Woman shoots "aggressive" panhandler over change...

imported post

HankT wrote:

But there has been no mention that he wasarmed so that seems unlikely at this point."

"Why on earth would anyone ever shoot a bum if he was unarmed?

Click to expand...

A 62 year old woman being assaulted by someone who is armed or not, would be justification for deadly force.

It's been mentioned that the panhandler had a history of being aggressive, which would not justify deadly force, but if he was under the influence, (highly unlikely for a panhandler :uhoh he could have snapped and went too far, at which point it would. I imagine this will be the determining factor at trial.

HankT wrote:

I'd just flip him a quarter, tell him no way, or run away from him.

Click to expand...

Run away huh? You wouldn't happen to be European would you?

imported post

Turns out the lady had a CHL (concealed handgun license):

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070810/NEWS01/308100014

imported post

BB62 wrote:

Turns out the lady had a CHL (concealed handgun license):

Click to expand...

Ugh. That makes it worse for the gun carrying community. She is one of us.



Double ugh:

Conner said the shooting came three weeks after Beasley was investigated for chasing a man with a gun in hand. He said the man did not cooperate with police and no charges were brought against Beasley.


I'm beginning to to think that it would have been better for all of us if someone had taken Beasley's gun away from her. We still have to see if the panhandler really did anything to warrant deadlyforce or not. But it's looking like goof with a gun so far.

imported post

HankT wrote:

BB62 wrote:

Click to expand...

Turns out the lady had a CHL (concealed handgun license):

Click to expand...

Ugh. That makes it worse for the gun carrying community. She is one of us.



Double ugh:

Conner said the shooting came three weeks after Beasley was investigated for chasing a man with a gun in hand. He said the man did not cooperate with police and no charges were brought against Beasley.


I'm beginning to to think that it would have been better for all of us if someone had taken Beasley's gun away from her. We still have to see if the panhandler really did anything to warrant deadlyforce or not. But it's looking like goof with a gun so far.

Click to expand...

I'm just reading between the lines based on her previous record, but...

In a less politically correct time, Ms. Beasley might well have been taken away from us--the law abiding sane folk--either by the medical or legal system, before she got this far around the bend.

imported post

"And it hurts the rest of us law-abiding gun-carrying citizens because the generalpublic reaction is solidly against a person shooting and killing another person for a trivial reason."

HankT....Sorry for the correction but to call yourself a law-abiding gun-carrying citizen, you need toACTUALLY carry a gun

imported post

Armed4Life wrote:

HankT....Sorry for the correction but to call yourself a law-abiding gun-carrying citizen, you need to ACTUALLY carry a gun

Click to expand...

0_o

*clap*

imported post

Brian D. wrote:

HankT wrote:

BB62 wrote:

Click to expand...

Turns out the lady had a CHL (concealed handgun license):

Click to expand...

Ugh. That makes it worse for the gun carrying community. She is one of us.



Double ugh:

Conner said the shooting came three weeks after Beasley was investigated for chasing a man with a gun in hand. He said the man did not cooperate with police and no charges were brought against Beasley.


I'm beginning to to think that it would have been better for all of us if someone had taken Beasley's gun away from her. We still have to see if the panhandler really did anything to warrant deadlyforce or not. But it's looking like goof with a gun so far.

Click to expand...

I'm just reading between the lines based on her previous record, but...

In a less politically correct time, Ms. Beasley might well have been taken away from us--the law abiding sane folk--either by the medical or legal system, before she got this far around the bend.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I hear ya. There isn't enough info known to make sure of it, at least not yet.But it's pretty fair to have suspicions about this person's ability to be among the general public at all, much less with a gun.

And that's what gets me the most. In one major and distinct way, this person:



is unrequited, or DrewGunner, or UTOC-45-44, or dngreer....

She's HankT or Brian D.

She is a person who legally carries a firearm in public.

A gun and bad judgment or a bad head do not mix. Even if it is legal.

So far, we know that there is no report of the panhandler being armed. That means it isprobable that Beasley used too much force to deal with the situation that was put before her.

A man should not die for being a panhandler. Or even being a pushy panhandler. If heattacked her, hit her, or threatened her life, that would be different. But if he just cussed at her or called her cheap or something like that, it ain't enough.

I support the use of deadly force whenever it is justified. But a civilian shootinganunarmed person out in public is seldom justified. I'd hate to have anyone here make a bad judgment or think the wrong and have to go what this woman is now going through.

We'll see how it turns out.

And, yes, T-RaV, you're dman right I'd run away from a bum who was hassling me. And laugh at him while I did it...oui oui!

imported post

Just my .02 Gents.

There are a couple things I don't like about this story. First off I feel sorry for the panhandler. Regardless of his lifes choices and where it led him he is still a human being and should be treated as such.

But this doesn't add up. First of all when was the last time a bum asked for just a quarter? Don't they usually ask for just change or a few dollars? I never in my lifetime have been asked for any specific amount by a panhandler. Secondly why is it that the Chief is not investigating anything? Maybe I missed it but I didn't read anything about a further investigation. Also why is a 62 year old woman being held on $500,000 bail??Its all fine andgood when someone shoots up a liquer store and they have a $100,000bail. Can a 62 year old lady really be that kind of a flight risk?? Something here just doesn't jive. You have a fellow panhandler saying that this guy is aggressive and the press is pushing this whole quarter thing. What is a homeless person gonna get with a quater. Last I looked you can't even get a gumball for that much.

Just my .02

P.S. What happened to vagrency laws? Remember when you could get thrown in jail for having no money on your persons?

imported post

HankT
Why on earth would anyone ever shoot a bum if he was unarmed?

Click to expand...

I am a 61 year old woman, 5 ft. 1 in. If attacked by any man larger than that, armed or otherwise, I would be perfectly justified using deadly force to defend myself.

As one who open carries ALL the time, I am well trained in both the use of my gun and the various situations where it might be needed. The display of the gun would probably be enough for such a person, but I would not hesitate to shoot if the attack were continued.

We can't second guess this woman since we weren't there, but I suspect just drawing her gun would have been sufficient to stop the homeless man. My conclusion is that she probably did not have enough training/practice with her weapon and simply reacted blindly to the perceived threat.

Training and practice are a VITAL part of gun ownership, especially if one decides to carry it for defense. That training should NOT be some mandatory government deal, of course, but anyone who skips it puts themselves in a very dangerous position.

As a Second Amendment Sister, I stress this to all of the women I talk to, and soon will be teaching them as an NRA handgun instructor and RSO. It's worth doing...

imported post

MamaLiberty wrote:

HankT
Why on earth would anyone ever shoot a bum if he was unarmed?

Click to expand...

I am a 61 year old woman, 5 ft. 1 in. If attacked by any man larger than that, armed or otherwise, I would be perfectly justified using deadly force to defend myself.

As one who open carries ALL the time, I am well trained in both the use of my gun and the various situations where it might be needed. The display of the gun would probably be enough for such a person, but I would not hesitate to shoot if the attack were continued.

We can't second guess this woman since we weren't there, but I suspect just drawing her gun would have been sufficient to stop the homeless man. My conclusion is that she probably did not have enough training/practice with her weapon and simply reacted blindly to the perceived threat.

Training and practice are a VITAL part of gun ownership, especially if one decides to carry it for defense. That training should NOT be some mandatory government deal, of course, but anyone who skips it puts themselves in a very dangerous position.

As a Second Amendment Sister, I stress this to all of the women I talk to, and soon will be teaching them as an NRA handgun instructor and RSO. It's worth doing...

Click to expand...

Well said. :celebrate

imported post

""And that's what gets me the most. In one major and distinct way, this person:



is unrequited, or DrewGunner, or UTOC-45-44, or dngreer....

She's HankT or Brian D.""

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HUH ???

imported post

UTOC-45-44 wrote:

""And that's what gets me the most. In one major and distinct way, this person:

is unrequited, or DrewGunner, or UTOC-45-44, or dngreer....

She's HankT or Brian D.""

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HUH ???

Click to expand...

Yeah. Ain't it ironic?

imported post

Well HankT..., at least some of us has the chance to carry a firearm and notFAKING it that we are.

imported post

WhiteFeather: I think the vagrancy laws went the way of the dinosaur - free assembly, association, etc. trump the "right" of cops to run off undesirable mendicants - at least they do here. I've not heard of a vagrancy conviction in my lifetime.

Cincinnati actually requires getting a permit to engage in panhandling within the city. I was thinking of getting a permit - not that I beg or would see needing to - but just to have (just the ticket for the man who has everything). How could they deny you one? Would they arrest you for begging for a beggar's permit?... Maybe she shot the guy for failing to produce the required documents. Not a workable defense, I don't think. Still, there's an irony in there somewhere, but I'm not drunk enough to figure it out just now.

-ljp

p.s. are you a Hathcock groupie with that nick?

imported post

Legba wrote:

Cincinnati actually requires getting a permit to engage in panhandling within the city. I was thinking of getting a permit - not that I beg or would see needing to - but just to have (just the ticket for the man who has everything). How could they deny you one? Would they arrest you for begging for a beggar's permit?... Maybe she shot the guy for failing to produce the required documents. Not a workable defense, I don't think. Still, there's an irony in there somewhere, but I'm not drunk enough to figure it out just now.

Click to expand...

Cincinnati has failed to do what other Ohio cities, such as Cleveland, used to do. Keep t he panhandlers in control. When Dennis Kucinich was mayor there back in the late 1970s, Clevelanders never had to complain about panhandlers--ever! Kucinich dida great job with that. Hell, the mob even tried to bump him off for it!

Now, since Kucinich got kicked upstairs, the problem with passive-aggressive panhandlers is back. Here's a report which, although 3 years old, pretty much describes the tricks of the panhandler trade--


http://www.clevescene.com/2003-12-17/news/a-holiday-guide-to-downtown-panhandlers/

imported post

Yeah, I remember "the boy mayor" and even met him when he first got elected (I was just a kid myself). His quasi-socialist ass was reviled for a long time, but he's now remembered for saving Cleveland hundreds of millions of dollars over the years by NOT privatizing/raffling off their publicutilities. That and he also both read and voted against the Patriot Act, so I have a soft spot for the lad. Still, he's a goofball in his private life: he's a personal friend of Shirley MacLaine, a strict vegan, and similar new-agey stuff I can't countenance. Then again, I'm told he landed a hot wife with his "win a date with Dennis" contest the last time he was bucking for the nomination, so maybe he's not so far gone...

-ljp

imported post

He might have done a couple of good things, but the craziness in the other aspects of his life drive me crazy! I couldn't ever vote for him.

imported post

Yeah, back to something resembling a tie-in to the forum: he supports the Assault Weapons Ban (although he claims to support shooting sports also), so I expect that's enough to get him tarred and feathered in here.

-ljp

imported post

I'll bring the tar, and whatever's on his head (I think he calls it hair) can be used as feathers. :idea:

imported post

Well Hank T, Ms. Beasley is now different from the two of us in one more way--she was indicted for homicide yesterday.

What I'm (somewhat morbidly) curious to find out next is: Who was her concealed carry course instructor? Unless Geraldine takes a plea deal, that will probably come up at trial I'd expect.