demaL-demaL-yeH: Jae0o0: Except that is nothing like what happened to the woman in the news story.

"Watch me masturbate!" *BANG* Yeah, that's a proportional response. Pointing and laughing would have failed because????

She didnt shoot him. So yes, proportional response. I doubt the woman found the situation funny.

stir22: and you're NOT okay with her pulling a gun on him?

I mean, he totally pulled a gun on her. Right?

The use of deadly force (or credible threat thereof) is only justifiable if there is an imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm.

Doesn't seem to be the case here.

jbuist: Most handguns don't have manual safeties. Not sure why everybody seems to think they do.

The Ruger .380 does not have a safety. Loading the magazine and releasing the slide chambers a round. She did exactly that; She was ready to fire, but didn't. Not sure why the safety matters. If you don't think you may have to shoot, don't chamber a round. She felt there was a possibility that she may have to shoot, so she did. How is this a problem?

demaL-demaL-yeH: Seriously?

FTFA: "... a man approached her aggressively while masturbating and suggested she should watch him." is rape?


Potentially, yes, according to folks here. It was the natural, logical progression of flashing and jerking off in front of people.

Apparently these people are very leery of nude beaches as well.


...and art galleries. Where the majority of exposed penises likely belong to the baby Jesus.

demaL-demaL-yeH: "Watch me masturbate!" *BANG* Yeah, that's a proportional response. Pointing and laughing would have failed because????

Because that would have enraged the pervert and he would have punted the dog, stomped the kid, crushed the womans face with his fist, torn her clothes off and raped her.

The dude is jacking off in a park. Do you expect 'shame' to make him turn and run?

/I'll stop feeding the trolls. sorry.

clyph: The use of deadly force (or credible threat thereof) is only justifiable if there is an imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm.

Doesn't seem to be the case here.

Really? You were there?

clyph: The use of deadly force (or credible threat thereof) is only justifiable if there is an imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm.

Doesn't seem to be the case here.

So a girl shouldn't feel threatened with grievous bodily harm if she is walking alone and stranger aggressively approaches her while masturbating? That seems to be a pretty text book example of reasonable fear for ones safety? Seems the police agree since she isn't being charged with brandishing or any other crime.

Vegan Meat Popsicle: OnlyM3: You're french, aren't you. Your advice to her would be what? Drop and spread next time?

I know you don't have the capacity to understand, but some of us are actually capable of coming to solutions that don't start and end with "KILL IT!"

People like you are like cavemen with hammers...

Well, it was a chick. It's not like any response is going to be reasonable.

So, your compliant is cavewomen with rocks. Defense guns are for threat to life only. Which this isn't, and why your complaint doesn't have anything to do with using a gun to defend against a threat to life.

Ghengis_Socrates: clyph: The use of deadly force (or credible threat thereof) is only justifiable if there is an imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm.

Doesn't seem to be the case here.

Really? You were there?

apparently all the farkers saying this was no big deal were, they knew exactly what this guy was thinking too and based on their knowledge of the situation they have deuced that this woman should have just waited it out.

clyph: Doesn't seem to be the case here.

But, I should say, I'll give granny the benefit of the doubt over the weiner waggler. If she perceived it as a threat, she's arguably justified.

As a CHP holder myself, I fully support the right of people to defend themselves. I have to counterbalance that against people who give responsible armed citizens a bad name.

Ok, show me in the rapee handbook where it says rape can't commence after a show of masturbation.

Rwa2play: stir22: mynameist: Nice, because upping the ante to violence is always amusing.

seriously? some guy comes at a woman while jerking off and says,"hey, watch me jack off", and you're NOT okay with her pulling a gun on him?

seriously?

wow. enjoy being a victim.

This. Some people in the world just need a swift kick in the ass to tell them to stop doing something stupid, either figuratively or literally.

I can't get over how all of you Farkers think flashers and rapists are the same thing or are even remotely connected. If she wanted to protect herself against rape, she would have been better off pointing that thing at any random guy walking close to her.

mynameist: Rwa2play: stir22: mynameist: Nice, because upping the ante to violence is always amusing.

seriously? some guy comes at a woman while jerking off and says,"hey, watch me jack off", and you're NOT okay with her pulling a gun on him?

seriously?

wow. enjoy being a victim.

This. Some people in the world just need a swift kick in the ass to tell them to stop doing something stupid, either figuratively or literally.

I can't get over how all of you Farkers think flashers and rapists are the same thing or are even remotely connected. If she wanted to protect herself against rape, she would have been better off pointing that thing at any random guy walking close to her.

OR better yet, a close relative, neighbor, or caretaker... the most likely source of rape.

Huntceet: Ok, show me in the rapee handbook where it says rape can't commence after a show of masturbation.

Show me an entry where it must follow it?

jbuist: Most handguns don't have manual safeties.

[citation required]

Not sure why everybody seems to think they do.

Probably because the omission of a manual safety is a pretty recent trend in (semi-auto) handgun design. 3 of the 4 handguns I own have manual safeties; the only one that doesn't is my revolver.

mynameist: Rwa2play: stir22: mynameist: Nice, because upping the ante to violence is always amusing.

seriously? some guy comes at a woman while jerking off and says,"hey, watch me jack off", and you're NOT okay with her pulling a gun on him?

seriously?

wow. enjoy being a victim.

This. Some people in the world just need a swift kick in the ass to tell them to stop doing something stupid, either figuratively or literally.

I can't get over how all of you Farkers think flashers and rapists are the same thing or are even remotely connected. If she wanted to protect herself against rape, she would have been better off pointing that thing at any random guy walking close to her.

I can't believe all the farkers who think this lady should have just chilled while this guy jerked off for her and her kid.

Headso: apparently all the farkers saying this was no big deal were, they knew exactly what this guy was thinking too and based on their knowledge of the situation they have deuced that this woman should have just waited it out.

No, I was not there. On the other hand, none of the articles that I read about this incident stated whether or not she actually pointed the gun at him. That would be the line between credible and not credible threat of use of deadly force. There is a huge difference between pointing at him and not. As far as I know, none of us know. Also, none of us know what the guy was or was not thinking. I conjecture that she, too, had no idea what he was thinking. Perhaps that entered into her thought process, but we will probably never know.

mynameist: . If she wanted to protect herself against rape, she would have been better off pointing that thing at any random guy walking close to her wearing a burka.

AMIRITE!

clyph: jbuist: Most handguns don't have manual safeties.

[citation required]

Not sure why everybody seems to think they do.

Probably because the omission of a manual safety is a pretty recent trend in (semi-auto) handgun design. 3 of the 4 handguns I own have manual safeties; the only one that doesn't is my revolver.

Same here. My friend owns one semiauto handgun without a manual safety. But I cant shoot it because the amount of pressure it takes to squeeze the trigger would require me to use two fingers.

mynameist: Just to clear things up. There is a huge gap between flashing and rape. Has there even been a case where someone was flashed and then raped moments later? There may be absolutely no connection at all.
There is not a huge gap between pulling a gun on someone and shooting them. Most defense classes will teach you never to pull one out unless you plan on firing it.

Yes.

I seem to recall reading a book about serial killers/rapists, in which many of them started off as flashers. It was their first way of exerting control, "forcing" the woman to look at them.


Also, you're misinterpreting the lesson those defense classes were teaching. It doesn't mean that every time you pull a weapon, you should be planning to fire it - it means that every time you pull a weapon, you should be prepared to fire it. A weapon can be used to disarm a situation without actually being fired. Heck, in BMT's entry controller training, we were taught to not even charge the weapon unless the situation had already started to escalate (the suspect has a weapon/proceeds after a stop command/is approaching too quickly). In any other situation, the mere act of pointing the weapon was the first step - without a bullet in the chamber.

In this case, the man presented a threatening situation. She pulled the weapon, intent to fire it if he escalated the situation by attacking her. The situation didn't escalate past that point, so she had no need to fire the weapon.

Headso: I can't believe all the farkers who think this lady should have just chilled while this guy jerked off for her and her kid.

I can't believe all the farkers who believe there were only two options, and this was one of them.

patting someone on the back when it's not wanted is illegal assault. since physical contact is involved, it's far more threatening than "eek! a penis!". so is it ok to pull a gun on someone who pats me on the back? bumping into someone's arm while walking in a crowded area is also illegal assault - where are all the farkers calling for mass gun-waving in crowds? there are places where it's illegal to show a boob - will anyone defend the man who points a gun at a woman because he can see her boob? driving recklessly - should anyone who cuts someone off in traffic have the offended party threaten their life for it?. what about speeders who tailgate you because you're driving slow in the fast lane? do you let them pass while holding a gun at them when they do? some people are offended by marijuana use - why aren't more people waving guns at people who smoke a joint while walking down the street?

y'all be all wack.

She should have pepper sprayed his balls. I guarantee you he'd never forget that one, and it's totally legal.

SkunkWerks: Headso: I can't believe all the farkers who think this lady should have just chilled while this guy jerked off for her and her kid.

I can't believe all the farkers who believe there were only two options, and this was one of them.

what were her other options?

Rwa2play: SkunkWerks: Headso: I can't believe all the farkers who think this lady should have just chilled while this guy jerked off for her and her kid.

I can't believe all the farkers who believe there were only two options, and this was one of them.

Again, this.

For one thing, you'd think more farkers would be well-versed in the paradigm that the answer in a multiple choice question is always C.

Headso: what were her other options?

So, you admit that- if placed in the same situation- you couldn't think of any others.

Thanks for illustrating my point.

jbuist: But she should have chambered a round before she left the house. Just silly carrying around a half loaded gun.

Perhaps that is her vision of exercising restraint? I would have one in the chamber, but, OTH, my gun does have a safety.

SkunkWerks: Headso: what were her other options?

So, you admit that- if placed in the same situation- you couldn't think of any others.

Thanks for illustrating my point.

yeah I can't think of any others so what are your ideas for what she should have done to ensure her and her child's safety from a sex offender in the process of victimizing her?

SkunkWerks: Headso: what were her other options?

So, you admit that- if placed in the same situation- you couldn't think of any others.

Thanks for illustrating my point.

I agree with SkunkWerks, she should have pepper sprayed the guy in the balls before pulling the gun on him.

Vegan Meat Popsicle: OnlyM3: You're french, aren't you. Your advice to her would be what? Drop and spread next time?

I know you don't have the capacity to understand, but some of us are actually capable of coming to solutions that don't start and end with "KILL IT!"

People like you are like cavemen with hammers...



RACIST

mynameist: Rwa2play: stir22: mynameist: Nice, because upping the ante to violence is always amusing.

seriously? some guy comes at a woman while jerking off and says,"hey, watch me jack off", and you're NOT okay with her pulling a gun on him?

seriously?

wow. enjoy being a victim.

This. Some people in the world just need a swift kick in the ass to tell them to stop doing something stupid, either figuratively or literally.

I can't get over how all of you Farkers think flashers and rapists are the same thing or are even remotely connected. If she wanted to protect herself against rape, she would have been better off pointing that thing at any random guy walking close to her.

According to forensic psychological research, Class III Exhibitionists are likely to progress to more severe forms of sexual assault, including child molestation. But it's better to roll the dice on that while out with your kid instead of carrying a scary object, right?

He flashed his weapon, she flashed hers, nobody got shot, nobody got raped. Quit yer bellyaching.

mdeesnuts: notsureifserious.jpg

Didn't say she was, said some of the posters here are.

jafiwam: So, your compliant is cavewomen with rock

Nope. Try reading comprehension. It's awesome.

twiztedjustin: RACIST

I just really hate GEICO.

Would have been major hilarity if she had pepper sprayed him in the junk. That stuff reeks havoc on any soft & sensitive tissue, not just the eyes.

Ghengis_Socrates: Headso: apparently all the farkers saying this was no big deal were, they knew exactly what this guy was thinking too and based on their knowledge of the situation they have deuced that this woman should have just waited it out.

No, I was not there. On the other hand, none of the articles that I read about this incident stated whether or not she actually pointed the gun at him. That would be the line between credible and not credible threat of use of deadly force. There is a huge difference between pointing at him and not. As far as I know, none of us know. Also, none of us know what the guy was or was not thinking. I conjecture that she, too, had no idea what he was thinking. Perhaps that entered into her thought process, but we will probably never know.

Plus, it's illegal for someone with a CHL to brandish their weapon for the sole purpose of intimidation. It was probably easy for the woman in question to justify her actions to the police, but others should exercise caution if they plan to follow her example in similar situations. Even if you don't point the muzzle at someone, it is illegal to brandish a legally-owned-and-carried firearm to intimidate someone, even if "they started it." Obviously if you draw it with intent to shoot them and they get intimidated by that, you're A-OK.

Headso: yeah I can't think of any others

I know. It happens when you swap gunmetal for grey matter.

Headso: so what are your ideas

Here's a novel one. I had to use a time machine to come up with this one because it required months of rigorous thought and intense debates with my peers- who are all by the way, absolute experts in the field of ensuring-theirs-and their-child's-safety-from-a-sex-offender-in-the-process-of-victimizing -them-ology:

Walk the other way. Notify the authorities.

Yes, I know, this raises the question of whether or not- in the inter meaning time it would take for the police to be notified- that the police department could have lost the chance to apprehend this dangerous individual before another's virgin eyes are besmirched by the sight of an exposed penis, and in action no less.

But since Grandma failed to hold this most heinous meat-and-potatoes-dangler at bay herself with her fearsome armament while the authorities arrived, well, it's not like your favorite option accomplished this noble goal either.

Son of Thunder: According to forensic psychological research

So, the psychology of dead people?

Do tell.

you have pee hands: She should have pepper sprayed his balls. I guarantee you he'd never forget that one, and it's totally legal.

So is using a pistol in self defense.

aelat: Ghengis_Socrates: Headso: apparently all the farkers saying this was no big deal were, they knew exactly what this guy was thinking too and based on their knowledge of the situation they have deuced that this woman should have just waited it out.

No, I was not there. On the other hand, none of the articles that I read about this incident stated whether or not she actually pointed the gun at him. That would be the line between credible and not credible threat of use of deadly force. There is a huge difference between pointing at him and not. As far as I know, none of us know. Also, none of us know what the guy was or was not thinking. I conjecture that she, too, had no idea what he was thinking. Perhaps that entered into her thought process, but we will probably never know.

Plus, it's illegal for someone with a CHL to brandish their weapon for the sole purpose of intimidation. It was probably easy for the woman in question to justify her actions to the police, but others should exercise caution if they plan to follow her example in similar situations. Even if you don't point the muzzle at someone, it is illegal to brandish a legally-owned-and-carried firearm to intimidate someone, even if "they started it." Obviously if you draw it with intent to shoot them and they get intimidated by that, you're A-OK.

A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any fire armor any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance,whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured. However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense.

Just about every brandishing law has that clause. If there's a valid reason to feel threatened, you can draw your weapon, even if you don't fire it.

SkunkWerks: Walk the other way.

So you're going with this lady knew this guy's intent and she shouldn't have feared for her safety and just turn around and stroll away? Wow...

aelat: Ghengis_Socrates: Headso: apparently all the farkers saying this was no big deal were, they knew exactly what this guy was thinking too and based on their knowledge of the situation they have deuced that this woman should have just waited it out.

No, I was not there. On the other hand, none of the articles that I read about this incident stated whether or not she actually pointed the gun at him. That would be the line between credible and not credible threat of use of deadly force. There is a huge difference between pointing at him and not. As far as I know, none of us know. Also, none of us know what the guy was or was not thinking. I conjecture that she, too, had no idea what he was thinking. Perhaps that entered into her thought process, but we will probably never know.

Plus, it's illegal for someone with a CHL to brandish their weapon for the sole purpose of intimidation. It was probably easy for the woman in question to justify her actions to the police, but others should exercise caution if they plan to follow her example in similar situations. Even if you don't point the muzzle at someone, it is illegal to brandish a legally-owned-and-carried firearm to intimidate someone, even if "they started it." Obviously if you draw it with intent to shoot them and they get intimidated by that, you're A-OK.

This varies by state. There is no brandishing law in my state. The tools used to threaten aren't mentioned, there's one blanket threatening law and a couple minor ones.

Generally, the person who would receive the brandishing requirement is a thug of some type who won't call police. So it's not as much of a big deal as you are asserting.

Just don't get wrapped up in the monkey dance for other reasons and end up doing it.

Kit Fister: So is using a pistol in self defense.

Sure, but if you shoot someone there's probably still going to be court hearings while you clear yourself, and therapy, and therapy for your kid. What a drag. A naked guy with running around with capsaicin covered nuts until the cops show up and taze him? That's a story you can tell your grandkids.