• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

women pulls gun on perv in the park

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Actually it is hypocrisy. Even rights have limits, such as when we can legally use our weapons. So this isn't your Constitutional right thing because it's not about her being able to carry if you want to go that way. It's about people who are using an excuse that they hate to have used against them. That is hypocrisy. If you can't see the pot calling the kettle black, then perhaps you are just a sheeple that you I'm sure hate to see running around. There are many forms of those also after all. If I see you going down the street, perhaps I will pull my gun on you since I do not know you. Who knows what you would do other than walk down my street after all. And I'm not the government, so I'm not taking away your rights. Only using mine based on what you might do next.

No it's not hypocrisy. And rights don't have limits....read the 9th and 10th amendments.

You are not separating the actions of public employees from the actions of private. They are two very distinct topics. Our constitutions at both the state level and the federal level are there to protect us from government and their street warriors. Not from the actions of individuals, we often legislate laws to do this, but I hold the opinion that common law is the best protection.

To address your straw-man argument that really has no correlation to what we are talking about , you pulling a gun on me for doing nothing but walking down the street. You are taking my liberties and threatening my rights away and threatening with force I know you are trying to use this as an analogy but you threaten me or others around me with lethal force I will respond in a way to protect myself and others from that threat. This is a common law right I have and nothing really to do with the actions of a lady who stopped a crime happening upon herself or from an officer taking things further than constitutionally allowed.

A man commits a crime upon a lady, she uses in my opinion the right amount of force to repel that crime is very different than a cop stopping me from engaging in my lawfully protect method of carrying my weapon openly. You see the perv was already committing a crime and possibly about to commit more, an OC'er is not committing a crime by OCing so there is no PC for a stop. Understand now?
 
Last edited:

mohawk001

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
113
Location
Sierra Vista, Arizona, USA
No it's not hypocrisy. And rights don't have limits....read the 9th and 10th amendments.

You are not separating the actions of public employees from the actions of private. They are two very distinct topics. Our constitutions at both the state level and the federal level are there to protect us from government and their street warriors. Not from the actions of individuals, we often legislate laws to do this, but I hold the opinion that common law is the best protection.

To address your straw-man argument that really has no correlation to what we are talking about , you pulling a gun on me for doing nothing but walking down the street. You are taking my liberties and threatening my rights away and threatening with force I know you are trying to use this as an analogy but you threaten me or others around me with lethal force I will respond in a way to protect myself and others from that threat. This is a common law right I have and nothing really to do with the actions of a lady who stopped a crime happening upon herself or from an officer taking things further than constitutionally allowed.

A man commits a crime upon a lady, she uses in my opinion the right amount of force to repel that crime is very different than a cop stopping me from engaging in my lawfully protect method of carrying my weapon openly. You see the perv was already committing a crime and possibly about to commit more, an OC'er is not committing a crime by OCing so there is no PC for a stop. Understand now?

So please, explain libel and slander for just two small examples of how rights do have limits. Or are you agreeing that I have the right to say/wright anything I want about you, no matter the harm, since it is my freedom of speech to say it?

Also, I'm still waiting for the lethal threat that this guy did for her to pull a gun. You are threatening me by walking down the street though. I see you as a threat because I do not know you and am going to assume you may do more. So I would have legal standing to pull my weapon based on the "might" theory I'm seeing by so many.

Heck, I'll even go as far as to say the guy was using his right to freedom of speech by doing what he did. We may agree it's a sick way to express himself, but his freedom has been limited and I hope to see you fight for his rights to do as he pleases. If not, then hypocrite is a very good word to use.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
trevorthebusdriver said:
Since the guy was seated, with his hands full, I see no threat.
amlevin said:
Can't say she was exactly justified in using her gun to run him off but at least this time there was a favorable outcome.
twpetry said:
I hate to play the devil's advocate here, but is this woman really justified/excused for drawing on him?
Trigger Dr said:
Are you serious? Do you know all of the facts about this incident?
We all appear to have just the facts presented in the articles.
I thought she overreacted just a bit too.
Then I considered this:
Freedom1Man said:
Because she had to load and lock to get it going I believe him not getting the hint when she was loading was enough to show he might really be a danger.
As well as the point about possibly being attacked as she walks away.
Still, simply having it in hand (or visible on hip) would probably have been sufficient.

Freedom1Man said:
I was told the best way to deal with flashers was to point and laugh.
Since they often want to see the victim's shock, that does undermine it.
This reaction does have its merits too:
amlevin said:
The guy was lying on the ground in pain when the Police arrived and he ended up in the hospital from the injuries she inflicted with her "yank and crank". Now that was Justice!
Instant karma. :D

sudden valley gunner said:
I notice that for women particularly conceal is in their mind the only real option they have.
:confused:
There are times cc is more convenient depending on what I'm wearing, but I certainly OC, & I guarantee I'm female.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
mohawk001 said:
I'm still waiting for the lethal threat that this guy did for her to pull a gun.
The phrase is "death or great bodily harm".
The argument being that he might have physically attacked her, possibly raped her, which is certainly GBH.
I'm no expert, but from what I've read flashers generally don't escalate; they're whimps, scared, only want the shocked reaction.
But the possibility exists, which is why I think having pistol in hand (or it becoming exposed on hip so he sees it's there) would be perfectly reasonable.
Then give him a wide berth as she walks away & calls police.
 

PistolPackingMomma

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
SC
I can't say for sure what I would have done in her situation, since none of us really know til we're in the thick of it, but from the comfort of my couch, it's easy for me to say that I don't think drawing was necessarily warranted.

Then again, I like to think that the only time I'm going to draw is when I feel threatened enough to respond with lethal force. A more appropriate response of force here would probably have been pepper spray, laughter, and leaving quickly, while watching to make sure he didn't attempt to follow. If he escalated by verbal threats or approaching in any way, then I could certainly endorse a verbal warning and "making ready".

I'm not so much second guessing her judgement so much as saying I don't think I would have necessarily done the same, given what facts we know. But I'll bet her actions have the positive consequence of this guy not trying this crap again!
 

mohawk001

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
113
Location
Sierra Vista, Arizona, USA
The phrase is "death or great bodily harm".

Thanks, I did word it wrong.

The one line you posted though still has the what if factor. That factor could be used in any situation in life just about. Now if you just means she has it in hand could it make a difference in my thinking? I think it's less extreme, but with all the talk on this forum about only pulling when you intend on having to use it, I would think it would again be hypocritical. Shooting someone who "might" do you harm in some way would not hold up. We expect LEO to use better judgement, and I'm wondering if some here don't think we have to use any good judgement also. I see personal emotions of "shoot the pervert because I don't like what he did" coming out in some ways in a few of the posts. Look at the posts saying to shoot an unarmed person. That shows the good mentality here of some. They would shoot someone not even close to them because someone did something they did not approve of. No matter if there is any threat of some sort of bodily harm or not. So please, with posts like that, am I supposed to believe that at least some here are not willing to break the law and believe themselves to be above everybody else because of the fact they carry a gun? So for those who it fits, I do believe hypocrite is a great word to use.
 

DamonK

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
585
Location
Ft. Lewis, WA
How does one chamber a magazine? :confused:

Remedial training for this one.

GunDoingItWrong1.jpg


The beatings will continue until morale improves...

My bad, meant to say mag seated round chambered. As far as training goes, I'd be more than happy to compare resumes anytime.

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
Thanks, I did word it wrong.

The one line you posted though still has the what if factor. That factor could be used in any situation in life just about. Now if you just means she has it in hand could it make a difference in my thinking? I think it's less extreme, but with all the talk on this forum about only pulling when you intend on having to use it, I would think it would again be hypocritical. Shooting someone who "might" do you harm in some way would not hold up. We expect LEO to use better judgement, and I'm wondering if some here don't think we have to use any good judgement also. I see personal emotions of "shoot the pervert because I don't like what he did" coming out in some ways in a few of the posts. Look at the posts saying to shoot an unarmed person. That shows the good mentality here of some. They would shoot someone not even close to them because someone did something they did not approve of. No matter if there is any threat of some sort of bodily harm or not. So please, with posts like that, am I supposed to believe that at least some here are not willing to break the law and believe themselves to be above everybody else because of the fact they carry a gun? So for those who it fits, I do believe hypocrite is a great word to use.

This is in the Pattern Jury Instructions for Washington State one needs to feel there is a threat but can act before the threat actually occurs, though this will be viewed as a reasonable prudent person knowing what you knew at the time.

11 WAPRAC WPIC 17.04
WPIC 17.04 Lawful Force—Actual Danger Not Necessary

11 Wash. Prac., Pattern Jury Instr. Crim. WPIC 17.04 (3d Ed)

Washington Practice Series TM
Database Updated November 2011

Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
2008 Edition Prepared by the Washington Supreme Court Committee On Jury Instructions, Hon. Sharon S. Armstrong, Co-Chair, Hon. William L. Downing, Co-Chair

Part IV. Defenses
WPIC CHAPTER 17. Lawful Force—Charges Other Than Homicide

WPIC 17.04 Lawful Force—Actual Danger Not Necessary

A person is entitled to act on appearances in defending [himself][herself][another], if [he][she] believes in good faith and on reasonable grounds that [he][she][another] is in actual danger of injury, although it afterwards might develop that the person was mistaken as to the extent of the danger. Actual danger is not necessary for the use of force to be lawful.
NOTE ON USE

Use this instruction with WPIC 17.02, Lawful Force—Defense of Self and Others, when appropriate.
Do not use this instruction when self-defense is asserted in the context of resisting an unlawful or excessive force arrest. See the Comment to WPIC 17.02.01, Lawful Force—Resisting Detention.
Use bracketed material as applicable.

COMMENT

This instruction has its origin in case law. See State v. Penn, 89 Wn.2d 63, 568 P.2d 797 (1977); State v. Miller, 141 Wash. 104, 250 P. 645 (1926); State v. Dunning, 8 Wn.App. 340, 506 P.2d 321 (1973). In Miller, the court stated:

If the appellants, at the time of the alleged assault upon them, as reasonably and ordinarily cautious and prudent men, honestly believed that they were in danger of great bodily harm, they would have the right to resort to self-defense, and their conduct is to be judged by the condition appearing to them at the time, not by the condition as it might appear to the jury in light of the testimony before it.


The appellants need not have been in actual danger of great bodily harm, but they were entitled to act on appearances; and if they believed in good faith and on reasonable grounds that they were in actual danger of great bodily harm, although it afterwards might develop that they were mistaken as to the extent of the danger, if they acted as reasonably and ordinarily cautious and prudent men would have acted under the circumstances as they appeared to them, they were justified in defending themselves.

State v. Miller, 141 Wash. at 105–06.
This instruction applies not only to self-defense but also to the use of force to protect third persons from apparent injury. See State v. Penn, supra (a person may defend another when the defender reasonably believes that the other person is in danger even though such belief may be later shown to have been erroneous).
It is not clear whether this instruction applies when a person erroneously uses force to defend against an apparent property offense. The committee is unaware of any cases that address this issue.
It is not reversible error to refuse a mistaken belief instruction, when under the self-defense instruction given, counsel is free to argue that “the defendant's reasonable belief that he was in danger could properly be a mistaken belief.” State v. Kidd, 57 Wn.App. 95, 99–100, 786 P.2d 847 (1990). In Kidd, however, the self-defense instruction specifically stated that “the use of force toward the person of another is lawful when used by a person who believes that he is about to be injured by someone and when the force is not more than necessary.” State v. Kidd, 57 Wn.App. at 100. Also see WPIC 17.02, Lawful Force—Defense of Self and Others.
The Note on Use states that this instruction should be used with WPIC 17.02 when appropriate. This instruction applies to the use of non-deadly force, as opposed to deadly force. See WPIC 16.07.
The requirement of “great bodily harm” contained in prior versions has been changed to “injury.” Under RCW 9A.16.020, one can use self-defense to prevent any assault, regardless of whether the assault threatened great bodily harm. See State v. L.B., 132 Wn.App. 948, 135 P.3d 508 (2006).
[Current as of July 2008.]

Westlaw. © 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

11 WAPRAC WPIC 17.04



11 WAPRAC WPIC 16.07
WPIC 16.07 Justifiable Homicide—Actual Danger Not Necessary

11 Wash. Prac., Pattern Jury Instr. Crim. WPIC 16.07 (3d Ed)

Washington Practice Series TM
Database Updated November 2011

Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
2008 Edition Prepared by the Washington Supreme Court Committee On Jury Instructions, Hon. Sharon S. Armstrong, Co-Chair, Hon. William L. Downing, Co-Chair

Part IV. Defenses
WPIC CHAPTER 16. Justifiable Homicide

WPIC 16.07 Justifiable Homicide—Actual Danger Not Necessary

A person is entitled to act on appearances in defending [himself][herself][another], if that person believes in good faith and on reasonable grounds that [he][she][another] is in actual danger of great personal injury, although it afterwards might develop that the person was mistaken as to the extent of the danger.
Actual danger is not necessary for a homicide to be justifiable.
NOTE ON USE

Use this instruction with WPIC 16.02, Justifiable Homicide—Defense of Self and Others, and WPIC 16.03, Resistance to Felony, when appropriate.

COMMENT

The prior version of this instruction used the language “great bodily harm,” which appeared in earlier cases defining this defense. E.g., State v. Miller, 141 Wash. 104, 250 Pac. 645 (1926). The term “great personal injury” is now used, because it is the term utilized by RCW 9A.16.050(1). See State v. Walden, 131 Wn.2d 469, 475 n.3, 932 P.2d 1237 (1997) (noting confusion); State v. Freeburg, 105 Wn.App. 492, 505, 20 P.3d 984 (2001) (holding that term “great personal injury” should be used rather than “great bodily harm”).
RCW 9A.16.050(1) provides in part that a homicide is justifiable when committed in the lawful defense of the slayer, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished. The committee is unaware of any cases that address the relationship between this defense and the element of imminent danger under RCW 9A.16.050(1).
This defense applies not only to self-defense but also to the use of force to protect third persons from apparent injury. See State v. Penn, 89 Wn.2d 63, 568 P.2d 797 (1977) (a person may defend another when the defender reasonably believes that the other person is in danger even though such belief may be later shown to have been erroneous).
It is not clear whether this defense applies when a person erroneously uses force to defend against an apparent property offense. The committee could find no cases addressing this issue.
[Current as of July 2008.]

Westlaw. © 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

11 WAPRAC WPIC 16.07
 
Last edited:

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
Another thing in .270....Pay special attention to the word "felony".... I'm sure if the perp is arrested and charged it will be for a felony...probably under RCW 9A.44

From what I know of the law, everthing this woman did was well within her legal rights...her only mistake (IMHO) was that the mag was not already in the pistol.
 

DamonK

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
585
Location
Ft. Lewis, WA
Another thing in .270....Pay special attention to the word "felony".... I'm sure if the perp is arrested and charged it will be for a felony...probably under RCW 9A.44

From what I know of the law, everthing this woman did was well within her legal rights...her only mistake (IMHO) was that the mag was not already in the pistol.

Yup

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
Another thing in .270....Pay special attention to the word "felony".... I'm sure if the perp is arrested and charged it will be for a felony...probably under RCW 9A.44

From what I know of the law, everthing this woman did was well within her legal rights...her only mistake (IMHO) was that the mag was not already in the pistol.

Personally I feel this applies in this case, as with any force it will be viewed as reasonable force from as little as hand to deadly force.

RCW 9.41.270(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to or affect the following:

(c) Any person acting for the purpose of protecting himself or herself against the use of presently threatened unlawful force by another, or for the purpose of protecting another against the use of such unlawful force by a third person;​

Clearly no one is reporting she drew a weapon on Him!. With out a victim! There is no crime to charge her with.
 

OCinBlaine

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
25
Location
Blaine, WA
Also, who knows, maybe to her, it was a deadly weapon he was waving around at her. What a person can do with the wrong thing in their hands.......
 

Trigger Dr

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
2,760
Location
Wa, ,
Because constitutional rights protect us from government not the other way around , no hypocrisy at all. Easily explained.

Now if the perv felt she was wrong he can take her to court. I'd like to see how that would play out civilly. I on the jury wouldn't award him any "damages".

And, he might have been a little SHORT on Evidence
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
So please, explain libel and slander for just two small examples of how rights do have limits. Or are you agreeing that I have the right to say/wright anything I want about you, no matter the harm, since it is my freedom of speech to say it?

Also, I'm still waiting for the lethal threat that this guy did for her to pull a gun. You are threatening me by walking down the street though. I see you as a threat because I do not know you and am going to assume you may do more. So I would have legal standing to pull my weapon based on the "might" theory I'm seeing by so many.

Heck, I'll even go as far as to say the guy was using his right to freedom of speech by doing what he did. We may agree it's a sick way to express himself, but his freedom has been limited and I hope to see you fight for his rights to do as he pleases. If not, then hypocrite is a very good word to use.


You have the right to say anything unless it infringes on my rights. This does not mean rights are "limited" but that you have to pay the consequences for abusing your rights.

I never claimed there was a "lethal threat". Give me a break you are really stretching. As I already stated I am not committing a crime by walking down a street, you may "feel" threatened all you want, you might be a bigot, you might be a hoplophobe you might be anti liberty, until I commit a crime upon you your feelings mean jack. The Perv committed a crime against the lady, she used just enough force to repel and end the crime.

Let's not forget your original accusation of hypocrisy was comparing a lady ending a crime upon herself from a perv to a cop stopping lawful OC because he don't know what they'll do next as hypocrites. This is just not comparable so you can not say someone is a hypocrite for allowing a private citizen a right over a public unless you are a government/cop apologist. Look at the little note our legislatures left at the bottom of allowing officers use of force. Those hypocrites! :rolleyes:

RCW 9A.16.040

Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding.

Notes:

Legislative recognition: "The legislature recognizes that RCW 9A.16.040 establishes a dual standard with respect to the use of deadly force by peace officers and private citizens, and further recognizes that private citizens' permissible use of deadly force under the authority of RCW 9.01.200,9A.16.020, or 9A.16.050 is not restricted and remains broader than the limitations imposed on peace officers."


Why are you concentrating on "might theory", the man actually was committing a crime upon someone how far he was willing to take this crime we won't know because she ended the crime, again this is a far cry from just presuming people walking down the street "might" do something. Besides all this is a strawman argument and not what you originally said was hypocritical.



 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
The phrase is "death or great bodily harm".
The argument being that he might have physically attacked her, possibly raped her, which is certainly GBH.
I'm no expert, but from what I've read flashers generally don't escalate; they're whimps, scared, only want the shocked reaction.
But the possibility exists, which is why I think having pistol in hand (or it becoming exposed on hip so he sees it's there) would be perfectly reasonable.
Then give him a wide berth as she walks away & calls police.

I can't say for sure what I would have done in her situation, since none of us really know til we're in the thick of it, but from the comfort of my couch, it's easy for me to say that I don't think drawing was necessarily warranted.

Then again, I like to think that the only time I'm going to draw is when I feel threatened enough to respond with lethal force. A more appropriate response of force here would probably have been pepper spray, laughter, and leaving quickly, while watching to make sure he didn't attempt to follow. If he escalated by verbal threats or approaching in any way, then I could certainly endorse a verbal warning and "making ready".

I'm not so much second guessing her judgement so much as saying I don't think I would have necessarily done the same, given what facts we know. But I'll bet her actions have the positive consequence of this guy not trying this crap again!

Glad to see some female perspective on this situation. Males don't seem to have the same problem with this type of situation.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
mohawk001 said:
The one line you posted though still has the what if factor.
That factor could be used in any situation in life just about.
"What if" is part of any threat assessment.
What if that car turns left in front of me? What if that kid runs into traffic? What if there's a fire in my house?
What if the perv isn't satisfied with himself?
That doesn't mean I automatically jump to seeing all men in parks as being about to rape me, which seems to be the generalization you (and the rabid hoplophobes) want to make.

mohawk001 said:
with all the talk on this forum about only pulling when you intend on having to use it, I would think it would again be hypocritical... I'm wondering if some here don't think we have to use any good judgement
"Use" can mean different things to different people. I'd say that showing the pistol, or pointing it at an attacker, is "using" it just as much as shooting. It's using the threat of force rather than actual force. Much less messy & painful & expensive.
Yes, there are those who ignore the middle of the force continuum, jumping from "LEAVE ME ALONE" to shooting. And it's possible the attacker won't give you time.
But if you have the time, & it doesn't take much, use the rest of the continuum. If you can, back away. You may avoid shooting someone, and if you do have to go that far it'll be easier to explain to a jury. At each step, up to #6, the attacker has the option of leaving with his skin intact & nothing more than mental anguish.

1 - verbal "stay away, I don't want any trouble"
2 - verbal "LEAVE ME ALONE! DON'T HURT ME!"
3 - if the pistol isn't already exposed, do it now. Put a hand on the grip, loosen any retention. Repeat step #2.
4 - draw, low ready, repeat step #2.
5 - point at attacker, repeat step #2.
6 - shoot to stop the threat
7 - once the threat is no longer threatening, follow Mas Ayoob's advice about what to do after.

mohawk001 said:
Look at the posts saying to shoot an unarmed person.
That shows the good mentality here of some.
I suggest you do some research. Find out for yourself that unarmed people can cause DoGBH.
As has been said before in this thread, it's possible that the perv in the park could have decided to do more than play with himself, and rape is certainly GBH.

mohawk001 said:
am I supposed to believe that at least some here are not willing to break the law and believe themselves to be above everybody else because of the fact they carry a gun?
Most of us, in fact.
Some may think we're better citizens because we exercise all our rights, or that those who refuse to protect themselves (or even acknowledge that danger could come to them) are worthy of ridicule, but the vast majority of gun owners I know are basically law-abiding. (I don't know anyone who doesn't speed now & then.)
No, I wouldn't shoot someone simply for public masturbation or even verbally trying to involve me in his... perversion.
I would make sure the person saw that I was armed, esp. if he'd directed any words or actions at me.

RCW 9.41.270(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to or affect the following:
(c) Any person acting for the purpose of protecting himself or herself against the use of presently threatened unlawful force by another, or for the purpose of protecting another against the use of such unlawful force by a third person
I'm still having trouble seeing how this fits.
I agree it's possible he could have decided to attack her, but if he was sitting on the bench with his hands full (& pants down) I don't see any "presently threatened force".
Make sure he sees the gun, maybe even draw it, walk away keeping him in sight, call police.
 
Last edited:

MikeTheGreek

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
590
Location
Northville, Michigan
Most guys (including myself) would have just decked this guy. But..a woman with her child, I think she's completely justified in drawing her firearm. He's lucky she didn't shoot him in the nuts :eek:
 
Top