Shooting People

January 1st, 2014 at 9:05:36 AM permalink
s2dbaker
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 13
Posts: 241
When is it okay for a lady to shoot a guy?

A woman was arrested for shooting a guy. According to the article:
Quote: Las Vegas Sun
Merritt-Burwell said she approached (his) vehicle and fired a shot after he “tried pulling her body into his car by grabbing her left arm,” according to the arrest report.
Don't read the article until you've had a chance to respond.

If you are a lady and a guy grabs you by the arm and attempts to pull you into his vehicle, are you justified in shooting him?
January 1st, 2014 at 2:15:15 PM permalink
Face
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 61
Posts: 3941
Quote: s2dbaker
When is it okay for a lady to shoot a guy?


Anytime the safety of her person is put at risk.

Of course, there are well more than fifty shades of grey for both my answer and your question, so the details mean everything. I can think of a hundred reasons she should shoot him dead, and a hundred more why she should go to jail if she did. The phrase "she approached his vehicle" leads me to believe it's the latter.

OK, time to read....

LOL! I guess I should have suspected that.

Any form of antagonistic, aggressive, or confrontational behavior need be stashed when you carry a weapon. You simply cannot start shit when you carry, period. You'll find no defense of her from me.
Be bold and risk defeat, or be cautious and encourage it.
January 2nd, 2014 at 12:53:59 PM permalink
s2dbaker
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 13
Posts: 241
Quote: Face
Anytime the safety of her person is put at risk.

Of course, there are well more than fifty shades of grey for both my answer and your question, so the details mean everything. I can think of a hundred reasons she should shoot him dead, and a hundred more why she should go to jail if she did. The phrase "she approached his vehicle" leads me to believe it's the latter.

OK, time to read....

LOL! I guess I should have suspected that.

Any form of antagonistic, aggressive, or confrontational behavior need be stashed when you carry a weapon. You simply cannot start shit when you carry, period. You'll find no defense of her from me.
Now that you've read the article, do you believe that she gives up all rights to defend herself with a weapon because "she started it"? What if the guy was just driving home from a 7-11 after buying some Skittles and Orange Soda and she pissed him off enough to punch her in the face. Is she okay to shoot him in that instance?
January 2nd, 2014 at 1:52:34 PM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 62
Posts: 7831
Its simply that if she started it she is not going to believed about the "he reached for me".

The law gives a person who is ILLEGALLY carrying a weapon the right to use it LEGALLY if the situation would allow it, but try convincing a jury that the unlawfully armed victim is telling the truth.

Or as they said in the movie when self defense was mentioned: "The Dudes were White".

Look at from the FBI's point of view: they do some dangerous night flying in cases where a kid from the suburbs has been kidnapped, but when its one inner city drug dealer's kid whose been kidnapped over a drug deal gone wrong, don't expect heroics.
January 2nd, 2014 at 2:24:31 PM permalink
Face
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 61
Posts: 3941
Quote: s2dbaker
Now that you've read the article, do you believe that she gives up all rights to defend herself with a weapon because "she started it"? What if the guy was just driving home from a 7-11 after buying some Skittles and Orange Soda and she pissed him off enough to punch her in the face. Is she okay to shoot him in that instance?


I can't say. Honestly.

There isn't really a catch all rule that can address stuff like this. I mean, I have a few short paragraphs to go off. My mind paints a picture of something happening on the road which pissed her off, so she approaches her antagonist toting an illegal weapon, started some shit, then capped him.

In that case, no, she's nowhere near in the right. You just can't do that. You can't be the cause of the incident and then rely on a pistol to save you when your mouth writes checks your ass can't cash.

In your 7-11 hypothetical, again, not enough detail. However, just going off what you wrote, I can see justification. No matter what she did to piss him off, no one has the right to batter another person. Of course, it all depends on the level and type of antagonism. Was she just being a jackwad and the guy blew his top? Or was she doing something to bait him into a confrontation so she could take him out? Who knows, but that's why we have courts and judges and such.
Be bold and risk defeat, or be cautious and encourage it.
January 3rd, 2014 at 9:52:45 AM permalink
s2dbaker
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 13
Posts: 241
The only major differences that I see between this incident and Trayvon Martin are that there were reliable eye witnesses at the scene and the victim lived. George Zimmerman was able to convince a jury that he was the victim.
January 3rd, 2014 at 1:30:15 PM permalink
odiousgambit
Member since: Oct 28, 2012
Threads: 154
Posts: 5055
before reading article, whenever [anyone] believes they are in danger of being being seriously harmed and have no other recourse such as defusing a situation by walking away. In particular I shake my head at women who make no attempt to leave a household but kill their abusive husbands instead [although I understand the underlying mind-f*** that sometimes is involved].

after reading article, to me it's an unknown whether she is telling the truth, although the witness statements provided would seem to suggest 'not'. If telling the truth, she still should be in a whole heap of trouble for having a gun on her and acting aggressively. I have known people who didn't get this [not personally, but ... ]. Plus, what attempts did she make to defuse?

Now to read other comments. But probably later.
I'm Still Standing, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah [it's an old guy chant for me]
January 5th, 2014 at 9:06:56 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
Quote: s2dbaker
The only major differences that I see between this incident and Trayvon Martin are that there were reliable eye witnesses at the scene and the victim lived. George Zimmerman was able to convince a jury that he was the victim.


Let it go. Just let it go. What's the use of continuing with impotent anger over a case that has been settled? All most people harping ont he Zimmerman case accomplish is to come across as resentful that people may protect their lives using a firearm.

Killing in self-defense, with or without a gun, can be a simpe call or a complicated one. Life is messy that way. A lack of witnesses can make things even more difficult, or it can make them easier. Life is messy that way, too. The point is many fo these cases come down to specifics for a given case. Generalizing is hard, beyond the principle that it is acceptable, and moral, to use deadly force in self-defense in some cases.
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER