TexasCHLforum.com

http://tdn.com/news/local/woman-pulls-g ... 963f4.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
TDN.Com by Tony Lystra/Daily News 11/16/2012

“I put the magazine in my gun. I cocked it,” the woman said in an interview Thursday night. “I said, ‘You need to leave or Ill shoot you. I’m going to blow your brains out.’ ”

The woman, whose name is being withheld by the paper because she is the victim of a sex crime, said she has never before brought her gun, a Ruger .380, with her to the lake, but she grabbed it on her way out the door Wednesday because it was foggy and dark.

“I just had a feeling,” she said.

So wrong on 2 levels?
- woman guessed right and had it with her - this time
- gun not ready to fire when critical moment occurred

This was in Washington State and I don't understand the nuance of their deadly force use there. I wonder if the same thing happened here in Texas if there would be a problem with her displaying her firearm.

If the woman felt there was the potential for this individual to go farther than just the exposure and maybe sexually attack her, then it would be justified to threaten the use of deadly force.

That does it! I reckon I'll take 'flashin' off my bucket list.

The woman said she only took the gun because she "had a feeling", which of course is not the right approach. Instead, one should carry whenever possible and avoid making judgements.

I hope that she had a CHL and was not on ACOE prioperty or other public lands with misguided gun bans.

Keith B wrote:If the woman felt there was the potential for this individual to go farther than just the exposure and maybe sexually attack her, then it would be justified to threaten the use of deadly force.

Anyone mentally unstable enough to do what he did is unpredictable and capable of anything, so I say she had every right.

He he he.. Ladies, says" You flash me?, then, wait for my flash. Smile, look at that round thing and wait for the flash"

chasfm11 wrote:
This was in Washington State and I don't understand the nuance of their deadly force use there. I wonder if the same thing happened here in Texas if there would be a problem with her displaying her firearm.

Why would it be a problem? She didn't know what he could have done next.

Oldgringo wrote:That does it! I reckon I'll take 'flashin' off my bucket list.

Thank You, Jesus!

I was worried there for a bit.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:That does it! I reckon I'll take 'flashin' off my bucket list.

Thank You, Jesus!

I was worried there for a bit.

I don't want to cross-pollinate threads or invoke the spirited debate that was part of the thread but I was thinking about the road rage incident where a driver was killed by a woman who said that she feared for her life when he approached her car after a fender bender when I first saw this. It would seem that it comes down to the perceived threat level on the part of defender. I won't describe flashing as a necessarily threatening gesture because is seems that many who do it have no violent intentions afterward. I will admit that a woman and a small child in a remote area changes the potential dynamics of the situation a lot.

I'm glad that this situation turned out well and hope that they catch the creep.

chasfm11 wrote:I don't want to cross-pollinate threads or invoke the spirited debate that was part of the thread but I was thinking about the road rage incident where a driver was killed by a woman who said that she feared for her life when he approached her car after a fender bender when I first saw this. It would seem that it comes down to the perceived threat level on the part of defender. I won't describe flashing as a necessarily threatening gesture because is seems that many who do it have no violent intentions afterward. I will admit that a woman and a small child in a remote area changes the potential dynamics of the situation a lot.

I see a big difference in that approaching the other vehicle after the accident is a rational act while flashing a stranger is irrational and therefore more theatening.

It's also naive to assume that a flasher would necessarily stop there.

rp_photo wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:I don't want to cross-pollinate threads or invoke the spirited debate that was part of the thread but I was thinking about the road rage incident where a driver was killed by a woman who said that she feared for her life when he approached her car after a fender bender when I first saw this. It would seem that it comes down to the perceived threat level on the part of defender. I won't describe flashing as a necessarily threatening gesture because is seems that many who do it have no violent intentions afterward. I will admit that a woman and a small child in a remote area changes the potential dynamics of the situation a lot.

I see a big difference in that approaching the other vehicle after the accident is a rational act while flashing a stranger is irrational and therefore more threatening.

It's also naive to assume that a flasher would necessarily stop there.

And I'm not assuming that he would, especially in some remote place. My point was that there is not necessarily a sign of aggression and some guys just get off on dropping their pants. I would agree that most of them pick more public places for their antics.

It seems to be a fairly slippery slope to claim a self defense shooting because of the possibility of an escalation of violence at some later point. Someone who yells at me is not necessarily a physical threat if certain other thresholds (closing the distance between us, making threatening gestures) are not crossed.

Her name is not being released because she is a "victim of a sex crime". Presumably that sex crime would be sexual assault. From a Texas point of view, a person has the right to use deadly force to prevent a sexual assault. So she would be justified in drawing. My un-lawyered opinion & worth every bit you paid for it.

TexasCajun wrote:Her name is not being released because she is a "victim of a sex crime". Presumably that sex crime would be sexual assault. From a Texas point of view, a person has the right to use deadly force to prevent a sexual assault. So she would be justified in drawing. My un-lawyered opinion & worth every bit you paid for it.

I don't know about Washington, but I'm pretty sure specific physical contact is a required element of sexual assault in Texas. It looks like his actions would be Indecent Exposure here, or maybe Public Lewdness if the prosecutor pushed the envelope.

Happily Ever After wrote:

TexasCajun wrote:Her name is not being released because she is a "victim of a sex crime". Presumably that sex crime would be sexual assault. From a Texas point of view, a person has the right to use deadly force to prevent a sexual assault. So she would be justified in drawing. My un-lawyered opinion & worth every bit you paid for it.

I don't know about Washington, but I'm pretty sure specific physical contact is a required element of sexual assault in Texas. It looks like his actions would be Indecent Exposure here, or maybe Public Lewdness if the prosecutor pushed the envelope.

I know that it is often the case on this forum to debate the finer points of penal code when discussing some crime that has occurred, especially when a firearm is used in a defensive manner. However, whatever happened to the disgusting specimen of a human being who "displayed" himself in that story, I do not care to discuss this in a manner that gives him the benefit of the doubt at all. My ability to have any sympathy for these sorts of people has diminished to a near-zero level.

Heartland Patriot wrote:

Happily Ever After wrote:

TexasCajun wrote:Her name is not being released because she is a "victim of a sex crime". Presumably that sex crime would be sexual assault. From a Texas point of view, a person has the right to use deadly force to prevent a sexual assault. So she would be justified in drawing. My un-lawyered opinion & worth every bit you paid for it.

I don't know about Washington, but I'm pretty sure specific physical contact is a required element of sexual assault in Texas. It looks like his actions would be Indecent Exposure here, or maybe Public Lewdness if the prosecutor pushed the envelope.

I know that it is often the case on this forum to debate the finer points of penal code when discussing some crime that has occurred, especially when a firearm is used in a defensive manner. However, whatever happened to the disgusting specimen of a human being who "displayed" himself in that story, I do not care to discuss this in a manner that gives him the benefit of the doubt at all. My ability to have any sympathy for these sorts of people has diminished to a near-zero level.

Umm, how 'bout the kid who got a $2,500 fine/ticket for peeing in his yard the other day and/or nearly nekid tatooed wimmen out in public dressed to titillate? Exposure is exposure....or is it not?

chasfm11 wrote: And I'm not assuming that he would, especially in some remote place. My point was that there is not necessarily a sign of aggression and some guys just get off on dropping their pants. I would agree that most of them pick more public places for their antics.

It seems to be a fairly slippery slope to claim a self defense shooting because of the possibility of an escalation of violence at some later point. Someone who yells at me is not necessarily a physical threat if certain other thresholds (closing the distance between us, making threatening gestures) are not crossed.

One aspect that makes Texas different than most other states is PC §46.035(a), Intentional Failure to Conceal.

We spend a lot of time around here discussing whether use of deadly force is justified. Not so much time discussing when use of ordinary force is justified.

Certainly, he was committing a crime even before she pulled her gun. We need to remember that pointing a gun at someone is the use of force, not the use of deadly force.

Now, the use of force has its own set of justifications different from deadly force.

His behavior does not qualify as "Sexual Assault", but it does qualify as PC §21.11(a)(2) INDECENCY WITH A CHILD, which is a 3rd degree felony. I do not know if "Indecency With a Child" in these circumstances qualifies as "the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force", which would be justification for the use of ordinary force. (Although I doubt many Texas juries would have a problem with a woman using force in these circumstances.)

If he takes one more step towards her after the threat of the gun, then I believe that changes her justification from ordinary force to deadly force based upon a reasonable belief that he intends serious bodily injury or death when advancing after facing a gun. That is when she shoots.

However, in Texas pulling a gun (except when on your own property) is a crime (PC §46.035(a), Intentional Failure to Conceal) unless you are justified with using deadly force. In other states without the concealment issues, her pointing a gun at him could have an entirely different legal standard regarding justification.