• 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.

Who says you don't need a gun in a shopping mall?

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
She would have been fine if she had dialed 668-2267, when she suspected trouble.
 

Badger Johnson

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
1,213
Location
USA
They need to catch this guy now. He's just one step from becoming a serial killer as he seeks greater thrill fulfillment that slashing no longer brings him.
 

thebigsd

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
3,535
Location
Quarryville, PA
Some people seriously have issues. Somebody told me about this at work and I thought they were joking. One good thing about Fair Oaks is that they seem to be okay with open carry. I have OCed there many times with no issues. Fortunately for me, I don't think anyone wants to see me bend over. I did warn my wife and sisters though.
 

FFchris

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2010
Messages
92
Location
Loudoun Co, VA
And people wonder why I carry while out and about with my wife. I do so to protect her and our unborn child from monsters like that. It is my duty to keep them safe from this.
 

45acpForMe

Newbie
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
2,805
Location
Yorktown, Virginia, USA
WTF? I hope they catch this guy quickly before he makes a southern VA roadtrip (or slashes anyone again). :-(

My daughter is at the age where she wants to walk the mall alone (or with friends) meaning no armed dad escort! I already don't like the idea of her walking around alone and with people like this guy roaming around I don't think she will be allowed, much to her chagrin.

I always envisioned some attempted rape, fondling or abduction resulting in injury not just a guy randomly slashing people!
 

Phoenix David

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
605
Location
Glendale, Arizona, USA
Well I'm not 22 yo female and not in VA, but if I did observe this takings place I'd sure as hell chase after the guy and at the very least get a license plate number while on the phone with 911.
 

45acpForMe

Newbie
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
2,805
Location
Yorktown, Virginia, USA
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!
 

Jay Gatz

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2009
Messages
52
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
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!

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.
 

45acpForMe

Newbie
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
2,805
Location
Yorktown, Virginia, USA
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 might have missed your main point.

If you are carrying concealed you probably don't have time to justifiably draw and shoot before the attacker has disengaged and no longer a threat.

If you were OCing the attack probably wouldn't have ever happened!

(is that more your point?)
 

Phoenix David

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
605
Location
Glendale, Arizona, USA
...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..

Jury nullification FTW!:banana:
 

Sleepless

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
218
Location
Canada
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.

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??
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
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.

Good post, Skid.
 

45acpForMe

Newbie
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
2,805
Location
Yorktown, Virginia, USA
<snip> Once the threat is no longer imminent, the use of deadly/lethal force is no longer allowed. <snip>

No longer allowed under law is agreed.

Why is a LEO allowed to use 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. :)
 

Jay Gatz

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2009
Messages
52
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
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??

You could try and make that claim if you wanted, but I wouldn't.

Personally I don't see the risk of a murder charge for shooting a man in the back to be worth it.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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. :)

A LEO is allowed to use deadly force against a fleeing felon in some circumstances.

Lets start with the "fleeing felon rule" and work forward: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule

Then we get to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner which pretty much said even LEOs cannot use deadly/ lethal force to stop fleeing felons unless a strict set of circumstances (well, strict for SCOTUS setting out rules for LEO, but maybe not as strict as Miranda/Edwards) exist and the LEO follows a strict guideline.

Now we get into the debate if Garner ought, in some, all, any case ought to be applied retroactively. In other words, was it so obvious even before SCOTUS said so that it should have been the way things were before SCOTUS said so. Read http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2830&context=flr .

And you want to re-muck up things? Do you have any idea how difficult it has been to get LEOs to understand the current set of "rules"? [OK, there's a whole lot of sarcasm in there, in case anybody might accidentally miss any of it.]

But at least "now you know".

stay safe.

I just realized that it appears that I am saying that LEOs especially, but also those making a citizen's arrest, cannot ever use deadly/lethal force to stop a fleeing felon. THat is far from correct and not the impression I wanted to give.

As stated by me in an earlier post, the slashing incidents at the heart of this discussion "may" or "might" cause serious bodily harm - either crippling or significant (I'm not sure that is the correct legal term, but it conveys my meaning well) disfigurement. Surely the first is covered in the use of deadly/lethal force to defend against such injury, and I'm a bit hazy on whether or not the second also qualifies. I'll defer to the real attorneys on that one.

But, and this is why I have been saying that the use of deadly/lethal force is not permitted - in the two incidents reported the cutting did not endanger life, did not cripple, and did not cause significant disfigurement. So even if you could identify (put name to) or recognize (pick out of a line-up) the assailant as being the same individual who committed the first offense, or both offenses, he has not yet (obviously my opinion on this differs from some others) reached the level of dangerousness where apprehending him by the application of deadly/lethal force is necessary.

I have already alluded to the possibility of a perversion being at play, which in my mind makes this person more dangerous than someone doing it "for fun", and raises the possibility that he will eventually inflict death or seriously bodily harm. But for now we are not there.

And besides, citizen's arrest is a very mesy issue. You really should not want to go there unless you absolutely have to. And, again in my opinion, you would at this point in the person's careeer need to be trying to arrest them, as a claim of defense of an innocent third party would not stand based on the lack of threat of death or serious bodily harm. That does not mean I don't want to get my hands on him, or have the cops arrest him. It just means I don't see this/these crimes as rising to the point where the use of deadly/lethal force is either justified or excusable.

stay safe.
 
Last edited:

Blk97F150

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
1,179
Location
Virginia
Looks like he struck again:

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
 
Top