How would you recommend that that someone "stand up", and to what end?At some point, though, someone has to stand up.
How would you recommend that that someone "stand up", and to what end?At some point, though, someone has to stand up.
"They are sound, prudent recommendations, but we remember when people would not find themselves discussing such things."I shouldn't try to speak for Gordon, but i think he was referring to the recommendations of the security adviser that Scrapiron45 mentioned. They are sound, prudent recommendations, but we remember a time when people would not find themselves discussing such things.
Good for you--and 35 years does represent a lot of exposure. But as they say, past performance is not indicative of future results. And don't forget--it's not the odds, its the stakes.
We have almost everything delivered. Our reason is convenience, but it has the benefit of reducing risk.
Past performance? I remember the 70s , 80s, and 90s being more violent than today. And people weren't so scared. We're safer now, but for some reason more vigilant.I shouldn't try to speak for Gordon, but i think he was referring to the recommendations of the security adviser that Scrapiron45 mentioned. They are sound, prudent recommendations, but we remember a time when people would not find themselves discussing such things.
Good for you--and 35 years does represent a lot of exposure. But as they say, past performance is not indicative of future results. And don't forget--it's not the odds, its the stakes.
That is certainly true.Being more vigilant and more careful is a choice. It's not a loss of freedom. No one is imposing this on anybody.
That is situationally dependent. I know my line in the sand; willingly shall deal with the consequences. Others must make their own determinations.How would you recommend that that someone "stand up", and to what end?
Well yeah, them dang hippies were very violent.Past performance? I remember the 70s , 80s, and 90s being more violent than today. And people weren't so scared. We're safer now, but for some reason more vigilant.
Being more vigilant and more careful is a choice. It's not a loss of freedom. No one is imposing this on anybody.
Certain areas of Portland Oregon were seriously dangerous back in the 80s. From what I’ve heard from friends in Portland, it’s not any better.Well yeah, them dang hippies were very violent.
This is what I'm hung up on. Alot of discretion is used when it comes to women and self defense. I imagine that it was obvious to everyone that this was a gross overstep.I get that reasonableness is subjective but do you think all the witnesses, the video, the cops, the prosecutor's office- everybody got it wrong here?
Statistically, the violent crime rates have gone down since the 90s.Well yeah, them dang hippies were very violent.
The problem is that she could easily have been shot if she pointed her gun at an armed citizen or off duty officer. We don’t know what this incident actually looked like and I can easily envision the man thinking an emotionally disturbed woman was about to shoot him and respond accordingly.Luckily no real harm was done so if it happened to me I'd be fine with not pressing charges, at least not felony.
In Colorado Springs that's not your decision. It's up to the DA.Luckily no real harm was done so if it happened to me I'd be fine with not pressing charges, at least not felony.
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.
Thats why I'm just going with what all the witnesses and law enforcement went with for a decision. It's really all one can do without having the whole picture.The problem is that she could easily have been shot if she pointed her gun at an armed citizen or off duty officer. We don’t know what this incident actually looked like and I can easily envision the man thinking an emotionally disturbed woman was about to shoot him and respond accordingly.
"Unwanted contact' and mere proximity in a public venue are not the same thing.You absolutely DO have the right to be free from unwanted contact.
I hope the man involved learned some lessons too. Like not approaching people you don't know in parking lots. The world isn't 1950s Mayberry anymore.The problem is that she could easily have been shot if she pointed her gun at an armed citizen or off duty officer. We don’t know what this incident actually looked like and I can easily envision the man thinking an emotionally disturbed woman was about to shoot him and respond accordingly.
The "asking for a light" excuse just seems fishy to me. Not all that many people smoke any more, and most people don't carry lighters if they don't smoke. Also, this happened in a store parking lot, he could have just gone in the store and bought a lighter for a dollar.You absolutely DO have the right to be free from unwanted contact. That is well settled. The legal inquiry is what level of force you can use to secure that.
Situations such as these are so full of fact variations, perceptions and politics, that it's impossible to draw hard and fast conclusions from them. None of us were there. A slightly different set of facts - time, place, etc - or a different prosecutor, or a better defense attorney with a better presentation, or a different judge, or a different jury... could arrive at a different conclusion of reasonableness, and would have a different result.
Sticking your gun in someone's face because they politely asked for a light is - on its face - not justifiable. But add some other facts and circumstances to reasonably indicate that "asking for a light" is a prelude to an attack, then maybe it is.
If she struck a deal, then nothing is really proved in this case. She took the deal to avoid the cost of defense and the possibility that she would get a jury that might have convicted her.I just sat through another long session of the Law of Self Defense advanced course. The Murfreesboro Walmart case was mentioned several times.
The woman did plead guilty, in a plea deal through which she avoided imprisonment. There was no trial verdict.
Andrew Bianca said that what the should have done, had she felt seriously threatened , was to scream loudly for him to get away. Then, had the man kept coming (which, in the event, he did not do), she might have been justified in drawing and pointing her handgun.
Her discussing the case with police was not a wise thing to do.
The course will be repeated one more time later this year. I strongly recommend it.
Interesting comment, but not relevant.The "asking for a light" excuse just seems fishy to me. Not all that many people smoke any more, and most people don't carry lighters if they don't smoke. Also, this happened in a store parking lot, he could have just gone in the store and bought a lighter for a dollar.
Proves that she admitted guilt.If she struck a deal, then nothing is really proved in this case.
She was obviously advised by counsel that the likelihood of conviction was significant, given the evidence.She took the deal to avoid the cost of defense and the possibility that she would get a jury that might have convicted her.
Not sure that is obvious. Maybe she didn't want to spend the money to defend the case, and took an easy out. Admitting guilt and being guilty aren't the same thing. There are certainly reasons to admit guilt and accept a minimal punishment than fight for your innocence, lose, and get a harsher punishment.Proves that she admitted guilt.
She was obviously advised by counsel that the likelihood of conviction was significant, given the evidence.
Being approached by a stranger in a parking lot who is asking a distracting question should at least raise awareness. I was approached once in a parking lot by a guy asking if he could borrow a nickel. I thought that was a little strange to ask. I didnt feel particularly threatened, but I did pay closer attention to him.Interesting comment, but not relevant.
Of course!!!Being approached by a stranger in a parking lot who is asking a distracting question should at least raise awareness.
She is a convicted felon, and she lost her gun rights for her lifetime. Her guilty plea guaranteed a loss not eh civil side. Most people would not take that choice lightly.Maybe she didn't want to spend the money to defend the case, and took an easy out.