasn’t a jury in either the criminal or civil case. The criminal case with its suspended sentence sounds a lot like a plea agreement.
If she was covered by insurance the civil case was likely settled out of court as insurance companies are not at all interested in justice. They are only interested in settling the claim for the least amount of money possible. If the cost of litigation is going to be more than the potential settlement they will settle every time.
Without having heard any testimony or having seen any evidence? I hope you are joking.
I had already made the qualification that my opinion was based on the limited information provided. Certainly, being an open minded person, I could change my mind based on new or additional evidence.
Not the same as "if...I would have..." That is irresponsible.
