SouthernBoy
Regular Member
This guy must think he's a cut above others.
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=41&sid=2469438
In Fair Oaks mall, no less.
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=41&sid=2469438
In Fair Oaks mall, no less.
So.. yer some 22 year old chick, shopping for clothes... this thug comes up behind you as slashes your rear end and runs away.. You are carrying concealed.. now what?
I have voiced my opinion before and my displeasure with the current laws. I believe it would be moral (not legal) to stop the attacker with whatever force necessary even if the attack was over. In many many threads they go back and forth in that you aren't ever shooting to kill, but to stop the attack. I go a step further in that until the attacker has surrendered and awaits arrest peacefully or dead you should be allowed to shoot to stop the attackER! As part of the public duty to get this slime of the streets I see that action as the only morally justifiable scenario. If a 22 year old woman who had her bottom slashed and a CHP had her handgun on her and shot the guy in the back as he was fleeing I think we all should celebrate and congratulate her for stopping him from being able to perform the same attack in the future. The law on the other hand will put her in jail. Go figure.
So until the law changes you can take pictures with your cell phone, follow him to get as much information so that the PROFESSIONALS can follow up and try to catch him even though you could have stopped him cold right then. Phsssst!
So.. yer some 22 year old chick, shopping for clothes... this thug comes up behind you as slashes your rear end and runs away.. You are carrying concealed.. now what?
...SNIP... If a 22 year old woman who had her bottom slashed and a CHP had her handgun on her and shot the guy in the back as he was fleeing I think we all should celebrate and congratulate her for stopping him from being able to perform the same attack in the future. The law on the other hand will put her in jail. Go figure...SNIP..
Shame the law disagrees. In many cases I think we'd be better off.
An attack like this is incredibly hard to legally defend one's self. There's really only a window of about a second or so that the victim could legally defend herself from the time the knife is drawn until the attacker runs off. Open or concealed, good luck drawing fast enough to do anything.
There is an awful lot of bloodlust being thrown about here.
The attack is henious for many reasons, as well as probably being perverted. The damage sustained certainly goes far beyond the mere physical injury, which could well be crippling if the perpetrator misses his mark by just an inch or so. The economic loss of both the individual victim(s) and the mall(s) can become staggering quite quickly.
But the thin veneer of civilization that we lay over the jungle of the real world seems to be peeling away not only from the thug who is committing these crimes, but from some of the folks who at other times have styled themselves "sheepdogs" and "defenders of society". While the threat of death or serious bodily injury is imminent (and getting slashed qualifies, in my mind) we have agreed that the use of deadly/lethal force can be used to stop that threat. Once the threat is no longer imminent, the use of deadly/lethal force is no longer allowed.
Suggesting that the thug "might slash someone else" is using the same argument that the antis try to use about us - that because we are armed we "might" shoot someone. If you are going to go along with them, then perhaps we ought to shoot every person we see or suspect might be carrying a firearm, knife, hatpin, or any other item that could be used as a weapon. And if using this line of reasoning that would include the police because they "might" go on a rampage just like the rest of us. (Or, based on some recently reported incidents, they are more likely to go on a rampage than the rest of us.) And while we are all shooting to stop the potential rampages, the poor unarmed among us who are not wearing signs identifying themselves as unarmed (and who's to say they are telling the truth anyway?) are likely to get caught in the crossfire.
I don't think it an artifact of testosterone, as I hear some of this from women as well as from the guys. I'm pretty sure a portion of it is the attempt to express the frustration at having to deal with outrageous antisocial behavior while everything else in life seems to be climbing into the moving handbasket. But there is a portion that seems to be pure bloodlust. "I got this gun to defend myself and my family and by golly I want to use it to do that!"
It's darned hard to remain calm and rational in a world that is anything but calm and rational, but we need to keep putting forth the effort.
stay safe.
<snip> Once the threat is no longer imminent, the use of deadly/lethal force is no longer allowed. <snip>
Maybe a stupid question but couldn't you claim that he was still an active threat, he had already made one attack against a person so you could legally be in fear that he would cause another person bodily harm as well??
No longer allowed under law is agreed.
Why is a LEO allowed to use deadly/lethal force against a fleeing felon and other law abiding citizens not? In this case the slashing would surely be a felony and is pretty clear that he has struck more than once showing not only that he is a felon but a repeating felon. We don't have to speculate whether he would ever repeat the crime. To me it is common sense and while LEO's may have more training on when and how to use lethal force many citizens have similar training or experiences. Maybe we all should be able to apply for a temorary deputy permit (TDP) to get LEO immunization from stupid laws.
Possible 6th victim steps out in serial butt slasher case
WASHINGTON -- A 21-year-old woman may be the sixth victim of a serial slasher who has been targeting young women in Fairfax County retail stores.
Police say they received a report from the woman Monday, and the incident took place June 8 at a T.J. Maxx in Fairfax Towne Center.
more: http://www.wtop.com/?nid=149&sid=2478645