67 yo woman charged with Agg Assault for drawing when she felt threatened

[Clod Stomper]

I haven't seen the video either. It sounds like she panicked and overreacted.

But that doesn't excuse some jackass for approaching an elderly lady asking for a light. WhoTF asks for a light? This isn't 1950. And yes, it is a common set-up for a purse snatching or robbery.

Had it been me, my spidey senses would have been tingling and I would have started scanning all around. I've seen my wife go completely "gaspy" at certain things that I don't even blink at, so I can see how a 67 year old woman could panic in that situation.

IMO she needs more training and to stay away from Walmart. Not an indictment.

Edit: I've seen a few people mention that the guy never got closer than 10 feet. "Are you going to draw on everyone who comes within 10 feet?" That sounds more like comments I would see in Huffington Post. But just in case I need to explain, No, I'm not drawing on everyone who comes within 10 feet. But they are on my radar. If they start acting suspiciously, like asking for a light, they're getting extra attention. Depending, I may even have my hand on my gun.

I probably won't draw and point it toward third parties, but I'm also not a 67 year old woman. Edited December 3, 2015 by Clod Stomper

[Oh Shoot]

.....
I probably won't draw and point it toward third parties, but I'm also not a 67 year old woman.

 

Well, 67 year old women have to obey the law, same as 67 year old Oh Shoot.

 

Pointing a gun at someone without justification and also endangering two frigging bystanders (another woman probably likely in her sixties or more and grandchild, btw) are both chargeable offenses. I see no reason that being 67, or being a woman, or being both, is worthy of an exception.

 

Suppose she accidentally triggered it and hit any one of the three ... should she still get special consideration because she's a 67 year old woman? What other offenses should a 67 year old woman be able to commit and walk scot free?

 

Now, if they want to drop the charges, or reduce to a handslap for disturbing the damn peace or something, whatever.  But at least she's had to go through hassle and apprehension of the process to orient her thinking on the matter -- in short,  I think it's only right and proper they've treated her equally under the law so far, 'cause I think they would have done the same to me.

 

- OS

Edited December 3, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[Clod Stomper]

Well, 67 year old women have to obey the law, same as 67 year old Oh Shoot.

Pointing a gun at someone without justification and also endangering two frigging bystanders (another woman probably likely in her sixties or more and grandchild, btw) are both chargeable offenses. I see no reason that being 67, or being a woman, or being both, is worthy of an exception.

Suppose she accidentally triggered it and hit any one of the three ... should she still get special consideration because she's a 67 year old woman? What other offenses should a 67 year old woman be able to commit and walk scot free?

Now, if they want to drop the charges, or reduce to a handslap for disturbing the damn peace or something, whatever. But at least she's had to go through hassle and apprehension of the process to orient her thinking on the matter -- in short, I think it's only right and proper they've treated her equally under the law so far, 'cause I think they would have done the same to me.

- OS

I agree. I wasn't excusing it. I was saying that a 67 year old woman is more likely to panic and do something stupid. More so than I am, or than a 67 year old Oh Shoot is.

She does need to be taught to be careful where she points that thing. But I hear it's near impossible to train irrational panic out of some women. I just heard, that's all.

I don't think being a woman should give her special consideration either in the case of pointing at innocents. But I believe that it does happen. Look at divorce custody battles. Who usually gets the kids? Different situation, I know.

As far as the act of drawing in the first place, an old woman probably should be specially considered. Disparity of force and all that.

[jgradyc]

I think in a jury trial, a 67-old-woman would get special consideration for actions taken in self defense. 

 

Besides, it says right on the label that smoking can be dangerous to your health. 

[Oh Shoot]

I think in a jury trial, a 67-old-woman would get special consideration for actions taken in self defense. 

 

Besides, it says right on the label that smoking can be dangerous to your health. 

 

;)

 

But seriously, I dunno in good conscience if I could give her that special consideration myself -- hell sounds like she's spooky enough she might have pointed the damn thing at me if I'd just walked by her. And if I happened to have sneezed while doing it maybe she'd have blown my goober off or something.

 

- OS

Edited December 4, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[TMF]

I don't know about the pepper spray, within 10 feet I don't know that it would of been able to be used effectively.  Heck, its been shown that a gun is difficult to deploy at that distance.  

 

I have one of these Kimber Pepper Blasters and bought one for my grandmother to carry years back:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Kimber-PepperBlaster-II-Gray/dp/B004MG63X6/ref=sr_1_1?s=sporting-goods&ie=UTF8&qid=1449229498&sr=1-1&keywords=kimber+pepper+blaster

 

Max effective range is supposed to be around 21 ft.  I carry mine, in addition to my handgun, when going to places which I know there will be a high volume of stupid young people in groups, such as the mall.  This thing is super lightweight and awesome for pocket carry.  I also carry it when running for protection against loose dogs.  I like the option of being able to pull this on a threat which does not appear to be armed, but a threat nonetheless.  No reason to shoot someone if there is another way to handle a problem.  These things shoot out a gel rather than a spray, so it's fairly accurate, has better distance and there isn't much of the blowback you get with a spray.

[Omega]

I have one of these Kimber Pepper Blasters and bought one for my grandmother to carry years back:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Kimber-PepperBlaster-II-Gray/dp/B004MG63X6/ref=sr_1_1?s=sporting-goods&ie=UTF8&qid=1449229498&sr=1-1&keywords=kimber+pepper+blaster

 

Max effective range is supposed to be around 21 ft.  I carry mine, in addition to my handgun, when going to places which I know there will be a high volume of stupid young people in groups, such as the mall.  This thing is super lightweight and awesome for pocket carry.  I also carry it when running for protection against loose dogs.  I like the option of being able to pull this on a threat which does not appear to be armed, but a threat nonetheless.  No reason to shoot someone if there is another way to handle a problem.  These things shoot out a gel rather than a spray, so it's fairly accurate, has better distance and there isn't much of the blowback you get with a spray.

Within 10 feet, someone with intent can not only reach you but do harm as well.  And to those that have not felt the effect of pepper spray, its not much of a deterrent.  Just look at how many YouTube pepper spray fail videos there are out there; people just can't believe that it works.  Don't get me wrong, it burns, and it will deter someone from things like rape, riots, theft, and other long time to accomplish actions.  But within certain distance, a criminal will make contact with you no matter if you have pepper spray or a gun.

[TMF]

Within 10 feet, someone with intent can not only reach you but do harm as well.  And to those that have not felt the effect of pepper spray, its not much of a deterrent.  Just look at how many YouTube pepper spray fail videos there are out there; people just can't believe that it works.  Don't get me wrong, it burns, and it will deter someone from things like rape, riots, theft, and other long time to accomplish actions.  But within certain distance, a criminal will make contact with you no matter if you have pepper spray or a gun.

 

That would matter if every attack and every attacker were exactly the same.  You, nor anyone else, can say definitively what a criminal WILL do in a certain scenario.  We can wargame what an attacker COULD do all day long to no real benefit.  What it all boils down to is having the tools to defend yourself and being situationally aware.  Everything else is luck or chance.

 

Also, where do you get that pepper spray is "not much of a deterrent"?  In what circumstance?  It's one hell of a deterrent!  Yes, some people are affected more than others, and there is a very small percentage of people who aren't affected at all, but "not much of a deterrent"?  It's used, and works, all the time.  Not only that, the blaster I posted is an extremely concentrated version of it, much stronger than standard spray OC.  I consider myself to be a relatively tough guy, but if I'm sprayed with OC, I'm done.  Whatever it was that I was doing to get sprayed, I'm not doing it anymore. 

[phiferran]

Thought I would share this article from Claude Werner.

 

https://tacticalprofessor.wordpress.com/2015/11/13/friday-fundamentals-boundaries/

[JAB]

I agree. I wasn't excusing it. I was saying that a 67 year old woman is more likely to panic and do something stupid. More so than I am, or than a 67 year old Oh Shoot is.

She does need to be taught to be careful where she points that thing. But I hear it's near impossible to train irrational panic out of some women. I just heard, that's all.

I don't think being a woman should give her special consideration either in the case of pointing at innocents. But I believe that it does happen. Look at divorce custody battles. Who usually gets the kids? Different situation, I know.

As far as the act of drawing in the first place, an old woman probably should be specially considered. Disparity of force and all that.

 

The problem here is that the disparity was on her part, not his.  As he had neither verbally threatened violence nor, apparently, did the security footage indicate that he was acting in a particularly threatening manner then his 'threatened force level' was at zero.  The lady, however, went straight to 'DEFCON 1' and started waving around a loaded firearm.

 

It is difficult for me to want to see a 67 year old woman tossed in the slammer.  It is also difficult for me to turn loose of the idea of defending the actions of a fellow firearm carrier as an almost knee jerk response.  In this case, however, I think OhShoot has the right of it.  Not only must she be held accountable to the law regardless of age or gender but this case will also, hopefully, provide a good lesson to those less-informed among our fellow legal carriers who think that simply feeling threatened for any reason - rational or not - is justification for presenting a firearm or even for shooting someone.  Ultimately, cases such as this make all of us firearm carriers look bad and can help reinforce the antis claims that we are really a bunch of overly scared, nervous individuals who jump at our own shadows and draw our firearms - possibly endangering others - at the slightest, perceived provocation.

 

That said, I do have to agree with those who ask what kind of dumbass walks up to a stranger and asks for a light in 2015.  I mean, was the lady smoking?  I have had people walk towards me asking if I had a light.  I don't smoke nor was there any indication that I was carrying cigarettes (because I wasn't) so - in a time when smoking is fading more and more - what in Hades makes those people think I would have a light?  Now, yes, I sometimes carry a mini-Bic in case I need fire but there is no reason for anyone to assume I do and it is not carried for the purpose of lighting some stranger's cancer stick.  In my case, body language and a simple, "No," in my usual, "I am neither magnanimous nor interested in making your acquaintance," manner has been enough to stop them in their tracks and cause them to reverse course, so far.

Edited December 11, 2015 by JAB

[Omega]

That would matter if every attack and every attacker were exactly the same.  You, nor anyone else, can say definitively what a criminal WILL do in a certain scenario.  We can wargame what an attacker COULD do all day long to no real benefit.  What it all boils down to is having the tools to defend yourself and being situationally aware.  Everything else is luck or chance.

 

Also, where do you get that pepper spray is "not much of a deterrent"?  In what circumstance?  It's one hell of a deterrent!  Yes, some people are affected more than others, and there is a very small percentage of people who aren't affected at all, but "not much of a deterrent"?  It's used, and works, all the time.  Not only that, the blaster I posted is an extremely concentrated version of it, much stronger than standard spray OC.  I consider myself to be a relatively tough guy, but if I'm sprayed with OC, I'm done.  Whatever it was that I was doing to get sprayed, I'm not doing it anymore. 

What i meant by ineffective are multifold; First, in this circumstance I consider an item to be effective if it prevents a crime and or injury.  The ineffectiveness of an item is directly proportional to the fear of the perpetrator, or victim, of that item.  Many people that have not been sprayed, or even seen someone sprayed, don't fear pepperspray.  And while that product may be the best; it's not so much better that a criminal would say " its kimber brand, I better stop".  If a criminal is bound and determined to hurt you, pepperspray may not do it, hell at 10 feet a gun may not do it so that too may not be effective.

 

Thought I would share this article from Claude Werner.

 

https://tacticalprofessor.wordpress.com/2015/11/13/friday-fundamentals-boundaries/

He makes some good points, and in this case he may be correct, but my problem with this is that it puts more people in jeopardy by making them think they have to tell a criminal they are too close before defending themselves.  I do think everyone needs to be more situationally aware, but in parking lots its difficult to know when someone is trying to get to their vehicle or to you.  When my course has someone loading their vehicle I go around, unless they are right next to my vehicle, and in that case I wait behind my truck.  I still find that situation a bit suspect, why would you approach a little old lady loading her groceries for a light?  Why would you not get a lighter, or have one already as a smoker?  

[TMF]

What i meant by ineffective are multifold; First, in this circumstance I consider an item to be effective if it prevents a crime and or injury. The ineffectiveness of an item is directly proportional to the fear of the perpetrator, or victim, of that item. Many people that have not been sprayed, or even seen someone sprayed, don't fear pepperspray. And while that product may be the best; it's not so much better that a criminal would say " its kimber brand, I better stop". If a criminal is bound and determined to hurt you, pepperspray may not do it, hell at 10 feet a gun may not do it so that too may not be effective.

You're still talking about what "could" happen. I don't understand this. You're saying that one shouldn't employ pepper spray against an unarmed assailant because he might just be determined enough to ignore the excruciating pain? Is that it? Also, the pepper blaster I posted looks and functions similar to a firearm. While it's clear that people like to focus on anecdotal evidence, the fact is that most attacks in which a weapon is produced by the victim, the attacker does not proceed. But your argument that, "well, it might not always work", is the same argument that people use to say you shouldn't carry anything smaller than a .45 and you need to have several back up mags. No, you just don't, based on statistics. Same goes for the option I posted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Omega]

You're still talking about what "could" happen. I don't understand this. You're saying that one shouldn't employ pepper spray against an unarmed assailant because he might just be determined enough to ignore the excruciating pain? Is that it? Also, the pepper blaster I posted looks and functions similar to a firearm. While it's clear that people like to focus on anecdotal evidence, the fact is that most attacks in which a weapon is produced by the victim, the attacker does not proceed. But your argument that, "well, it might not always work", is the same argument that people use to say you shouldn't carry anything smaller than a .45 and you need to have several back up mags. No, you just don't, based on statistics. Same goes for the option I posted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well sure, it's always what "could" happen.  Otherwise I, like many here, just wouldn't go anywhere where it "will" happen.  I am not saying don't deploy it, I am saying don't bet your life on it.  I have enough training to where I would feel comfortable dealing with an unarmed assailant, but the problem is, you just don't know for certain if they are armed or not.  And once you get into a wrestling match with an unarmed assailant and you are armed, he can become armed by taking yours.  

 

If my choice is between lethal and non lethal equipment, I choose lethal.  I base my choice on the fact that I don't get into situations that only require non lethal engagement, or lethal for that matter.  I have no problem walking away from a belligerent individuals, and I don't present an easy target, yet.  And in case you are wondering, yes I have been pepper sprayed, been in CS gas and even tasered as part of my army training and it's not a pleasant experience.  I have also been hit with sim munitions and had one of my plates hit with 7.62.  So I know what certain things will do and not do and I certainly would not do anything to get pepper sprayed.  But there are many out there that do not know how it feels, and if you care to; look up how many spray themselves, taser themselves and yes, even get shot with ballistic vests on because, well they are stupid.  

[TMF]

Well sure, it's always what "could" happen. Otherwise I, like many here, just wouldn't go anywhere where it "will" happen. I am not saying don't deploy it, I am saying don't bet your life on it. I have enough training to where I would feel comfortable dealing with an unarmed assailant, but the problem is, you just don't know for certain if they are armed or not. And once you get into a wrestling match with an unarmed assailant and you are armed, he can become armed by taking yours.

If my choice is between lethal and non lethal equipment, I choose lethal. I base my choice on the fact that I don't get into situations that only require non lethal engagement, or lethal for that matter. I have no problem walking away from a belligerent individuals, and I don't present an easy target, yet. And in case you are wondering, yes I have been pepper sprayed, been in CS gas and even tasered as part of my army training and it's not a pleasant experience. I have also been hit with sim munitions and had one of my plates hit with 7.62. So I know what certain things will do and not do and I certainly would not do anything to get pepper sprayed. But there are many out there that do not know how it feels, and if you care to; look up how many spray themselves, taser themselves and yes, even get shot with ballistic vests on because, well they are stupid.

Well that's your choice, but one cannot say as an absolute that a deadly weapon should be the go to device in every scenario. I carry my pepper blaster whenever I can't carry a firearm, as well as certain scenarios where I'm more likely to encounter unarmed threats. An example is at the gas pumps, malls, parking lots. I've been approached and harassed by homeless people and young people more often at these locations. These are times when people may harass or attempt to put hands on you, yet the likelihood of them being armed is low. I guess what I'm saying, I have it for the scenario where I would otherwise use my hands, but would be overreacting by pulling a firearm. Why not just split the difference, present the non lethal, and go from there?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ken56]

The police do not hesitate in putting someone in their sights, with no initial threat what so ever. We all know that the technique of "just asking for a light" is the way a bad guy gets near his victim. All those other people in the lot and he just happens to pick her?  He saw a potential victim. This woman was right in perceiving a threat because that is exactly what it was. This situation is exactly the conundrum we all face.......when do we put the gun in our hand to be prepared for a confrontation. If you wait until the threat exposes itself then its too late to react (usually). If you draw too soon then you just became the criminal.

 

One problem I see is most people were raised to be polite to others, and in most instances that is appropriate. When we are approached is a parking lot the response should be "Get  away from me" loudly and forcefully. Attract attention from those potential witnesses.  Nice is not your friend in a threatening circumstance.