NationStates Jolt Archive

You all may know that I train women who are victims of domestic abuse to carry firearms. Well, my first customer was my current wife.

When I first met my wife, she had been in a marriage full of domestic abuse, followed by years of being stalked and beaten by her ex-husband.

When I first started dating her, the first present I bought her was not a ring or jewelry, but a short 357 Mag revolver. Over the past couple of years being married, her ex-husband, after learning she was CCW and armed, has left her alone (and actually is polite).

She likes to shoot, and to carry, and I thought the story had ended there.

Last week, the company she works for as a bookkeeper fired one of their drivers. He gave her what she calls "a bad feeling". So this morning, she told me that the guy was coming in to pick up his last paycheck - and that she was expecting trouble.

I work about 10 minutes away, and I asked her if she wanted me to be there, but she said no. I had taught her long ago that I could not always be there in time - and she knows from experience that the police cannot always be there in time.

The guy waited for the rest of the crew to go to lunch, then he came in the trailer where she works. He got his last paycheck, and then started making threats about blowing the place up, about attacking the boss when he came back, and other statements. My wife said, "You're done here, and you have your check. You need to close my door and leave this place."

He then started knocking things over in her office, and knocked things off her desk, and leaned over her desk into her face.

She had already had the revolver out, on the pull tray for the keyboard under the desktop, and she stood and pointed it at him. She told him to get out.

Quietly, and without turning around, he left without saying a word.

The other guys that worked there came back from lunch to find her shaking, just as I got there (she sent me an instant message).

She's still really up on the adrenaline - she says she feels like she needs to do something - and she says she wants to go to the range tonight.

She also said that for the first time since she's had the gun, she feels empowered. She said that she was not sure if she had been in a bad situation, she would be prepared to use the gun or show good judgment. But now she feels confident - she says that it was crystal clear what she should do and how far she should go.

I told her I was very proud of her - and I am.

Good for her! It's important to be able to stand up for yourself.

Hats off to her!

Well, good on her. :)

She did know enough to make sure the guy couldn't snatch the gun from her, right? Riiight?

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."

good for your wife.

Was that a justifiable(legally. Sounds just fine me personally) use of deadly force though? I suppose that coupled with the threats it might be, depending upon the threats.

"An armed society is a polite society." Robert A. Heinlein.

Awesome.

Had she not had the right to bear arms, there's no telling what that guy might have done.

My wife is not a sheep either … goat yes, sheep no

Had she not had the right to bear arms, there's no telling what that guy might have done.

He might have knocked more things off her desk.

This is one reason I don't understand why women in general are against gun rights. Face it, most men can physically dominate a woman, and a gun is the truest equalizer. A woman well trained in firing a gun is just as dangerous as a man, and that's all there is to it.

And also, things like this are one reason I will always support responsible people being allowed handguns. Assault rifles and shotguns and so on are still in debate, but we cannot afford to be at the whims and abilities of the police. We have to be able to protect ourselves, when necessary.

Way to go, whatever-you-wife's-name-is!

For the record and speaking from personal experience, it is possible to defuse those sorts of situations without the use of a gun. However, I grant you that pointing a gun at the jackass was certainly the most expedient method for getting rid of him.

Good for your wife for standing up for herself and refusing to be intimidated by a jerk. And good for you for being there for her.

As it stands thats pretty cool. If she had actually shot the guy I'd have to question it though, lol.

All due respect, this thread has a weird title.

He might have knocked more things off her desk.
Yes, women should wait until someone is beating them.

He might have knocked more things off her desk.
Or he might have siezed some blunt object and beat her to death with it. Or just beat her to a pulp with his fists.

Yes, women should wait until someone is beating them.

Knocking some stuff around an office is not justifiable reason to point a deadly weapon at someone. It simply isn't. Your wife could be arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

You should teach her to be more discriminating.

Knocking some stuff around an office is not justifiable reason to point a deadly weapon at someone. It simply isn't. Your wife could be arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

You should teach her to be more discriminating.
That's not what the police said when they arrived.

Or he might have siezed some blunt object and beat her to death with it. Or just beat her to a pulp with his fists.

We gonna start shooting people over what they "might" do, now?

How very Minority Report.

Knocking some stuff around an office is not justifiable reason to point a deadly weapon at someone. It simply isn't. Your wife could be arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

You should teach her to be more discriminating.
I disagree. In my experience non-professionals who decide to use violence have to work themselves up to the point of attacking. Yelling and screaming, throwing things around, those are very often signs that some idiot is getting ready to try to attack you. Professionals, on the other hand, will smile in your face up until they actually start trying to tear it off.

We gonna start shooting people over what they "might" do, now?

How very Minority Report.
Shooting them no. Threatening to, yes.
If they jump at you and try to hurt you after you threaten them, that's when you shoot them.

Should of got her an AK47 or at least a Mossberg shotgun. But she would look hot with a shotgun...most chicks do

Screw Pistols

Yes, women should wait until someone is beating them.

I disagree with keruvalia's point, but I dislike the implication that guns are the only effective means of sorting out this kind of situation.

Shooting them no. Threatening to, yes.
If they jump at you and try to hurt you after you threaten them, that's when you shoot them.

OK, so I have 2 questions:

1. did his wife have a reasonable belief that this guy was threatening her with serious bodily injury?

If "no", then she had no right to pull a gun on him; If "yes", she woulod have been justified if she had shot him.


2. why in the world whould it be ok to threaten someone with a gun when shooting them would be wrong? that makes no sense to me. I think if you pull a gun on someone you'd better be prepared (and justified) in killing them.

I disagree with keruvalia's point, but I dislike the implication that guns are the only effective means of sorting out this kind of situation.

But they are the easiest way to deal with it. it can take years to be trained in self defense, and just weeks to be proficient enough with a gun to kill someone with it, if needs be.

I used to be pretty anti-gun, but NS has slowly changed my views on it. Now my only problem is with the minority who wish to force me to carry a gun, something I morally object to. I also believe that since no physical harm came to either party, then what is the down side in this particular situation? There was a threat of deadly violence, but that's a far cry from it actually being a reality. It put the ball squarely in that guys court. Nobody would cause that man to be shot but him.

Kudos to your wife, but I can't say I like the idea of peoples being able to carry firearms. I'm from Los Angeles, CA. So I'm sure you've at least heard of our politics concerning gun control.

He might have knocked more things off her desk.

yah... or started in on her. The gun made certain that that wouldn't happen.

OK, so I have 2 questions:

1. did his wife have a reasonable belief that this guy was threatening her with serious bodily injury?

If "no", then she had no right to pull a gun on him; If "yes", she woulod have been justified if she had shot him.


2. why in the world whould it be ok to threaten someone with a gun when shooting them would be wrong? that makes no sense to me. I think if you pull a gun on someone you'd better be prepared (and justified) in killing them.
1: he was trashing her office, yelling, and threatening violence. I would have pulled a gun on him if I had one. As another poster said, he was likely working himself up to an attack.

2: You threaten a person with a gun to prevent them from doing something that would require you to shoot them. Would it have been better if she had not revealed that she was armed until he had climbed over her desk and started throttling her?

Remember, in the situation, no one was hurt, the man left, cooled off, and reflected on how stupid what he had just done had been. By threatening him, she arguably could have saved him from jailtime, (If he hurt her) or getting shot (if she managed to shoot him.)

And honestly, I would rather be threatened with a gun than shot with one.

We gonna start shooting people over what they "might" do, now?

How very Minority Report.

Well if the slob had showed some manners in the first place... it is poor form to go into someone else's office and start acting crazy.

Kudos to your wife, but I can't say I like the idea of peoples being able to carry firearms. I'm from Los Angeles, CA. So I'm sure you've at least heard of our politics concerning gun control.

Both my wife and I have concealed carry permits, which are available in Virginia to anyone who can legally own a firearm.

Additionally, open carry without a license is also legal for anyone who can legally own a firearm.

But they are the easiest way to deal with it. it can take years to be trained in self defense, and just weeks to be proficient enough with a gun to kill someone with it, if needs be.

I used to be pretty anti-gun, but NS has slowly changed my views on it. Now my only problem is with the minority who wish to force me to carry a gun, something I morally object to. I also believe that since no physical harm came to either party, then what is the down side in this particular situation? There was a threat of deadly violence, but that's a far cry from it actually being a reality. It put the ball squarely in that guys court. Nobody would cause that man to be shot but him.

good post. he caused the stir and might have continued it if not for her gun.

words don't work with some people.

Your wife was a sheep, but now she has bear arms? Dude, I'm calling PETA.

Well if the slob had showed some manners in the first place... it is poor form to go into someone else's office and start acting crazy.

Yes ... I'll remember to point a gun at my kid next time they put their elbows on the table during dinner. Bad manners is justifiable, right?

From the story:

So this morning, she told me that the guy was coming in to pick up his last paycheck - and that she was expecting trouble.

She could have easily had a couple of co-workers in the room with her. She didn't need the firearm. Chances are likely she merely disgruntled him more. We shall wait and see what happens.

If you live by the sword, you will die by it.

Well, I'm glad she's no longer being abused, and that the guy in the office didn't hurt anyone, but it bears reminding that violence, especially the lethal kind, is not something to be taken lightly.

I personally don't mind if reasonable people have guns, as long as they only use them in extremely extreme circumstances. I personally would have bought her a non-lethal option, like a tazer or something. 2000(?)V will change an office-destroyers or wife-beaters mind, probably just as quickly as a gun. From what I've heard, they hurt like nothing you'd believe, but they won't kill.

1: he was trashing her office, yelling, and threatening violence. I would have pulled a gun on him if I had one. As another poster said, he was likely working himself up to an attack.

2: You threaten a person with a gun to prevent them from doing something that would require you to shoot them. Would it have been better if she had not revealed that she was armed until he had climbed over her desk and started throttling her?

Remember, in the situation, no one was hurt, the man left, cooled off, and reflected on how stupid what he had just done had been. By threatening him, she arguably could have saved him from jailtime, (If he hurt her) or getting shot (if she managed to shoot him.)

And honestly, I would rather be threatened with a gun that shot with one.


I didn't indicate that I thought she shouldn't have pulled the gun. My first question was in response to folks debating whether she should have -- the issue of whether she was justified in pulling the gun is solely related to whether she reasonably believed she was being threatened with serious bodily injury -- that was my only point in question #1.

Question #2 was in response to the idea that it would have been ok to threaten him but not ok to shoot him -- that's backwards thinking. It's ONLY ok to threaten someone with deadly force if in fact you would have been justified in actually killing the person.

If she had shot the guy, I'm sure she would have been smart enough to have explained the situation to the cops in a way that they were convinced she waqs in fear for her life (Whispering legs would have made sure she knew what to say).

But, by not shooting the guy, now there are 2 people with competeing stories ... if her story is only as it has been related to us, the4n she's on thin ice in defending herself to a charge of assault with a deadly weapon.

Bottom line: if you pull a gun on someone and there are only 2 people involved, you'd better have a darned good story or be the only witness standing.

EDIT: and her letter opener with the dead guy's finger prints on it would be laying on the office floor...

Keru, he waited for the co-workers to leave, and then he came in the building.

She knows that she is the ultimate arbiter of her own security.

Well done. Your wife instantly defused a volatile situation. No-one was hurt, and the only thing slightly damaged might be the antagonist's pride. Though far less than if he had to go home with beating a woman on his conscience.

Keruvalia, with all due respect, perhaps you are speaking more from your theoretical ideology than from honestly evaluating the facts? I would think that a dispassionate analysis would suggest that of all alternatives, WL's wife made excellent judgement calls in this situation?

WL, I deeply respect you for how you help women protect themselves from abuse. I live in Canada, but I'm spending more and more time thinking of how to help train my 7-year-old daughter protect herself in future. There are some opportunities for martial arts training that are still legal here...

Yes ... I'll remember to point a gun at my kid next time they put their elbows on the table during dinner. Bad manners is justifiable, right?

From the story:



She could have easily had a couple of co-workers in the room with her. She didn't need the firearm. Chances are likely she merely disgruntled him more. We shall wait and see what happens.

If you live by the sword, you will die by it.

his behavior should not be her responsibility to prevent.

he got out of hand, and especially if she was alone, I would imagine that she felt alarmed that he might try to get rough.

in such a case, imo she is well within her right to take preventive measures.

she didn't shoot him; she made sure that no physical harm was done to either of them and as a side-effect, she spared the office from further wanton destruction.

Underemployed Pirates Quote:


I didn't indicate that I thought she shouldn't have pulled the gun. My first question was in response to folks debating whether she should have -- the issue of whether she was justified in pulling the gun is solely related to whether she reasonably believed she was being threatened with serious bodily injury -- that was my only point in question #1.

and it seems obvious that she did believe so.

Question #2 was in response to the idea that it would have been ok to threaten him but not ok to shoot him -- that's backwards thinking. It's ONLY ok to threaten someone with deadly force if in fact you would have been justified in actually killing the person.
again, I would disagree. You are justified in threatening to shoot someone in order to stop them from doing something that would justify you shooting them. (I.E. pulling a gun on someone and saying "If you try to hurt me, I'll shoot.") It is a warning as much as a threat, and put the descision solely in his hands. She was just telling him what she would do if he came at her.

If she had shot the guy, I'm sure she would have been smart enough to have explained the situation to the cops in a way that they were convinced she waqs in fear for her life (Whispering legs would have made sure she knew what to say).

But, by not shooting the guy, now there are 2 people with competeing stories ... if her story is only as it has been related to us, the4n she's on thin ice in defending herself to a charge of assault with a deadly weapon.

Bottom line: if you pull a gun on someone and there are only 2 people involved, you'd better have a darned good story or be the only witness standing. So she should have shot him just to cover her ass?

She knows that she is the ultimate arbiter of her own security.

Then why do we have a police force?

She was expecting trouble and allowed herself to be alone with the guy anyway.

She may not be a sheep, but that ain't the smartest move I've seen. Even in the Army, where we had a very powerful rifle, we kept a partner at our side.

good post. he caused the stir and might have continued it if not for her gun.

words don't work with some people.
Yeah, like the deaf. You just can't talk them out of anything.

I concur with the reincarnated, intoxicated communists and the mathematical poultry, here.

Knocking stuff around an office (in conjunction with threats of bombing and assault against the boss) should be taken as a reliable indication that the individual intends violence. If the guy were just being creepy, collected his check, and walked out without saying anything, then that would not have warranted pulling out the gun. However, in this case, verbal threats of violence and actual acts of violence against small objects were both used; this should be taken seriously. Pulling a gun is a justifiable option.

That said, I also disagree with the implication that pulling a gun is the only option. It's a viable option and I will not fault anyone for choosing it in a similar case, but it's not the only option. There's also talking the guy down (but you've got to be good at negotiation) and the martial arts.

Kudos to your wife, but I can't say I like the idea of peoples being able to carry firearms. I'm from Los Angeles, CA. So I'm sure you've at least heard of our politics concerning gun control. Actually, I'm not all that familiar with gun control polciies in Los Angeles. COuld you elaborate, please?

Your wife was a sheep, but now she has bear arms? Dude, I'm calling PETA.:p

...

I noticed the following posts while previewing my own:
She could have easily had a couple of co-workers in the room with her. She didn't need the firearm. Chances are likely she merely disgruntled him more. We shall wait and see what happens.Keruvalia does have a point here, I must admit. If she was expecting trouble, then she should not have left herself in a position where she would have to confront the guy alone.

I personally don't mind if reasonable people have guns, as long as they only use them in extremely extreme circumstances. I personally would have bought her a non-lethal option, like a tazer or something. 2000(?)V will change an office-destroyers or wife-beaters mind, probably just as quickly as a gun. From what I've heard, they hurt like nothing you'd believe, but they won't kill.I've heard of tazers, but from what I heard, the electrodes (when shot) need to contact the target, and is not quickly reset for another shot. Either that, or the tazer is the kind that must be used at melee range. Either kind has more tactical limitations than a normal firearm.

I'd suggest tranquilizer pistols, but I don't know how fast those tranquilizers work.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."

and it seems obvious that she did believe so.
again, I would disagree. You are justified in threatening to shoot someone in order to stop them from doing something that would justify you shooting them. (I.E. pulling a gun on someone and saying "If you try to hurt me, I'll shoot.") It is a warning as much as a threat, and put the descision solely in his hands. She was just telling him what she would do if he came at her.
So she should have shot him just to cover her ass?

No No No

why would you be justified in shooting someone but not be justified inkilling them?

If you would be justified in killing them, you're justified in pulling the gun. If you wouldn't be justified in killing them, then you are not justified in pulling the gun. Shooting someone just to wound them is the worst thing you can do....any police officer or instructor in concealed handgun courses will tell you that. You shoot center mass to "stop the threat". You don't shoot to wound them or to slow them down or to get them to change their mind. If this guy was out-of-control nuts or on speed, it may have taken several rounds (or more) to the chest to have stopped him...

threatening deadliy force is only justified if your'e justified in the actual use of deadly force.

Was she justified in pulling the gun? I don't know from the facts given

Then why do we have a police force?

She was expecting trouble and allowed herself to be alone with the guy anyway.

Funny thing, the police can't always get there. Look how many people walk fist first through restraining orders.

Expecting trouble and knowing when it will happen are two very different things. He came in there knowing she was alone. Having more people or a different (non gun) reaction may have made him leave but who's to say he wouldn't have come back later, when she was agian alone, and caused physical harm.

I don't like guns, they make me nervous. If I were trained, as she was, I believe I would also have pulled a weapon. She was alone, she was threatned, she did try to difuse the situation. It didn't work. She pulled her gun. It worked.
I hope this man stays scared and stays away from now on.
Continue your good work WL, and give big hugs and support to your "non sheep" :p

and it seems obvious that she did believe so.
again, I would disagree. You are justified in threatening to shoot someone in order to stop them from doing something that would justify you shooting them. (I.E. pulling a gun on someone and saying "If you try to hurt me, I'll shoot.") It is a warning as much as a threat, and put the descision solely in his hands. She was just telling him what she would do if he came at her.
So she should have shot him just to cover her ass?


Threatening deadly force is only justified if the use of the deadly force would have been justified.

The worst thing she could have done was to have tried merely to shoot him. If your'e going to shoot someone in self-defense, you shoot at center mass and to "stop the threat". If this nutso guy was on speed, merely displaying the gun might not have stopped him and shooting him once in the finger would have resulted in her death.... At least 2 shots center mass most likely would have killed him. If she were justified in pulling the gun, it would have been a righteous killing.

If she truly reasonably believed that he was threatening her with serious bodily injury, then she would not have been "covering her ass" in killing him. She would have been saving her life! (which is a good thing)

You can't be justified in merely shooting someone but not also be justified if the punk dies.

This gives me an idea....carry an unloaded gun! All the fear factor, without any possibility of violence (unless you start pistol-whipping and smacking people with the handle, which works too). However, as a pacifist, I believe negotiation should always be tried first...which the lady in question used. A perfect example of nonviolence. Bravo!

Funny thing, the police can't always get there.

She was expecting trouble. She could have easily had a police presense in her office before he arrived to pick up his check.

It's what they do.

I'm glad that the lady has the right to arm herself. I'm fortunate to have that right as well.

In my community more than 90% of the citizens have firearms. Crime against property and person is virtually non-existent.

not to sound rude, but if she was expecting problems, why didn't she ask to have security there, or police? And isn't it SOP to have security escort people out of the building after they are fired?

Personally, I think people should be allowed to own a gun if they are licensed. We have to be licensed AND insured to drive a 2000 lb chariot of death (cars) but not to fire a gun...just doesn't make sense to me.

This is one reason I don't understand why women in general are against gun rights. Face it, most men can physically dominate a woman, and a gun is the truest equalizer. A woman well trained in firing a gun is just as dangerous as a man, and that's all there is to it.

And also, things like this are one reason I will always support responsible people being allowed handguns. Assault rifles and shotguns and so on are still in debate, but we cannot afford to be at the whims and abilities of the police. We have to be able to protect ourselves, when necessary.

same's a bow.

She was expecting trouble. She could have easily had a police presense in her office.

I have to put this one out the the group. I have no personal experience with needing police protection but do know that when a friend of mine was being threatned by an ex the police offered her no protection when he came to pick up his stuff.

Has anyone had something like this where police came on a "suspicion", with no evidence or prior violent behavior?

I have to put this one out the the group. I have no personal experience with needing police protection but do know that when a friend of mine was being threatned by an ex the police offered her no protection when he came to pick up his stuff.

They don't offer. You have to ask. You also have to ask the right department.

With rights, including the right to protection, comes responsibilities.

My last comment:

If I were the first police officer on the scene, I would have asked her {hint hint} if she were in fear for her life {hint hint} and the police report would have indicated how threatening he was and how fearful she was....

Then, I would have quietly encouraged her on proactive, non-violent, risk-avoidant methods that might have been used in the situation (ask someone to saty in the office with her at all times; go to lunch with everyone else; etc.).

They don't offer. You have to ask. You also have to ask the right department.

My wording bad...she did request help. Asked who to talk to, etc. I believe the answer was "call us if he gives you trouble while he's there. We don't have the personell to devote to you right now."

Personally I'd learn Karate rather than use a gun if I know the odds are that I'll end up in physical danger, but that's just my philosophy.

In the situation, good moves.

-avoidant methods that might have been used in the situation (ask someone to saty in the office with her at all times; go to lunch with everyone else; etc.).

Sensible, but sad. I'd hate to have to live my life in that kind of fear. :(

Sensible, but sad. I'd hate to have to live my life in that kind of fear. :(


Ok, I lied about the last comment.

I wasn't suggesting a permanenet life-style change. I was suggesting a temporary change in behavior for this limited situation so that the lady handing out the checks wouldn't be alone when the company knew that this hot head was around.

HEY WL:
But, frankly, it might not be a bad idea for the company to make some adjustments on how pay-checks for fired employees are distributed.

Sensible, but sad. I'd hate to have to live my life in that kind of fear. :(

It's not a matter of fear. I am a teacher. We're not allowed to have firearms at work. When an employee gets fired, their paycheck is mailed to them.

I do not live in fear. I do not own a firearm.

She was expecting trouble. She could have easily had a police presense in her office before he arrived to pick up his check.

It's what they do.

And how exactly would that have taken place? She is supposed to explain to the police that a guy is coming to the office to pick up his last check and she is expecting trouble because he is generally an asshole? He hadnt made any threats up until that point. There was no set time for him to come pick up the check. Based on this the police are going to send a unit to wait in her office all day?

Where do you live that you have police coverage like this?

And how exactly would that have taken place? She is supposed to explain to the police that a guy is coming to the office to pick up his last check and she is expecting trouble because he is generally an asshole?

No ... apparently she's suppose to crouch in the corner and cower behind a firearm.

Whatev.

You all may know that I train women who are victims of domestic abuse to carry firearms. Well, my first customer was my current wife.

When I first met my wife, she had.... <modsnip>
cool :)

[Moderator Edit - Cogitation] Please don't quote an entire post if you're just making a general comment. [/modedit]

Your wife did good.

Hey, a .357... I wish I got one of those when I go out on a date. ;)

No ... apparently she's suppose to crouch in the corner and cower behind a firearm.

Whatev.
The woman defended herself. Do not even try to say that she should have "taken the chance" and confronted a violent and irrational man alone, in her office, without some form of failsafe. In this case it was a firearm, and she used it responsibly. Your a teacher, you must have some brainpower then. Figure it out.

If you dont agree with the ability to effectively defend oneself, then say so and move on. Accusing a posters wife of "cowering behind a firearm" when she was in danger of bodily harm really is pathetic.

Accusing a posters wife of "cowering behind a firearm" when she was in danger of bodily harm really is pathetic.

What danger? Children lash out all the time, throw their tantrums, and life goes on. She was in no danger of bodily harm. I don't care if he smashed everything in her office.

Fact is, she placed him in a position of deadly bodily harm over simple material possessions. She was in no danger. At all. You cannot prove that she was. He, however, was clearly in bodily danger and should have torn her head off for it. I would have.

You pull a gun on me, you damn well better use it and use it effectively.

cool :)

Snip man, for the love of god snip.

Snip man, for the love of god snip.
What's wrong with not snipping? :confused:

Keruvalia - "She was in no danger of bodily harm".

And you know this how?

What's wrong with not snipping? :confused:

Well, I've read the entire quote before. And having to scroll down annoys me. So if you don't snip, I'll carry all this pent up anger around with me, and in 30 years time I'll snap and join some hate filled terrorist organisation. So if you support not snipping, you support terrorism, and that can have you arrested indefinitely and tortured by large men with dark glasses. Your choice.

Keruvalia - "She was in no danger of bodily harm".

And you know this how?

And you know she was, how?

She is the one who pulled the gun ... she is the one who must justify it. Not the other way around.

She wouldn't have pulled the gun unless she thought she was threatened.

She was expecting trouble and allowed herself to be alone with the guy anyway.

She may not be a sheep, but that ain't the smartest move I've seen. Even in the Army, where we had a very powerful rifle, we kept a partner at our side.

Gotta agree here.


And with the martial arts - anyone can do a simple arrest. ^_^

Then why do we have a police force?

Do you honestly believe that in all situations, you should sit calmly and wait for the police? When you are being murdered and your sister is being raped, what would you rather have: time to call the police, or a loaded gun?

Do you honestly believe that in all situations, you should sit calmly and wait for the police? When you are being murdered and your sister is being raped, what would you rather have: time to call the police, or a loaded gun?

This is not a situation where waiting would have to be an option. She could have had a police officer present *before* he arrived. It's SOP in most companies.

She wouldn't have pulled the gun unless she thought she was threatened.

Not true. Even highly trained professionals make mistakes. That's why there's such a thing as "Internal Affairs". The citizenry has no such oversight.

My Wife Is Not A Sheep Anymore
Neither is Mary's little lamb.

Last week, the company she works for as a bookkeeper fired one of their drivers. He gave her what she calls "a bad feeling". So this morning, she told me that the guy was coming in to pick up his last paycheck - and that she was expecting trouble.
Problem # 1: The guy gave her a "bad feeling" and she was "expecting trouble". If she was expecting trouble, why would she allow herself to stay alone in the office?

I work about 10 minutes away, and I asked her if she wanted me to be there, but she said no. I had taught her long ago that I could not always be there in time - and she knows from experience that the police cannot always be there in time.
Problem # 2: When offered help, she refused.

Best solution I heard on this thread:

It's not a matter of fear. I am a teacher. We're not allowed to have firearms at work. When an employee gets fired, their paycheck is mailed to them.

Possible Problem # 3: The guy returns with a gun, walks in, shoots first, and asks questions later.

Possible Problem # 4: She doesn't have eyes in the back of her head.

Threatening deadly force is only justified if the use of the deadly force would have been justified.

The worst thing she could have done was to have tried merely to shoot him. If your'e going to shoot someone in self-defense, you shoot at center mass and to "stop the threat". If this nutso guy was on speed, merely displaying the gun might not have stopped him and shooting him once in the finger would have resulted in her death.... At least 2 shots center mass most likely would have killed him. If she were justified in pulling the gun, it would have been a righteous killing.

If she truly reasonably believed that he was threatening her with serious bodily injury, then she would not have been "covering her ass" in killing him. She would have been saving her life! (which is a good thing)

You can't be justified in merely shooting someone but not also be justified if the punk dies.

I didn't say that. Surely, she should have shot to defend herself most effectively if her life was in danger. But you don't have to wait to be justified in shooting someone to be justified in drawing on them. You draw on them to dissuade them from doing something that would make you shoot them. You have to be willing to shoot of course, as otherwise you may have just handed them a weapon. She pulled her gun on him to tell him that if he did attack her, she would shoot him.

And you know she was, how?

She is the one who pulled the gun ... she is the one who must justify it. Not the other way around.

So basically you are only allowed to pull a gun when they are already killing you.
I hope you live in a very well patrolled area with that philosophy!

She justified pulling the gun by his actions. She responded to a threat with a threat. If she was in no danger from the large man's fists (which he was threatening to beat her with) then he was in no danger from her gun. If he attacked her, she would respond with deadly force.

I didn't indicate that I thought she shouldn't have pulled the gun. My first question was in response to folks debating whether she should have -- the issue of whether she was justified in pulling the gun is solely related to whether she reasonably believed she was being threatened with serious bodily injury -- that was my only point in question #1.

Question #2 was in response to the idea that it would have been ok to threaten him but not ok to shoot him -- that's backwards thinking. It's ONLY ok to threaten someone with deadly force if in fact you would have been justified in actually killing the person.

If she had shot the guy, I'm sure she would have been smart enough to have explained the situation to the cops in a way that they were convinced she waqs in fear for her life (Whispering legs would have made sure she knew what to say).

But, by not shooting the guy, now there are 2 people with competeing stories ... if her story is only as it has been related to us, the4n she's on thin ice in defending herself to a charge of assault with a deadly weapon.

Bottom line: if you pull a gun on someone and there are only 2 people involved, you'd better have a darned good story or be the only witness standing.

EDIT: and her letter opener with the dead guy's finger prints on it would be laying on the office floor...
So the penalty for a billigerent attitude is the death penalty? How civilized. :(

This is not a situation where waiting would have to be an option. She could have had a police officer present *before* he arrived. It's SOP in most companies.

I abhor the idea that I should have to depend entirely on another person for my own safety.

Should have shot the prick.

If you are threatened you are legally responsible for your actions if you defend yourself whether you use fists or guns. Guns are no more lethal than a paperweight applied correctly to the noggin, yet the notion of even owning a firearm upsets people.

Why do I get the idea that some people find the concept of self defense immoral? Even a tiny field mouse, backed into a corner, will bare it's teeth in self defense against a cat.

Are they questioning the right to self-defense or questioning the judgement of the defender?

Would you defend yourself or your family if your life was threatened? Of course you would so stop with the rubbish.

I abhor the idea that I should have to depend entirely on another person for my own safety.

That is not the issue. She can protect herself, that is known, however, in circumstances where trouble is likely the police should be present to to help insure that violence doesn't happen in the first place.

Why do I get the idea that some people find the concept of self defense immoral?

I dunno. Don't ask me what you think or why.

Are they questioning the right to self-defense

No.

or questioning the judgement of the defender?

Yes.

Would you defend yourself or your family if your life was threatened?

Of course ... but I don't own a firearm.

I think it's fantastic that she felt empowered to deal with this situation should things have gotten out of hand. Congrats to her! :)

What danger? Children lash out all the time, throw their tantrums, and life goes on. She was in no danger of bodily harm. I don't care if he smashed everything in her office.


You weren't there, you absolutely cannot make that assesment. Given the circumstances, the judgment to his intentions, was hers and hers alone to make.

And aren't you the guy who shot an intruder?

If she was in no danger from the large man's fists (which he was threatening to beat her with) then he was in no danger from her gun. If he attacked her, she would respond with deadly force.
Where in the story does it say that it was a "large man"?

Also in the story, he was threatening to "attacking the boss when he came back".

The story didn't even relate that she, herself was physically threatened.

Do you think the story sounds better your way?

Kervalia - if your life was threatened would you point a firearm at the threatener(s) with the intention of pulling the trigger as a last resort?

Understanding that you have full responsibility under both civil and penal law?

What danger? Children lash out all the time, throw their tantrums, and life goes on. She was in no danger of bodily harm. I don't care if he smashed everything in her office.

Fact is, she placed him in a position of deadly bodily harm over simple material possessions. She was in no danger. At all. You cannot prove that she was. He, however, was clearly in bodily danger and should have torn her head off for it. I would have.

You pull a gun on me, you damn well better use it and use it effectively.

What if he did just go whacko and pull out a gun. At least she was ready and used good discression in not using it. Better safe than dead.

Was she justified in pulling the gun? I don't know from the facts given

What if she waited for him to pull a gun first, and she was too late and blew her head off? I still think she did the right thing.

You weren't there, you absolutely cannot make that assesment. Given the circumstances, the judgment to his intentions, was hers and hers alone to make.

And aren't you the guy who shot an intruder?

Yes. Different circumstance, though, and I also greatly regret it.

I'm saying, for the record, that her judgement was wrong. She was in no danger. I don't have to have been there to know that people throw tantrums when fired sometimes, but it rarely amounts to anything and, when it does, it's the employee returning with a shotgun.

She may have provided a catalyst for his armed return.

Not smart. She would have done better to just shoot him.

Kervalia - if your life was threatened would you point a firearm at the threatener(s) with the intention of pulling the trigger as a last resort?

If my life were threatened, yes. Her life was not.

What if he did just go whacko and pull out a gun. At least she was ready and used good discression in not using it. Better safe than dead.

He didn't. There is also no mention in the story of him being armed. We cannot predict that which did not happen.

We also cannot live our lives based on a "what if".

What if a rock fell out of the sky and smashed you in the head? Better wear a helmet.

If my life were threatened, yes. Her life was not.
How did she know that? People go off out of no where all the time! I am sure she felt her life was threatened or wouldn't have made the choice she did.

How did she know that? People go off out of no where all the time! I am sure she felt her life was threatened or wouldn't have made the choice she did.

He knocked some stuff over and made not one threat against her, only against the "bosses".

Her judgement was off. I suspect she just felt she needed to show off. People with guns are often itchy to display them. Power complex and all that rot.

He didn't. There is also no mention in the story of him being armed. We cannot predict that which did not happen.

We also cannot live our lives based on a "what if".

What if a rock fell out of the sky and smashed you in the head? Better wear a helmet.

This 'disgruntled worker' thing happens far too often to take a chance. And she didn't shoot.

I'll go put on my helmet now... :p

Good work, WL. Responsible firearm possession and use is the key to not letting any asshole with or without a gun walk all over you. She did what seems the right thing, and there was no bloodshed or police. Sounds like a "pass" in my book.

Keru, I know you like tree-climbing, but that limb you're going out on looks to me a wee bit ill-supported, structurally speaking. ;)

If my life were threatened, yes. Her life was not.
Hindsight is 20/20, Keruvalia. Could you, in her situation, say with 100% certainty that that guy was just venting his frustration at the furnishings, or would you not perhaps believe that maybe he has the intention of escalating things? As for saying that he was in physical danger, this has an implication to it. That WL wife was going to pull the trigger and shoot him for no reason. I would give her the benefit of the doubt and say that she was merely controlling that situation to the best of her, to anyones, ability. The only way that man would have been in danger is if he proceeded to attack her. Other than that, he was just as safe as she turned out to be. Perhaps without the metaphorical bowl of cold water flung over his head, he could have escalated the situation, and there could have been one, or two people in the hospital. The decision WLs wife took was the best for preventing any violence on either half. Unless, that is, you believe that WLs wife was prepared to fire for no reason than "just because".

I didn't say that. Surely, she should have shot to defend herself most effectively if her life was in danger. But you don't have to wait to be justified in shooting someone to be justified in drawing on them. You draw on them to dissuade them from doing something that would make you shoot them. You have to be willing to shoot of course, as otherwise you may have just handed them a weapon. She pulled her gun on him to tell him that if he did attack her, she would shoot him.


Ok, look...I'm not trying to be a smart-ass (really, I'm not). But, you just don't understand the legal issue of justification as it relates to threats to use deadly force. If a person would not be justified in the actual act of shooting someone (to death) with a gun, then the threat to use deadly force (displaying the gun) to ward off some person is unjustified.

If she would not have been justified to have killed the guy, she was not justified in threatening to shoot him. If she were justified in threatening to shoot him, then she would have been justified in shooting him (to death). That's simply the law on justification.

There is no such thing as justification in threatening to use deadly force but not being justified in actually using deadly force.

I've had my share of hostile fire in Viet Nam, and I know what it's like to be scared out of one's wits. After my second tour (ended abruptly), I ultimately went to law school and was an assistant DA for 4 years. And, I live in Houston, and I have a concealed handgun license. I am very familiar with the topic in this thread.

I carry when I'm with my family at night and all the time I'm with my family arounde Thanksgiving through Christmas (shopping season = high crime time). I carry when we're on trips. I know what it's like to feel like someone is pondering my vulnerability, and I'm particularly aware of my surroundings. I haven't been in the "civilian" situation that WL's wife was in where she was basically trapped in the trailer.

It's better to live to tell stories to your grandchildren, but you also have to be aware that you could spend time in the slammer if you wrongfully threaten another person with deadly forces. If you have money, the least that might happen is that you get sued civilly by the person you threatened (and left alive to tell the story).

So, if you pull a gun, you'd better be justified in killing the person.

Keru, I know you like tree-climbing, but that limb you're going out on looks to me a wee bit ill-supported, structurally speaking. ;)

Oh it's comfortable, trust me. It may look unstable, but it will hold longer than any of the others.

...
I live in Canada, but I'm spending more and more time thinking of how to help train my 7-year-old daughter protect herself in future. There are some opportunities for martial arts training that are still legal here...Are there some types of martial arts training that are illegal?

Then why do we have a police force?To keep the masses in line.

You all may know that I train women who are victims of domestic abuse to carry firearms. Well, my first customer was my current wife.

When I first met my wife, she had been in a marriage full of domestic abuse, followed by years of being stalked and beaten by her ex-husband.

When I first started dating her, the first present I bought her was not a ring or jewelry, but a short 357 Mag revolver. Over the past couple of years being married, her ex-husband, after learning she was CCW and armed, has left her alone (and actually is polite).

She likes to shoot, and to carry, and I thought the story had ended there.

Last week, the company she works for as a bookkeeper fired one of their drivers. He gave her what she calls "a bad feeling". So this morning, she told me that the guy was coming in to pick up his last paycheck - and that she was expecting trouble.

I work about 10 minutes away, and I asked her if she wanted me to be there, but she said no. I had taught her long ago that I could not always be there in time - and she knows from experience that the police cannot always be there in time.

The guy waited for the rest of the crew to go to lunch, then he came in the trailer where she works. He got his last paycheck, and then started making threats about blowing the place up, about attacking the boss when he came back, and other statements. My wife said, "You're done here, and you have your check. You need to close my door and leave this place."

He then started knocking things over in her office, and knocked things off her desk, and leaned over her desk into her face.

She had already had the revolver out, on the pull tray for the keyboard under the desktop, and she stood and pointed it at him. She told him to get out.

Quietly, and without turning around, he left without saying a word.

The other guys that worked there came back from lunch to find her shaking, just as I got there (she sent me an instant message).

She's still really up on the adrenaline - she says she feels like she needs to do something - and she says she wants to go to the range tonight.

She also said that for the first time since she's had the gun, she feels empowered. She said that she was not sure if she had been in a bad situation, she would be prepared to use the gun or show good judgment. But now she feels confident - she says that it was crystal clear what she should do and how far she should go.

I told her I was very proud of her - and I am.
Hallelujah! Guns are the answers to all of life's problems. I mean, it's not like a gun introduced to a scenario by the "innocent" party ever escalated the situation, or got taken off them and used by the aggressor.[/sarcasm]

Well, here's my take on this:

The situation was preventable. If the police couldn't be present, then a couple of co-workers could have been present to protect her. There was ample opportunity for her to avoid ever being alone, given that she was expecting trouble.

That said, failing to prevent the situation does not mean that you have to be a victim of that situation. Damaging material possessions in a violent and intimidating manner, threatening to "blow up" the place, and threatening to attack the boss are distinctly anti-social behaviors. One may reasonably infer from such behavior that the man is a grave threat to those around him.This is not a situation where waiting would have to be an option. She could have had a police officer present *before* he arrived. It's SOP in most companies.I agree with you on this point.

What danger? Children lash out all the time, throw their tantrums, and life goes on. She was in no danger of bodily harm. I don't care if he smashed everything in her office.

Fact is, she placed him in a position of deadly bodily harm over simple material possessions. She was in no danger. At all. You cannot prove that she was.With all due respect, I'm confused as to how discussions of the behavior of children come into play here. The subject in question was a fully-grown man.

Tantrums from children are generally not acceptable, but I would expect some children to have tantrums some of the time. I would be far more alarmed at an adult having a tantrum.He, however, was clearly in bodily danger and should have torn her head off for it. I would have.

You pull a gun on me, you damn well better use it and use it effectively.I don't know you well, but I assume that you are not the kind of individual to (without provocation) threaten to blow up a business, threaten to attack the boss, or pillage an office. Thus, I don't think that a comparison between you and the man under discussion is valid.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
Founder and Delegate of The Realm of Ambrosia

...

He knocked some stuff over and made not one threat against her, only against the "bosses".

Her judgement was off. I suspect she just felt she needed to show off. People with guns are often itchy to display them. Power complex and all that rot.Exercise extreme caution before presuming things about the motivations or intentions of other NationStates players or their close relatives. This could be construed as trolling.

Just some official advice, not an official warning.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

With all due respect, I'm confused as to how discussions of the behavior of children come into play here. The subject in question was a fully-grown man.


Adults throw tantrums, too. It's a well documented fact. Being "grown up" doesn't usually change much of anything except height and weight. Everything from an expired grocery coupon to a sports team losing can enact tantrums in adults.

They're generally harmless.


Exercise extreme caution before presuming things about the motivations or intentions of other NationStates players or their close relatives. This could be construed as trolling.


Well ... to be fair ... this whole thread is about assumed intentions. I am merely pointing out that it can go either way. If she can assume his intentions, why can't someone assume hers? It smacks of South Park. Where they go hunting and it's ok to shoot anything so long as you shout "It's coming right for me!" first.

Inentions must always be assumed. They can never be known unless declared. The man in question declared his intention to attack the bosses upon their return. She was in no danger as she was not one of the bosses.

WL knows I have nothing but respect for him (at least, I would hope so) and wouldn't troll him in such a manner. He and I disagree on the gun issue, but that's life. :)

we cannot afford to be at the whims and abilities of the police. We have to be able to protect ourselves, when necessary.
Funny how in most European countries we depend on the police a lot more (less of an armed populace) than Americans, and yet we have less murders per capita than America.

All due respect, this thread has a weird title.
Yes, I thought it might be WL's confession of former beastiality!

What danger? Children lash out all the time, throw their tantrums, and life goes on. She was in no danger of bodily harm. I don't care if he smashed everything in her office.


The flaw in your argument seems fairly obvious to me. She was a thing in her office. There is a good possibility that he would have gotten around to smashing her if she hadn't stoped him.


Her decision was the middle ground between killing him and letting him do whatever he wanted. The latter would have left her in extreme danger. The former would have eliminated all danger to her. Her choice reduced the danger while giving him the opportunity to back out of the confrontation.

In a small trailor it would have been fairly for him to close the distance between them and attack her with his bare hands or any convienent weapon if the first shot didn't dring him down. To be safe, she should have shot to kill without warning. However, experience has proven her decision to be the correct one. It worked.

Inentions must always be assumed. They can never be known unless declared. The man in question declared his intention to attack the bosses upon their return. She was in no danger as she was not one of the bosses.

WL knows I have nothing but respect for him (at least, I would hope so) and wouldn't troll him in such a manner. He and I disagree on the gun issue, but that's life. :)

You're assuming that he didn't see killing her as a good way to pass the time while waiting for the boss.

I'm reminded of the video game Tenchu. In this game you play as a ninja assasin working for a feudal japanese lord. In the first stage the ninja is sent on a mission to kill a corrupt merchant. This merchant has many employees but killing them isn't the ninja's intention. Killing the merchant is. However, killing the employees results in a higher score and makes getting to the merchant safely much easier.


Killing her would make it easier for him to kill the boss, certainly. And it would be a fun diversion. And it would allow him to steal some checks and possibly some cash. Why wouldn't he do it?

Knocking some stuff around an office is not justifiable reason to point a deadly weapon at someone. It simply isn't. Your wife could be arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

You should teach her to be more discriminating.

Depends where they live, if it's Flordia she could of blasted gats as soon as he raised his voice.

Personally though I think that situation didn't require a gun, a man throwing a temper tantrum in an office is reason to leave the office and call the cops.

That said, I'm glad she's safe.

PS: The only people who really need to carry guns to do their jobs are cops, soldiers and gangsters.

Both my wife and I have concealed carry permits, which are available in Virginia to anyone who can legally own a firearm.

Additionally, open carry without a license is also legal for anyone who can legally own a firearm.In some places like Virginia it all comes down to whoever can draw his gun faster...

you want to be Tiger Woods?

I wanna be Billy-The-Kid :mp5: :D :D :D

Makes an excellent argument for having a weapon and knowing how to use one, don't it! :D

She thought her life was in danger. Some people think it wasn't.

Who was there? She was, not you.

Who bears the legal responsibility if an error was made? She does, not you.

I think this thread, among other things, is about the right to self-defense, individual judgement, and personal responsibility. Not Monday morning quarterbacks arguing circumstance they have no knowledge of.

Depends where they live, if it's Flordia she could of blasted gats as soon as he raised his voice.

Personally though I think that situation didn't require a gun, a man throwing a temper tantrum in an office is reason to leave the office and call the cops.

That said, I'm glad she's safe.

PS: The only people who really need to carry guns to do their jobs are cops, soldiers and gangsters.


"Really need to carry", is that the standard? As opposed to "kinda would be ok to carry"? When traveling with my family at night, my primary job is to get them to the destination safely. I'm in a trailer and responsible for handing out paychecks, my primary job would be to live to see my spouse at the end of the day... in either setting, I wouldn't ponder whether I "really needed" to carry.

Do I even need to post about this...?

My opinion.... (http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/SyniksFriendsSM2.jpg)will just irritate Canuck & Keru.

Do I even need to post about this...?

My opinion.... (http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/SyniksFriendsSM2.jpg)will just irritate Canuck & Keru.

Why would that irritate me? I'm a US Army Ranger ... my MOS was 18B. I've handled my share of firearms. They don't offend me.

Well, there simply is not enough information in WL's original post to indicate that his wife had a reasonable belief that she was in imminent danger of serious bodily injury. So, without that data piece, she loses in a criminal trial on the threat to use deadly force.

If you'll review my posts, you'll see that I agree with Keru on this issue: the "correct" action would have been to have killed the guy without issuing the warning.

The fact that he backed away is irrelevant to the quality of her decision...he very well could have lunged at her and killed her with her own gun, back away but come back to kill her, bombed the trailer, etc. etc. or he could have gone to the police and filed charges on her.

If you fear for your life, you shoot (at least twice) to "stop the threat"....you don't issue a warning and let the perp leave in order to kill you later or to get you in trouble with the law.

Well, there simply is not enoughinformationin WL's original post to indicate that his wife had a reasonable belief that she was in imminent danger of serious bodily injury. So, without that data piece, she loses in a criminal trial on the threat to use deadly force.If the bad-guy were to file charges, which he won't, because he would lose his malicious mischief/threatening/vandalisim case too. But then, her case would be up to the Jury to decide whether they accept his testamony and whether they felt she felt frightened. His trial, however, is cut and dried on at least two counts.

If you'll review my posts, you'll see that I agree with Keru on this issue: the "correct" action would have been to have killed the guy without issuing the warning. The fact that he backed away is irrelevant to the quality of her decision...he very well could have come back to kill her, bombed the trailer, etc. etc. or he could have gone to the police and filed charges on her. (1) the incident as described would not have warranted police response before the beligerant's arrival, but mandated (in my jurisdiction anyway) rapid response as soon as she dialed 911 after he arrived/left. A secondary attempt would have certainly been fatal - for him.
(2) See above on why he wouldn't file charges himself.

If you fear for your life, you shoot (at least twice) to "stop the threat"....you don't issue a warning and let the perp leave in order to kill you later or to get you in trouble with the law.Ah yes, the double standard of Law Enforcement. When I was in LE you damn well better have given warning (if physically possible) before shooting. Your objective was to NOT shoot if at all possible. But the laws for civillians are so screwed up that it becomes more "legal" to kak the guy just to CYA. :mad:

Yes ... I'll remember to point a gun at my kid next time they put their elbows on the table during dinner. Bad manners is justifiable, right?

From the story:



She could have easily had a couple of co-workers in the room with her. She didn't need the firearm. Chances are likely she merely disgruntled him more. We shall wait and see what happens.

If you live by the sword, you will die by it.
And those that simply stick their heads in the sand when faced with a sword are often killed by it too.
Fancy that.

No ... apparently she's suppose to crouch in the corner and cower behind a firearm.

Whatev.

You are the one who made the assertion that she would be able to receive police protection. So you make a snide remark when I point out that it would not have been possible for her have had police protection?

And she didnt cower. She behaved rationaly and civilly. When the other person broke the rules, she contained the situation. Nothing more, nothing less.

Though, it is becoming painfully clear why you are unable to understand this.

She behaved rationaly and civilly.

Pulling a firearm on someone is neither rational, nor civil.

*snip*
Ah yes, the double standard of Law Enforcement. When I was in LE you damn well better have given warning (if physically possible) before shooting. Your objective was to NOT shoot if at all possible. But the laws for civillians are so screwed up that it becomes more "legal" to kak the guy just to CYA. :mad:

The issue involves a civilian, not an officer. Yes, the rules are different, but not for CYA purposes.

Ex.: officers draw on a nutcase who has his back to them and is holding a rifle by the barrel (like Tiger with a 4 wood)...they yell out at him, he turns around and slowly walks toward them, screaming at them. Can they cap him when he is 20 yards away? No. There is no "imminent" threat to them...they are trained and have some time to try to talk him down.

On the other hand, a civilian who is carrying wouldn't draw in him to start with
and certainly wouldn't invite the confrontation. But, if the nutcase turns and starts doing the same thing, the civilian better pull his gun and fire until the threat is over.

What kind of fact pattern would give an officer the go-ahead to draw may not give him the go-ahead to fire....you can draw on a car thief, but you better not fire unless your life is in danger. A civilian who is authorized by law to draw is only authorized to do so when the threat of serious bodily injury or death exists...in those cases the civilian is always authorized by law to fire. In certain situations in Texas, there is a presumption of the threat (ex.: night-time burglar of your home).

Pulling a firearm on someone is neither rational, nor civil.


We part company here. Your generalization is simply too extreme.

Yes. Different circumstance, though, and I also greatly regret it.

I'm saying, for the record, that her judgement was wrong. She was in no danger. I don't have to have been there to know that people throw tantrums when fired sometimes, but it rarely amounts to anything and, when it does, it's the employee returning with a shotgun.

She may have provided a catalyst for his armed return.

Not smart. She would have done better to just shoot him.
And sometimes tantrums escalate into physical violence. To say that her judgement was wrong without access to the full array of facts, is arrogant. Are you such an expert on the matter that you can say without a doubt that there was no threat of violence. Note the keyword in your post, it rarely amounts to anything . We all know, it can never happen here, it can never happen to us.

Fact is, unless you're God (and I highly doubt you are), you don't know what the man could have done, would have done, and more importantly, was planning on doing. (Unless you were that man, something else I doubt.)

Pulling a firearm on someone is neither rational, nor civil.

Actually this is inaccurate to the extreme.

A raving madman smashing up an office making threats of bombing and assault is neither rational, nor civil. The presence of a gun stopped his irrational and uncivilized behavior and allowed him to make a rational choice, leaving with his life.

Pulling a firearm on someone is neither rational, nor civil.
When the situation has escalated to that point, civility is often the least of one's concerns. And really, defending one's self isn't supposed to be civil.

He didn't. There is also no mention in the story of him being armed. We cannot predict that which did not happen.

I think you should listen to your own advice here, as large portions of your arguement are that the man wouldn't have turned violent and therefore her actions were unjustified.
Fact is, we can't really prove he would have, just as you can't prove he wouldn't have.

A raving madman smashing up an office making threats of bombing and assault is neither rational, nor civil.

Didn't say it was.

However, he wasn't a raving madman. He'd just been fired. That tends to cause people to lash out. Anyone with any sense and the ability to speak can defuse it rather easily.

Words are civil. Weapons are not.

Fact is, we can't really prove he would have, just as you can't prove he wouldn't have.

If you can't prove he would have, then pulling a weapon is not justifiable.

Didn't say it was.

However, he wasn't a raving madman. He'd just been fired. That tends to cause people to lash out. Anyone with any sense and the ability to speak can defuse it rather easily.

Words are civil. Weapons are not.

Well, until we get mandatory aggression inhibitors to keep dumbshits like that from lashing out, then you really have no point sir.

Well, until we get mandatory aggression inhibitors to keep dumbshits like that from lashing out, then you really have no point sir.

So what if he had been told his wife had just died in a horrible car accident? His reaction would have been very similar. Gonna pull a gun on him for that, too?

I stand by it. Words are civil. Weapons are not.

The flaw in your argument seems fairly obvious to me. She was a thing in her office. There is a good possibility that he would have gotten around to smashing her if she hadn't stoped him.

Her decision was the middle ground between killing him and letting him do whatever he wanted.
The flaw in your argument is that you ignore the facts before this altercation:

"Last week, the company she works for as a bookkeeper fired one of their drivers. He gave her what she calls "a bad feeling". So this morning, she told me that the guy was coming in to pick up his last paycheck - and that she was expecting trouble."

Having a "bad feeling" and "expecting trouble", she chose to expose herself to potential danger. Not only did she refuse WL's offered assistance, she allowed herself to be alone in the office. Why did she choose to place herself in a possible situation that could be confrontational?

Her choice reduced the danger while giving him the opportunity to back out of the confrontation.
Actually, her "choices" increased her chance of danger, and her "choice" to pull the gun could have resulted in his death, her death, or the death of both of them. It happens even with trained professionals.

To be safe, she should have shot to kill without warning.
Because someone becomes angry because they were fired is reason to invoke the death penalty? That is not sane rational thinking for sure.

To be safe, she shouldn't have placed herself in harms way. To rely solely on her gun, indicates a willingness to resolve any confrontational situation by pulling her gun, which means that she was going to be willing to use deadly force if necessary.

BTW, we know little about this fired driver. Does he have a criminal record? Is he the sole provider for his family? Is he a generally angry person? Why was he fired? Why did WL's wife "expect trouble"?

I think this is a case of trouble looking for a place to happen and WL's wife played the accomplice.

Depends where they live, if it's Flordia she could of blasted gats as soon as he raised his voice.*CanuckHeaven* makes note to never plan anymore vacations in Florida.

Great to hear whispering legs! This is a prime example of how guns should be used!

Do I even need to post about this...?

My opinion.... (http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/SyniksFriendsSM2.jpg)will just irritate Canuck & Keru.
I have fired bigger guns than those. Try a 105 MM Howitzer shell. Although our rifles were wimpy FNC1's.

Personally I'd learn Karate rather than use a gun if I know the odds are that I'll end up in physical danger, but that's just my philosophy.

In the situation, good moves.

Problem is, martial arts are a crappy deterent, and are not effective in many situations, such as while you are sitting down behind a desk, or if your opponent is much larger than you. A gun can keep someone from doing something stupid, and is nearly always more effective than fisticuffs.

Sorry, but if you have the right to carry a gun and threaten people with it then others have that right too, including the guy that was fired. That guy could`ve done the same thing, come in and pulled a gun on her. And then what...she reaches for the gun also? Everyone having the right to carry guns is just a bad idea. Doing that you`re just waiting for a kid that got a bad grade to come to school with a shotgun and start shooting anyone that he doesnt like.

Sorry, but if you have the right to carry a gun and threaten people with it then others have that right too, including the guy that was fired. That guy could`ve done the same thing, come in and pulled a gun on her. And then what...she reaches for the gun also? Everyone having the right to carry guns is just a bad idea. Doing that you`re just waiting for a kid that got a bad grade to come to school with a shotgun and start shooting anyone that he doesnt like.

You seem to have forgotten the distinction between offensive and defensive use. I don't have time to discuss tactics, but let's just say no court of law would say you have a right to walk into the place you were just fired from, carrying a gun, threatening to shoot people.

Didn't say it was.

However, he wasn't a raving madman. He'd just been fired. That tends to cause people to lash out. Anyone with any sense and the ability to speak can defuse it rather easily.

Words are civil. Weapons are not.

Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me. This is why those who fight with sticks and stones usually defeat those who fight with words.

There is also a chance that attempts to talk him down would have just ade him more angry and violent.



The flaw in your argument is that you ignore the facts before this altercation:

"Last week, the company she works for as a bookkeeper fired one of their drivers. He gave her what she calls "a bad feeling". So this morning, she told me that the guy was coming in to pick up his last paycheck - and that she was expecting trouble."

Having a "bad feeling" and "expecting trouble", she chose to expose herself to potential danger. Not only did she refuse WL's offered assistance, she allowed herself to be alone in the office. Why did she choose to place herself in a possible situation that could be confrontational?


That is irrevelant for many reasons. Not the least of which is that fact that he didn't feel threatened by her alone. Had she not been alone he may have found the situation so threatening that he went in guns blazing and simply killed everyone. You never know. The fact that her decision was correct is proven by the fact that no one was hurt.


Actually, her "choices" increased her chance of danger, and her "choice" to pull the gun could have resulted in his death, her death, or the death of both of them. It happens even with trained professionals.


But it decreased the probability of her death substantially by increasing her control over the situation.


Because someone becomes angry because they were fired is reason to invoke the death penalty? That is not sane rational thinking for sure.


You are mistaking combat for punishment. It is about maximizing the probability of one's own survival. The best way for her to do that was to kill him. Some other options provided an increase in her personal safety, but none so great as that provided by killing him.


To be safe, she shouldn't have placed herself in harms way. To rely solely on her gun, indicates a willingness to resolve any confrontational situation by pulling her gun, which means that she was going to be willing to use deadly force if necessary.


Unless she is a Taoist Immortal it is impossible for her to avoid every possible danger. There was a good chance that he would have acted civily, accepted his check, and left. It is good that she was prepared for that possibility that he would do something foolish but there is a fine line between safety and paranoia. Fear shouldn't prevent her from doing her job.


BTW, we know little about this fired driver. Does he have a criminal record? Is he the sole provider for his family? Is he a generally angry person? Why was he fired? Why did WL's wife "expect trouble"?

I think this is a case of trouble looking for a place to happen and WL's wife played the accomplice.


The fact that she made the best possible choices is obvious by the fact that they resulted in the best possible outcome.

You seem to have forgotten the distinction between offensive and defensive use. I don't have time to discuss tactics, but let's just say no court of law would say you have a right to walk into the place you were just fired from, carrying a gun, threatening to shoot people.

Sorry, i havent made myself clear. I was not reffering to the right to take the gun out and threaten somebody. I was thinking of the very distinct posibility that many guns will be used in the wrong way if everyone is allowed to have them. Everyone having a gun in their pocket just spells trouble. I imagine the number of armed robberies, murders and such is higher in America then it might be in other countries, just because of this right to have a gun in your house.

I love the title of this thread. If we were to hear someone say, "My Wife is Not a Sheep Anymore", we'd assume that some strange dental procedure woke her up. :p

That is irrevelant for many reasons. Not the least of which is that fact that he didn't feel threatened by her alone. Had she not been alone he may have found the situation so threatening that he went in guns blazing and simply killed everyone. You never know. The fact that her decision was correct is proven by the fact that no one was hurt.
I totally disagree. She was the catylst of a potentially deadly situation. She chose to be there alone, with her gun and fully "expecting trouble".

Did she relay her "bad feelings" to her boss? Apparently not?

But it decreased the probability of her death substantially by increasing her control over the situation.
She put herself in a position that she was able to control, but there was no guarantee that she would be able to control the situation. If he had lunged at her and got a hold on her gun, she could have died. Bad situation, lucky result?

You are mistaking combat for punishment. It is about maximizing the probability of one's own survival. The best way for her to do that was to kill him. Some other options provided an increase in her personal safety, but none so great as that provided by killing him.
Actually she minimized her chances for survival by refusing offered help, staying alone in the office, and relying solely on her gun to protect her.

Unless she is a Taoist Immortal it is impossible for her to avoid every possible danger. There was a good chance that he would have acted civily, accepted his check, and left. It is good that she was prepared for that possibility that he would do something foolish but there is a fine line between safety and paranoia. Fear shouldn't prevent her from doing her job.
I agree with the last sentence, however, she did put herself in a situation that she had never been in before (armed with a gun), and unable to predict the outcome. That is called unacceptable risk. Why didn't they just courier the check or mail it or direct deposit it?

The fact that she made the best possible choices is obvious by the fact that they resulted in the best possible outcome.
Personally, I think she made a lot of bad choices and fortunately no one got hurt.

What danger? Children lash out all the time, throw their tantrums, and life goes on. She was in no danger of bodily harm. I don't care if he smashed everything in her office.

Fact is, she placed him in a position of deadly bodily harm over simple material possessions. She was in no danger. At all.

Children also attack other children and adults.

This woman was facing a man with an anger management problem as evidenced by his trashing her office. She did not process the theraputic skills to talk him down, nor was it her place to do so. And, unfortunately, anger can escalate towards physical harm

Her job was to insure her personal safety which she did. Yes, she could have had other co-workers in the room with her (police never show up on the 'just in case) but hinesight is 15/20.

Should of got her an AK47 or at least a Mossberg shotgun. But she would look hot with a shotgun...most chicks do

Screw Pistols

No, no, no. An assault rifle or shotgun simply takes too much time to draw and level before it is of greater effect than an oversized noisemaker. A handgun is smaller, easier to conceal and far, far quicker to make ready. If she had either of those in that situation, it would have simply taken too long to get ready before it would have drawn notice.

Use what's effective, not flashy.

Children also attack other children and adults.

This woman was facing a man with an anger management problem as evidenced by his trashing her office. She did not process the theraputic skills to talk him down, nor was it her place to do so. And, unfortunately, anger can escalate towards physical harm

Her job was to insure her personal safety which she did. Yes, she could have had other co-workers in the room with her (police never show up on the 'just in case) but hinesight is 15/20.
This isn't about hindsight......she was "expecting trouble".

Then why do we have a police force?






The police are under no obligation to protect you or even to respond to your calls. The court established that the primary purpose of police is to solve crimes, and prevention is something that is often a natural result of a police presence in the community but that other than that, they have no specific duty to help anybody at anytime.


Warren v District of Columbia (1981)

http://www.healylaw.com/cases/warren2.htm

Appeal No. 79-6

In the early morning hours of March 16, 1975, appellants Carolyn Warren, Joan Taliaferro, and Miriam Douglas were asleep in their rooming house at 1112 Lamont Street, N.W. Warren and Taliaferro shared a room on the third floor of the house; Douglas shared a room on the second floor with her four-year-old daughter. The women were awakened by the sound of the back door being broken down by two men later identified as Marvin Kent and James Morse. The men entered Douglas' second floor room, where Kent forced Douglas to sodomize him and Morse raped her.

Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas' screams from the floor below. Warren telephoned the police, told the officer on duty that the house was being burglarized, and requested immediate assistance. The department employee told her to remain quiet and assured her that police assistance would be dispatched promptly. Warren's call was received at Metropolitan Police Department Headquarters at 6:23 a. m., and was recorded as a burglary in progress. At 6:26 a. m., a call was dispatched to officers on the street as a "Code 2" assignment, although calls of a crime in progress should be given priority and designated as "Code 1." Four police cruisers responded to the broadcast; three to the Lamont Street address and one to another address to investigate a possible suspect.

Meanwhile, Warren and Taliaferro crawled from their window onto an adjoining roof and waited for the police to arrive. While there, they saw one policeman drive through the alley behind their house and proceed to the front of the residence without stopping, leaning out the window, or getting out of the car to check the back entrance of the house. A second officer apparently knocked on the door in front of the residence, but left when he received no answer. The three officers departed the scene at 6:33 a. m., five minutes after they arrived.

Warren and Taliaferro crawled back inside their room. They again heard Douglas' continuing screams; again called the police; told the officer that the intruders had entered the home, and requested immediate assistance. Once again, a police officer assured them that help was on the way. This second call was received at 6:42 a. m. and recorded merely as "investigate the trouble" - it was never dispatched to any police officers.

Believing the police might be in the house, Warren and Taliaferro called down to Douglas, thereby alerting Kent to their presence. Kent and Morse then forced all three women, at knifepoint, to accompany them to Kent's apartment. For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of Kent and Morse.

Appellants' claims of negligence included: the dispatcher's failure to forward the 6:23 a. m. call with the proper degree of urgency; Page 3 the responding officers' failure to follow standard police investigative procedures, specifically their failure to check the rear entrance and position themselves properly near the doors and windows to ascertain whether there was any activity inside; and the dispatcher's failure to dispatch the 6:42 a. m. call.

This isn't about hindsight......she was "expecting trouble".


If you expect trouble and don't take measures to prepare, you're a fool.

You go on vacation you lock your house up very tightly, and tell the neighbors to keep an eye on it.

You put the horse in the barn, you latch the door. As they say, "There ain't no point locking the door after the horse runs away."

You expect a maniac to come after you, you get a gun. There's no use in getting a gun after you were raped or after you were killed.


Preventative measures can and often do save lives and save people from other forms of bodily harm (assault, rape, etc)

If you expect trouble and don't take measures to prepare, you're a fool.

You go on vacation you lock your house up very tightly, and tell the neighbors to keep an eye on it.

You put the horse in the barn, you latch the door. As they say, "There ain't no point locking the door after the horse runs away."

You expect a maniac to come after you, you get a gun. There's no use in getting a gun after you were raped or after you were killed.

Preventative measures can and often do save lives and save people from other forms of bodily harm (assault, rape, etc)
Perhaps you didn't read the other posts, as to why she "expected trouble"?

This "expected trouble" could have been avoided, or reduced if handled properly, without having to resort to drawing a gun.

Perhaps you didn't read the other posts, as to why she "expected trouble"?

This "expected trouble" could have been avoided, or reduced if handled properly, without having to resort to drawing a gun.


Yes, I agree, if the guy hadn't been a violent animal, the trouble would have been avoided.

No, no, no. An assault rifle or shotgun simply takes too much time to draw and level before it is of greater effect than an oversized noisemaker. A handgun is smaller, easier to conceal and far, far quicker to make ready. If she had either of those in that situation, it would have simply taken too long to get ready before it would have drawn notice.

Use what's effective, not flashy.


So this AKS-74u is too bulky? http://www.volny.cz/ak-47/aks-74u/aks74u.jpg


How about this shotgun, http://www.american-manufacture.com/aowx.jpg (Classed as an AOW, 5 dollar one-time tax required to own it, you cannot put a stock on it or it becomes a short-barreled/sawed-off shotgun and you need then a 200 dollar one-time tax for a class III permit)

If you can't prove he would have, then pulling a weapon is not justifiable.


When you know the law, then come talk to me. I can tell you that from a legal standpoint, her actions would hold up in court. She could even have shot him and it would have held up in court since he had already threatened bodily harm and was acting violently in a manner to make her fear that this harm was imminent.

Yes, I agree, if the guy hadn't been a violent animal, the trouble would have been avoided.
The guy got fired from his job and you call him a violent animal? Anger is a human trait and some control it better than others? Who knows, she may even have provoked his anger, knowing full well she had a gun? We don't know the whole story and she didn't have to be there alone "expecting trouble".

Anyone with any sense and the ability to speak can defuse it rather easily.

Words are civil. Weapons are not.



Yeah, tell that to a woman being raped or a man being stabbed in an alley, "Just talk the attacker down!"

If a man tries to rape you, keep your hands in the open so they can see you're not armed and in a nice and calm voice say, "Don't worry, I won't hurt you, let's talk this through."


If somebody pulls you a knife on you to rob you, reassure them that you won't hurt them, let them know you're not armed, ask them about their childhood and what you can do to help them with their inner deamons...

No offense, your advice is garbage in the real world, we don't live in some utopia, which is where you seem to be living.

So this AKS-74u is too bulky? http://www.volny.cz/ak-47/aks-74u/aks74u.jpg


How about this shotgun, http://www.american-manufacture.com/aowx.jpg (Classed as an AOW, 5 dollar one-time tax required to own it, you cannot put a stock on it or it becomes a short-barreled/sawed-off shotgun and you need then a 200 dollar one-time tax for a class III permit)

Why dont you give the world the preciouss american way of life...and let 6 billion people buy assault rifles and shotguns....One or two billion shotguns....doesnt make a difference right? Humans are all responsable enough so they dont shoot eachother anyway.

The guy got fired from his job and you call him a violent animal? Anger is a human trait and some control it better than others? Who knows, she may even have provoked his anger, knowing full well she had a gun? We don't know the whole story and she didn't have to be there alone "expecting trouble".


My dad got laid off once, he didn't go back and stir trouble up, he left and that was that.

My mother left her job on less than amicable terms and she did nothing except leave.

I'm not going to coddle and accommodate criminals on the premise that, "Well they just can't control themselves".

If that is your logic, than rape is okay because, "They just need to control themselves, we ought to pity them, not hate them or resist them."

I'm sorry, that logic doesn't fly with me, if you don't act responsible and reasonable, expect those who do to get very defensive and resistant to your aggression.

My dad got laid off once, he didn't go back and stir trouble up, he left and that was that.

My mother left her job on less than amicable terms and she did nothing except leave.

I'm not going to coddle and accommodate criminals on the premise that, "Well they just can't control themselves".

If that is your logic, than rape is okay because, "They just need to control themselves, we ought to pity them, not hate them or resist them."

I'm sorry, that logic doesn't fly with me, if you don't act responsible and reasonable, expect those who do to get very defensive and resistant to your aggression.
It would appear that you want the role of judge, juror, and if necessary executioner, and it appears that you are willing to jump into the executioners role quickly.

My logic in this thread does not suggest that rape is okay. My logic states that she put herself into a situation that she had "bad feelings" about this situation BEFORE it even happened, and that she was EXPECTING trouble. I call what she did less than bright.

It would appear that you want the role of judge, juror, and if necessary executioner, and it appears that you are willing to jump into the executioners role quickly.

My logic in this thread does not suggest that rape is okay. My logic states that she put herself into a situation that she had "bad feelings" about this situation BEFORE it even happened, and that she was EXPECTING trouble. I call what she did less than bright.


So if a woman has to walk to her car, which is across the dark parking lot where she works, at the end of her shift, and it gives her a "bad feeling" it's her fault if she is raped since she had a "Bad feeling" but if she carries a gun to feel better, it's her fault for expecting trouble and planning on shooting somebody?

You're basically saying that people who carry guns are setting traps and waiting to be attacked so they can kill people.

I don't know anybody who carries a gun that is thinking, "Gee, I just can't wait for somebody to try to kill or rape me, then I get to try my gun out on them!" It's more a, "Oh my, I hope I can avoid trouble, but if somebody attacks me, I'm ready."

So if a woman has to walk to her car, which is across the dark parking lot where she works, at the end of her shift, and it gives her a "bad feeling" it's her fault if she is raped since she had a "Bad feeling" but if she carries a gun to feel better, it's her fault for expecting trouble and planning on shooting somebody?

You're basically saying that people who carry guns are setting traps and waiting to be attacked so they can kill people.

I don't know anybody who carries a gun that is thinking, "Gee, I just can't wait for somebody to try to kill or rape me, then I get to try my gun out on them!" It's more a, "Oh my, I hope I can avoid trouble, but if somebody attacks me, I'm ready."
I didn't basically say, "that people who carry guns are setting traps and waiting to be attacked so they can kill people".

What I said basically, is that she put herself in a situation where she might have to use her gun. Her trailer was not a dark parking lot, and this man is presumably not intending to rape her.

She put herself in harms way and she could have died doing so, or she could have killed another person. Why? She had choices and I don't think she chose wisely.

I didn't basically say, "that people who carry guns are setting traps and waiting to be attacked so they can kill people".

What I said basically, is that she put herself in a situation where she might have to use her gun. Her trailer was not a dark parking lot, and this man is presumably not intending to rape her.

She put herself in harms way and she could have died doing so, or she could have killed another person. Why? She had choices and I don't think she chose wisely.


Well then why weren't you there to pick for her? If you know better than everybody else, you ought to make all their choices for them. Really, that's what it sounds like you're saying.

You don't know the man, he very well could have raped her, you just said that some folks can't control themselves, that it's a human trait.

He was already behaving very violently and throwing things around like a lunatic, assault and rape aren't too hard to imagine from somebody that is already acting so violently and aggressively.

Perhaps you didn't read the other posts, as to why she "expected trouble"?

This "expected trouble" could have been avoided, or reduced if handled properly, without having to resort to drawing a gun.

If she hadn't been alone he may not have caused trouble. If she hadn't been alone he may have killed everyone there.

If in one hand, deficate in the other, tell me which one fills up first.

Well then why weren't you there to pick for her? If you know better than everybody else, you ought to make all their choices for them. Really, that's what it sounds like you're saying.

You don't know the man, he very well could have raped her, you just said that some folks can't control themselves, that it's a human trait.

He was already behaving very violently and throwing things around like a lunatic, assault and rape aren't too hard to imagine from somebody that is already acting so violently and aggressively.
This goes back to what I stated about you being judge and jurist. Are you a psychoanalyist as well?

Last comment for me on this topic.....she didn't have to be there alone. She chose poorly and she is lucky that no one got killed, including herself.

Martel. The clearance time of either of those weapons from concealment to active use is still greater than that of a handgun. Additionally, it is also still a fair bit larger, by at least another hands span. So that means it is far more likely to draw notice before it is ready. As such. It is a bad idea once again.

Greater firepower, at least in terms of firearms, does not equate greater effectiveness in all purposes.

What danger? Children lash out all the time, throw their tantrums, and life goes on. She was in no danger of bodily harm. I don't care if he smashed everything in her office.
Children have an excuse - they are children, and cant hurt anyone. You also try and teach children not to do so. This man had no such excuse, and incase you are really thick, she didnt draw her weapon because he was smashing her office; she simply decided not to wait until he started smashing HER.

Fact is, she placed him in a position of deadly bodily harm over simple material possessions. She was in no danger. At all. You cannot prove that she was.
The man is bigger than her.
The man is THREATENING her.
The man is in an irrational and violent state.

He has done everything to suggest he intends to hurt her. She made sure that he could not control the situation. Allowing him to control the situation could have ended in tragedy. Do you have any idea how many assaults take place under these exact circumstances? And how if he had attacked before she drew her piece, he could have easily overpowered her? Despite the fact that she should have made sure someone was there, someone wasnt.

He, however, was clearly in bodily danger and should have torn her head off for it. I would have.
Good job buddy, you have just suggested decapitating the wife of the original poster. By posting this, you also concede that:

1)Violence is an exceptable means of defence
2)That lethal violence is an exceptable means of defence

You pull a gun on me, you damn well better use it and use it effectively.
:rolleyes: If you put me in a position where I believe I should take control of the situation with a firearm, I damn well will. Btw, do you understand that you just suggested charging at someone (who is in the right) pointing a firearm at you, in an attempt to "tear their head off" (HAH) when the exits are clearly marked? You teach children you say? :eek:

"An armed society is a polite society." Robert A. Heinlein.

Kind of a rip off of Madison's "An armed public, is a public that stays free" isn't it?

:rolleyes: If you put me in a position where I believe I should take control of the situation with a firearm, I damn well will. Btw, do you understand that you just suggested charging at someone (who is in the right) pointing a firearm at you, in an attempt to "tear their head off" (HAH) when the exits are clearly marked? You teach children you say? :eek:

In his defense it is a sound decision if you belive the gunperson will shoot you anyway. The only advantage a gun has over other weapons is range. It is better to advance and destroy than it is to retreat and be destroyed.

Except that as far as the story goes, the weapon was already pointed when he realized it. And I assume it was aimed to kill or maim.

Children have an excuse - they are children, and cant hurt anyone. You also try and teach children not to do so. This man had no such excuse, and incase you are really thick, she didnt draw her weapon because he was smashing her office; she simply decided not to wait until he started smashing HER.


The man is bigger than her.
The man is THREATENING her.
The man is in an irrational and violent state.

He has done everything to suggest he intends to hurt her. She made sure that he could not control the situation. Allowing him to control the situation could have ended in tragedy. Do you have any idea how many assaults take place under these exact circumstances? And how if he had attacked before she drew her piece, he could have easily overpowered her? Despite the fact that she should have made sure someone was there, someone wasnt.


Good job buddy, you have just suggested decapitating the wife of the original poster. By posting this, you also concede that:

1)Violence is an exceptable means of defence
2)That lethal violence is an exceptable means of defence


:rolleyes: If you put me in a position where I believe I should take control of the situation with a firearm, I damn well will. Btw, do you understand that you just suggested charging at someone (who is in the right) pointing a firearm at you, in an attempt to "tear their head off" (HAH) when the exits are clearly marked? You teach children you say? :eek:



I agree with your comments on that other man's remarks. The man was in bodily danger, yes, because he tried to threaten a woman and he acted violently.

If you are in danger as a result of a crime you're committing, you don't get to use self-defense as an argument for escalating the violence.

Example, you're raping a woman, a man comes along and draws his pistol, shouting, "Get off her or I shoot you!" The rapist cannot shoot the man and then say, "I had to defend myself" since the threat of being shot was a direct response to his crime.

In short, the man that tried to attack the woman in the trailer could legally have been killed and it would have been a self-defense killing / justifiable homocide.

Personally I can't see how this episode shows good training. Surely the first thing anyone (especially women coming out of abusive relationships) should be taught is never put yourself in a potentially dangerous situation.
Yet this is exactly what Whispering Leg's wife (WLW) did. She knew before-hand that this man may cause problems and yet still chose to confront him alone. No offence, but that's really dumb. If I had been in her position, I would have asked for some co-workers to be present - and I'm hardly one to feel threatened by anyone.

It's just simple common-sense. Upon arriving and seeing several people around would probably have defused the situation immediately. The guy wouldn't have been in a position of power, like he was when it was just him and WLW. If he had still become confrontational, there would have been enough people there to prevent him harming anyone and, more importantly, plenty of witnesses as to his destructive behaviour. As it is, the police only have WLW's word that he was violent. He might be petty enough to make a police complaint against her actions and say that she lied about him yelling and knocking things over. Then it's his word against hers.
In the situation as it happened, what if when confronted with a gun pointing at him, he had walked out to his car, got his gun and come back?

Pointing a gun should be the last resort, as it can escalate matters considerably. Yet in this case it was used as the first solution. Which isn't good training imo. You should not put yourself in a potentially dangerous situation first, and if unavoidable then find other ways to defuse the situation. What was wrong with her just leaving the office immediately and let him trash the place while she called the police? Or even just pick up the phone and call the police then and there? That might have stopped him in his tracks.
Only then if he was still becoming more aggressive and it was obvious that he might become violent, would I think about pulling a gun on him.

Yes ... I'll remember to point a gun at my kid next time they put their elbows on the table during dinner. Bad manners is justifiable, right?

She could have easily had a couple of co-workers in the room with her. She didn't need the firearm. Chances are likely she merely disgruntled him more. We shall wait and see what happens.

If you live by the sword, you will die by it.

If you need a gun to control your children, you're probably a typical liberal yahoo. Bad manners ARE NOT justifiable, whatever that means. And yes, threatening/intimidating a former coworker while causing criminal damage to her office is a FELONY and justifies her response to it.

How about reasonable arguments, Keruvalia? SHE WAS NOT THIS GUY'S MOM, to be telling him to mind his manners. If he can't behave like a normal, rational, LAWFUL citizen, maybe he does need a couple new holes in his body...

I love the arguments where, if you stand up for yourself and don't accept and reward aggression, you are somehow promoting it. I suppose you believe the police instigate criminals to commit more crimes by arresting them? That attacking Hitler in WWII is why there are still Neo-Nazis today? C'mon, how can you blame the victim for the crime? Do all women who wear short skirts deserve to be raped, too?

Perhaps the company doesn't allow their employees to stand around for hours in an office JUST IN CASE an ex-employee gets crazy, hmmm? Perhaps it is her GOD-GIVEN, CONSTITUTIONAL, LAWFUL RIGHT to defend herself regardless of your opinion?

My money is on the following scenario- He's obviously a small, petty little man to threaten and intimidate a coworker like that, so he'll just go home slap his wife/girlfriend around some more while slamming a Miller High Life and then go look for another dead-end job he can lose... He's not coming back. If he does, he'll get what he so richly deserves.

It's just simple common-sense. Upon arriving and seeing several people around would probably have defused the situation immediately. The guy wouldn't have been in a position of power, like he was when it was just him and WLW.



I know of a woman who fired a man and he came back into the office the next day in front of a dozen plus people and he threw a chair at her and then tried to assault her...

I have fired bigger guns than those. Try a 105 MM Howitzer shell. Although our rifles were wimpy FNC1's.
You just proved that your instructor was ignorant or that your lying in the same sentence. FAL clones eat 7.62x51mm ammunition. AK47's chamber 7.62x39mm, a much shorter, less powerful cartridge. M16s and AR15s are at the bottom of the bunch with the 5.56x45mm. Of course, you knew all that, right?

Btw, the C1A1 is one of the few semiautomatic rifles to ever fire 10,000 rounds without cleaning.

Why would that irritate me? I'm a US Army Ranger ... my MOS was 18B. I've handled my share of firearms. They don't offend me.

Oh that is rich... Assuming I believed you (I do not), thanks for your service. But if it is true (right), I think you missed out on some of the training and reasons for your service. As a US soldier, your job is to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land.

Regardless of your OPINION, the angry man was breaking the LAW. The wife did not. One person was right, one WRONG, per the law you swore to uphold in the nation you supposedly served. She has RIGHT to her gun. He does not have a right to destroy her office.

This is the American Way. Which Way are you, again?

As for the line, "Words are civil, weapons are not": Did you use that line on your Commanding Officers when you signed your Conscientious Objector paperwork?

You sound like a John Kerry veteran, sir. That makes me sad. Thankfully, I believe you are about 14 years old and have an Uncle or Cousin in the Army Rangers, who would love to kick your ass for talking this way about an innocent woman who was victimized.

I'm not going to judge who's flamebaiting, right now.

iLock.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation