TexasCHLforum.com

suthdj wrote:Sitting in my driveway watching my bbq a guy walks buy an asks for a light, my answer was nope. He kept walking, didnt even ask to use grill.

Completely different circumstances - context in these type of situations is very important.

philip964 wrote:http://www.dnj.com/story/news/local/201 ... /75451992/

More information. 4:00 pm

Suspect said she told him to stop, and when he didn't she pulled the gun. He was yelling and acting aggressively. Victim was 52 years old.

Apparently a female witness with a child (who you might assume could be sympathetic to our suspect), had the gun pointed in her direction, so seems like she is not being helpful to the suspect.

The point of the victim calling 911 and not the suspect is very interesting. I would agree that if you draw your weapon, you should call 911 immediately and report the incident.

I think this is going to be an expensive lesson for this woman to learn. You tell someone, stop and don't come any closer, they get aggressive and keep coming, that is cause for the 'threat' of deadly force, once the situation deescalated sounds like she did too. But she should have called the police, then she would have been the complainant instead of the suspect. My CHL instructor couldn't stress that enough, but I would be willing to be that not all of them do.

Eellis wrote:
....anything that would rise to the level of causing a normal person to pull a gun...

I consider myself a fairly, most of the time, normal person; however, I've never been a 67 year old woman alone in a parking lot.

Oldgringo wrote:

Eellis wrote:
....anything that would rise to the level of causing a normal person to pull a gun...

I consider myself a fairly, most of the time, normal person; however, I've never been a 67 year old woman alone in a parking lot.

...this...

from the reading, she had every reason to be afraid, however, yes, she should have called in afterwords. I suppose it's possible she'd never been told to do that?
I've been stalked in a dark WM parking lot, it's scary. I did everything right, pretty much on impulse, because I'd learned it from reading here. But if she didn't/doesn't have that resource, or kids to help.....

MONGOOSE wrote:

EEllis wrote:

MONGOOSE wrote:I don't smoke. However , I can't recall a person in front of me that has bought smokes, not being offered a book of paper matches.

Not since the 80's.

Every time they sell smokes at my country store....today.

Well they certainly don't at walmart even ifyour country store happens to be the last one that does.

Oldgringo wrote:

Eellis wrote:
....anything that would rise to the level of causing a normal person to pull a gun...

I consider myself a fairly, most of the time, normal person; however, I've never been a 67 year old woman alone in a parking lot.

That isn't the law. I'm sure she was scared but that doesn't mean she gets to pull a gun.

EEllis wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

Eellis wrote:
....anything that would rise to the level of causing a normal person to pull a gun...

I consider myself a fairly, most of the time, normal person; however, I've never been a 67 year old woman alone in a parking lot.

That isn't the law. I'm sure she was scared but that doesn't mean she gets to pull a gun.

True but as one reports said, she notified him not to get any closer and he kept approaching - that establishes intent/motive in my mind.

4 Factors of Self Defense(I believe I've read in most states you must meet 3 of the 4):

http://www.usacarry.com/self-defense-st ... d-factors/

1. REASONABLENESS – What would a “reasonable person” have done under the same circumstances, knowing what you knew at the time?
She didn't know his intent, she told him to stop, he kept coming

2. IMMINENT DANGER – The threat of death or great bodily harm must be about to happen very soon… IMMEDIATELY.
He was closing the gap, if this happened at about 10-15 feet, I believe someone could argue the 21 ft rule - he was well within the physical threat range

3. PROPORTIONATE RESPONSE – The amount or degree of force used in self-defense must be no greater than necessary and match the level of the threat presented.
Now no threat was present, but she warned him to stay back and he didn't so there is a unknown here IMO

4. INNOCENCE – The defendant that uses deadly force in self defense must NOT have been the aggressor or instigator who voluntarily provoked, entered, or continued the conflict leading to deadly force.
She didn't approach him or initiate conversation, she told him to keep back but he kept coming

EEllis wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

Eellis wrote:
....anything that would rise to the level of causing a normal person to pull a gun...

I consider myself a fairly, most of the time, normal person; however, I've never been a 67 year old woman alone in a parking lot.

That isn't the law. I'm sure she was scared but that doesn't mean she gets to pull a gun.

Pariah3j wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

Eellis wrote:
....anything that would rise to the level of causing a normal person to pull a gun...

I consider myself a fairly, most of the time, normal person; however, I've never been a 67 year old woman alone in a parking lot.

That isn't the law. I'm sure she was scared but that doesn't mean she gets to pull a gun.

True but as one reports said, she notified him not to get any closer and he kept approaching - that establishes intent/motive in my mind.

4 Factors of Self Defense(I believe I've read in most states you must meet 3 of the 4):

http://www.usacarry.com/self-defense-st ... d-factors/

1. REASONABLENESS – What would a “reasonable person” have done under the same circumstances, knowing what you knew at the time?
She didn't know his intent, she told him to stop, he kept coming

2. IMMINENT DANGER – The threat of death or great bodily harm must be about to happen very soon… IMMEDIATELY.
He was closing the gap, if this happened at about 10-15 feet, I believe someone could argue the 21 ft rule - he was well within the physical threat range

3. PROPORTIONATE RESPONSE – The amount or degree of force used in self-defense must be no greater than necessary and match the level of the threat presented.
Now no threat was present, but she warned him to stay back and he didn't so there is a unknown here IMO

4. INNOCENCE – The defendant that uses deadly force in self defense must NOT have been the aggressor or instigator who voluntarily provoked, entered, or continued the conflict leading to deadly force.
She didn't approach him or initiate conversation, she told him to keep back but he kept coming

Let's not forget that there is a big difference between being alarmed and being in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. Fear alone doesn't justify the threat of deadly force. It still has to be reasonable fear.

You're taking her claims as though they are fact. She is the only one saying that the guy was being aggressive before she drew her weapon. According to the article, the officer saw nothing on the video that resembled any type of danger or threat. Also, the woman with a child said that he started hollering after the weapon was drawn. She didn't even notice anything until the gun was out.

This lady made a mistake which could have ended with someone dead over what appears to be nothing. It looks like she probably deserves the charge.

My apologies if it seems like I'm being combative about this. That's not my intention. I'm just frustrated about how this lady is plastered on the news and is giving the antis ammo.

EEllis wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

Eellis wrote:
....anything that would rise to the level of causing a normal person to pull a gun...

I consider myself a fairly, most of the time, normal person; however, I've never been a 67 year old woman alone in a parking lot.

That isn't the law. I'm sure she was scared but that doesn't mean she gets to pull a gun.

actually, I believe her age, and the fact that she was alone do get to be taken into account. A 67 yr old woman would respond very differently than say a 27 yr old woman. Older women are often targeted as victims and that is drilled into them in junk mail, on the news, by their children/grandchildren and at the senior centers, what else was she suppose to think?

SewTexas wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

Eellis wrote:
....anything that would rise to the level of causing a normal person to pull a gun...

I consider myself a fairly, most of the time, normal person; however, I've never been a 67 year old woman alone in a parking lot.

That isn't the law. I'm sure she was scared but that doesn't mean she gets to pull a gun.

actually, I believe her age, and the fact that she was alone do get to be taken into account. A 67 yr old woman would respond very differently than say a 27 yr old woman. Older women are often targeted as victims and that is drilled into them in junk mail, on the news, by their children/grandchildren and at the senior centers, what else was she suppose to think?

You're right, but her response still seems to have been unreasonable IMO. It's a tough situation to be in, but we who carry guns have a duty to respect the responsibility we have. Our rights and people's lives depend on it.

TVegas wrote:
Let's not forget that there is a big difference between being alarmed and being in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. Fear alone doesn't justify the threat of deadly force. It still has to be reasonable fear.

You're taking her claims as though they are fact. She is the only one saying that the guy was being aggressive before she drew her weapon. According to the article, the officer saw nothing on the video that resembled any type of danger or threat. Also, the woman with a child said that he started hollering after the weapon was drawn. She didn't even notice anything until the gun was out.

This lady made a mistake which could have ended with someone dead over what appears to be nothing. It looks like she probably deserves the charge.

My apologies if it seems like I'm being combative about this. That's not my intention. I'm just frustrated about how this lady is plastered on the news and is giving the antis ammo.

Don't take it as combative at all - I like a healthy debate. And you are correct, I am taking this lady at her word because that is all I feel like we really have to go on at this point. I would love to see the video to decide myself - as they say - a picture is worth a thousand words. Or in internet terms, pics or it didn't happen

The man approached her 'asking for a light' in a parking lot where they sell lighters - as other have said, red flag.

The woman with a baby is mad the woman pointed a gun at her - hell she might be anti gun ... or it could be out of the feeling like her child's life was threatened because the woman pointed the gun in her general direction - don't really know her motive, only spit-balling here.

I see alot of people saying her actions were unreasonable - at what point would they have become reasonable ? After he had assaulted her, threatened her or robbed her ?

To me if the video supports her story - she told him to stop, put her hand up or something to that effect and he kept coming or got irritate or whatever, that could justify it IMO - remember she didn't use deadly force, she only threatened to use force.

oops - double post

Yeah right! I'd say a courages lady showed more character than the thug and the LEO together.

Would this article change your position on the case? http://www.dnj.com/story/news/local/201 ... /75451992/

Remember, this is Tennessee, so the laws may be different.