• 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

PistolPackingMomma

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
SC
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:

Shooting him for what? For being a pervert?

I can only speak for myself, but pulling the trigger of my weapon requires me to feel fear for my life or fear of great bodily harm. Given the facts presented thus far, this guy did not pose a threat. A disgusting spectacle of indecency that deserved ridicule? Yes. Actually shooting? No.

I'm happy she chose to carry her gun that evening, and I'm not second guessing her decision to draw; just saying that all these calls about "justified shoot" aren't making sense to me. If he'd indicated in some manner that he was going to target her or her child for rape, then I would feel differently.
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
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."

I have shortened your quote to just address the issue of a dual standard on the use of deadly force.

I feel some still question, how are the dual standards are citizens have a broader permissible use of deadly force.
RCW 9A.16.040 deals with law enforcement and those under their direction only. Citizens acting upon their own accord are under RCW's 9A.16.020 and 9A.16.020.050.
This is how the standards differ from law enforcement and those aiding, to citizens acting upon their own accord, thus two standards.

RCW 9A.16.040
Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding.

(1) Homicide or the use of deadly force is justifiable in the following cases:
(a) When a public officer is acting in obedience to the judgment of a competent court; or
(b) When necessarily used by a peace officer to overcome actual resistance to the execution of the legal process, mandate, or order of a court or officer, or in the discharge of a legal duty.
(c) When necessarily used by a peace officer or person acting under the officer's command and in the officer's aid:
(i) To arrest or apprehend a person who the officer reasonably believes has committed, has attempted to commit, is committing, or is attempting to commit a felony;
(ii) To prevent the escape of a person from a federal or state correctional facility or in retaking a person who escapes from such a facility; or
(iii) To prevent the escape of a person from a county or city jail or holding facility if the person has been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of a felony; or
(iv) To lawfully suppress a riot if the actor or another participant is armed with a deadly weapon.

(2) In considering whether to use deadly force under subsection (1)(c) of this section, to arrest or apprehend any person for the commission of any crime, the peace officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others. Among the circumstances which may be considered by peace officers as a "threat of serious physical harm" are the following:
(a) The suspect threatens a peace officer with a weapon or displays a weapon in a manner that could reasonably be construed as threatening; or
(b) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed any crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm.
Under these circumstances deadly force may also be used if necessary to prevent escape from the officer, where, if feasible, some warning is given.

(3) A public officer or peace officer shall not be held criminally liable for using deadly force without malice and with a good faith belief that such act is justifiable pursuant to this section.

(4) This section shall not be construed as:
(a) Affecting the permissible use of force by a person acting under the authority of RCW 9A.16.020 or 9A.16.050; or
(b) Preventing a law enforcement agency from adopting standards pertaining to its use of deadly force that are more restrictive than this section.

[1986 c 209 § 2; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.040.]

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." [1986 c 209 § 3.]
 
Last edited:

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
There were three old ladies sitting on a park bench talking amongst themselves when a flasher came by. The flasher stood right in front of them and opened his trench coat.


Well, the first old lady had a stroke, and then the second old lady had a stroke, and the third old lady, well, she couldn't reach that far.

It was a short joke.
 

MikeTheGreek

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
590
Location
Northville, Michigan
Shooting him for what? For being a pervert?

I can only speak for myself, but pulling the trigger of my weapon requires me to feel fear for my life or fear of great bodily harm. Given the facts presented thus far, this guy did not pose a threat. A disgusting spectacle of indecency that deserved ridicule? Yes. Actually shooting? No.

I'm happy she chose to carry her gun that evening, and I'm not second guessing her decision to draw; just saying that all these calls about "justified shoot" aren't making sense to me. If he'd indicated in some manner that he was going to target her or her child for rape, then I would feel differently.

I don't believe it would be a good shoot, I just know that these days, he's lucky she didn't pull the trigger. you never know.

Sent from my Galaxy S2 using Tapatalk 2
 

slapmonkay

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
1,308
Location
Montana
The reason I ask is because indecent exposure is only a misdemeanor in WA, except under certain circumstances. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.88.010

While indecent exposure is only a misdemeanor (in this case likely a gross misdemeanor 9A.88.010(2)(b)), given the description in articles of how this went down I think either 9A.44.100 Indecent Liberties or 9A.44.115 Voyeurism may apply, both of which are felonies.

With that said, I don't feel fatal use of force is required in the specific scenario, outstanding any other circumstances/details.
 
Last edited:

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
598
Location
Stanwood, WA
I think that the charge/don't charge is a judgment call by the prosecutor. In Seattle, I submit that the prosecutor would charge and leave the defense to its resources to solicit reasonable doubt (See BigDave's cut-and-paste of the WPICs (pronounced "whipicks")).

But, I've lived in Longview, and submit that her reaction was both lawful and reasonable. ;)
 

TechnoWeenie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
2,084
Location
, ,
Very bad draw.

1. Why was her gun not loaded?

2. If she had time to pull out her gun, load it, then tell the guy to get lost, or get shot, she wasn't in fear for her life.

3. W T F. The guy has his dick in his hand, that's not a deadly threat.



Sounds like another 'winner' that shouldn't have a firearm.
 

tombrewster421

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2010
Messages
1,326
Location
Roy, WA
Very bad draw.

1. Why was her gun not loaded?

2. If she had time to pull out her gun, load it, then tell the guy to get lost, or get shot, she wasn't in fear for her life.

3. W T F. The guy has his dick in his hand, that's not a deadly threat.



Sounds like another 'winner' that shouldn't have a firearm.

Why oh why do I still see so many people on this forum thinking like they wish they could decide who should or should not have a gun?

We ALL have rights! Stop talking like the anti's.

Every person has this right until they actually do something criminal. Threatening that scumbag was not criminal so stop treating her as if she is one.

I know that some people out there are stupid and cause harm through their stupidity but we can't preemptively take away a persons rights because they are stupid. We must wait until after harm comes. But of course the best option would be to educate the person in the simplest terms possible without any condescension so that they might actually receive what you are trying to teach them, before harm comes.

Be proactive. If you see someone doing something stupid or hear someone talking about it, don't min your own business but get yourself involved in the conversation to try and enlighten them.

I'm not just picking on you Techno. There are plenty of others on here who say the same things. Bottom line is that none of us have the right to tell someone else they can't exercise theirs.

(rant off)
 
Last edited:

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
Very bad draw.

1. Why was her gun not loaded?

2. If she had time to pull out her gun, load it, then tell the guy to get lost, or get shot, she wasn't in fear for her life.

3. W T F. The guy has his dick in his hand, that's not a deadly threat.



Sounds like another 'winner' that shouldn't have a firearm.

Then you would have a real hard time with Pre GCA68 wouldn't you...when there was no such thing as a "prohibited" person. IMHO: That is the way it should still be. Read RCW 9A.44...sexual assault...see what is available to the DA could use against the perp... any of those a "felony"???? I think you will find, the gal was well within her rights.

Think also about this: You think this guy was no threat? Yet he did not leave while the gal calmly drew out her pistol, loaded and cocked it...he did not leave until he was actually threatened...she did good IMHO
 

bmg50cal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
306
Location
WA - North Whidbey/ Deception Pass
The lady would have been better off carrying an angry snake crazed mongoose with her than an unloaded firearm. It would have made for a more entertaining police report.

2574509050105101600S600x600Q85.jpg
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
I've read through this thread, and actually wrote about it in Examiner the other day.

What does a woman do when a man exposes himself?

You’re a mom on an evening walk with your 6-year-old son and you are suddenly approached “aggressively” by a man who exposes himself and then suggests that you stand there and watch what’s next, so what do you do?

http://www.examiner.com/article/what-should-a-woman-do-when-a-man-exposes-himself?cid=db_articles

This was an awkward situation for any number of reasons.

She had a 6-year-old boy along, so fleeing may have been out of the question.
Nobody has been able to discern if this guy had just flashing on his mind or something more sinister. Women have been raped before in front of their kids, it's not an unheard of phenomenon.

None of us were there. That's really the bottom line.

We might have all done differently. But how many sickos will approach an armed man and wank their willie?



:rolleyes:
 

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
I've read through this thread, and actually wrote about it in Examiner the other day.

What does a woman do when a man exposes himself?

You’re a mom on an evening walk with your 6-year-old son and you are suddenly approached “aggressively” by a man who exposes himself and then suggests that you stand there and watch what’s next, so what do you do?

http://www.examiner.com/article/what-should-a-woman-do-when-a-man-exposes-himself?cid=db_articles

This was an awkward situation for any number of reasons.

She had a 6-year-old boy along, so fleeing may have been out of the question.
Nobody has been able to discern if this guy had just flashing on his mind or something more sinister. Women have been raped before in front of their kids, it's not an unheard of phenomenon.

None of us were there. That's really the bottom line.

We might have all done differently. But how many sickos will approach an armed man and wank their willie?



:rolleyes:

IMHO: If they catch that guy I am sure there are several paragraphs in RCW 9A.44 that can be rolled out for the jury. Including some that involve the child...

There is another story (don't have the link but it was on KREM2 news last night, you might want to research and write about.

Burglar caught by home owner in Spokane is before the judge....Homeowner has really beaten this guy to a pulp...in the picture you can see the stich strings sticking out where they sewed him back up. Burglar complains to the judge about the beating the homeowner gave him...Judge says.."what are you complaining about, you are luck you were only beaten up, and not SHOT"

This: http://www.krem.com/home/Burglar-I-didnt-deserve-to-be-tied-up-180394131.html may have been they guy, but it is not from last night, and does not include what the judge said. I guess I just can't find last night's comments.
 
Last edited:

TechnoWeenie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
2,084
Location
, ,
Why oh why do I still see so many people on this forum thinking like they wish they could decide who should or should not have a gun?

We ALL have rights! Stop talking like the anti's.

Every person has this right until they actually do something criminal. Threatening that scumbag was not criminal so stop treating her as if she is one.

I know that some people out there are stupid and cause harm through their stupidity but we can't preemptively take away a persons rights because they are stupid. We must wait until after harm comes. But of course the best option would be to educate the person in the simplest terms possible without any condescension so that they might actually receive what you are trying to teach them, before harm comes.

Be proactive. If you see someone doing something stupid or hear someone talking about it, don't min your own business but get yourself involved in the conversation to try and enlighten them.

I'm not just picking on you Techno. There are plenty of others on here who say the same things. Bottom line is that none of us have the right to tell someone else they can't exercise theirs.

(rant off)


With rights, come responsibilities.

I'd rather have a person NOT carry, than carry in a manner which endangers others. Last thing I need is a mom with an inflated sense of self-entitlement because they have a firearm, shooting someone for playing with his Richard in front of her.

Again. A firearm is lethal force. You don't kill someone for whacking off in front of you. Which, ultimately, was threatened.

I'll say it again.

If a guy is whacking off in front of you.... Grabbing your gun, LOADING IT, chambering a round, then telling the guy to 'get lost, or I'll shoot you', is NOT the right action. The weapon should be loaded in the first place, and should be in easy reach. Hell, reach into your purse and grab it, while ordering him away and back up..If he pursues you, then remove it from the purse and present it at low ready, if he continues to advance, then stop the threat.



HAD she shot him, it would have been CLEARLY a premeditated act.


Maybe I have it wrong, as I wasn't there, but the way it's being portrayed, and the woman's STATEMENTS, make it seem like she just wanted to be a billy badass.
 
Last edited:
Top