Sunday, October 18, 2009

Oregon Woman Fends off Rapist

katu.com from Portland, Oregon reports on a story of a potential rape victim who protected herself with a rifle.

Police have arrested a man after a woman was sexually assaulted in her own home in Forest Grove, just west of the Portland suburb of Hillsboro.

Floyd Dale Elliott faces rape and burglary charges after being accused of entering the victim's home in the middle of the night last month.

Police said he then tried to rape her.

The woman reportedly grabbed a gun, hidden near her bed, and started firing. No one was hurt.

The victim's friends identified Elliott in the investigation. Elliott was arrested without incident.


That's the original story as reported in the local media. Of course I'm extremely happy for the outcome of this near-tragedy, but I wondered if anyone else is bothered by the idea of someone shooting a rifle wildly inside a house or apartment. Isn't that dangerous? I'm thinking about my next-door neighbors doing that while my kids are playing within sight of their windows. But, as I say, I'm happy for the end result.

The article contained an update:

We're told that the woman grabbed a 22-caliber rifle, fired it in Elliott's general direction, and he ran off.

Police arrested him not long after the incident in his van on Forest Grove's Fir Road. Police tell KATU that Elliott did not break in, as other media has reported.

Police said the house was unlocked and the suspect let himself in. A burglary charge still applies, since he was not supposed to be there.

Now, this makes me wonder what really happened. The original report said he "tried to rape her." But the update says she, "grabbed a 22-caliber rifle, fired it in Elliott's general direction, and he ran off." It's hard for me to reconcile those two facts. Originally I pictured her wrestling with the guy, kicking and fighting him off, and heroically reaching her rifle and firing it wildly, which scared him off. But the undate puts all that in doubt. So, I wonder what really happened. What do you think?


And what about the door being unlocked? I'm not saying anything that could be misconstrued as blaming the victim, but I'm just asking if it makes sense that someone could be so concerned for her safety that she keeps a loaded rifle near the bed, and leaves the door unlocked? Is that possible? Maybe kaveman can tell us since this is his neck of the woods.

What's your opinion? Is this one of the exceptions to my idea that "guns are bad news for women," or does it disprove my theory, or is it something else altogether?


What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

10 comments:

  1. Even stranger, her "friends" identified him. That means it must have been someone she/they knew.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, this is in "my neck of the woods."


    While Portland and it's metro area is far from anything I experience, I can't offer anything but conjecture.

    Therefore, I won't bother other than to say it's a damn shame she didn't kill him.

    That's what would have happened "in my neck of the woods."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Gee talk about exaggerating

    Originally I pictured her wrestling with the guy, kicking and fighting him off, and heroically reaching her rifle and firing it wildly,

    When the story said

    We're told that the woman grabbed a 22-caliber rifle, fired it in Elliott's general direction, and he ran off.

    How do you get "wildly" when she was firing in his "general" direction.....which could be another way of saying "aimed" or "at" the rapist?

    Also noticed the slant to the article, the title of the article say "gun-toting" as if she was walking around with it. The reality it was in her bedroom, in her house and she wasn't toting it anywhere.

    Thought you didn't like exaggeration for effect?

    ReplyDelete
  4. First of all, I take anything a journalist wrote with a grain of salt. Secondly, I agree with Bob. You read a lot into the story. Nowhere does it say she was wrestling with the intruder or wildly firing a gun. You assumed that, and it's an easy thing to do I suppose.

    If someone is in my house in the middle of the night, there's a .22 rifle with a bullet with their name on it. Because there is a difference between someone who would break into your house when you're not there, and someone who doesn't care if you're home or not. They're the type that will kill you. Period, end of discussion.

    Of course, I lock my doors. But perhaps she forgot. It's easy to do. I have on occasion forgotten to lock the door, but I usually check it. People are fallible, and it certainly wasn't her fault nonetheless. Good thing she had a rifle, or she could be dead now, or worse.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Articles like this are anecdotal evidence that do nothing more than prove that such events can occur.

    One side can claim it proves gun owners are reckless, because shots were fired and they didn't hit the bad guy.

    The other side can claim that this is an example of guns being used to prevent a crime.

    When you start nitpicking out the details (was the door locked? Why not? Was she lying in wait or an innocent victim that was prepared?), it just muddies up the discussion and waters down the basic facts in the anti-gun vs. pro-gun argument.

    The truth is, people use guns for good, people use guns for evil. Any gun control ONLY greatly effects those that use guns for good because the ones using them to commit crimes are barely effected by gun control laws at all.

    Ya gotta look at the big picture and not focus too hard on the details.

    ...Orygunner... (orygunner1 at comcast.net)

    ReplyDelete
  6. It is ironic that in my 'neck of the woods' women are invited by authorities to use wall-penetrating, body armor-penetrating, high calibre rifles, but denied the right to use pistols, which are less likely to penetrate two exterior walls and kill a neighbor.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yes, I read a lot into this story, I admit, but it was based on two words: "sexually assaulted." I don't know about you, but that brings up images for me of physical contact and fighting for one's life. To reconcile that with shooting a rifle in the attacker's "general direction," is a bit difficult. That's all I'm saying.

    ReplyDelete
  8. MikeB,

    I don't know about you, but that brings up images for me of physical contact and fighting for one's life.

    May want to spend a little time looking up the legal definition of words.

    Touching a person in certain manners can be and is considered sexual assault.

    So you read way more into it then the article says....as usual.

    My problem with your exaggeration (thought you didn't like people who did that for effect) is your assumption she was shooting wildly.

    You didn't consider the bias or word choice of the news paper, the reporter or anything.

    YOU immediately jumped to the law abiding victim being irresponsible.

    That is prejudice, that is bias.

    To reconcile that with shooting a rifle in the attacker's "general direction," is a bit difficult.

    I'm sure once the attacker realized she was going to shoot him, he simply stood there waiting for her to hit him, right?

    "General Direction" couldn't possibly have anything to do with him running, ducking, or trying to get away, could it?

    ReplyDelete
  9. And once again MikeB ignores the inconvenient truths shown in the comments.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I would like to know who waits 3 WEEKS to report a break in and ATTEMPTED RAPE. If it were me I would have called the police right away. But no this lady/GIRL waited 3 WEEKS sounds to me like she has more to hide than a riffle sounds to me like her and her friends had to make up a story so perhapse they would not get caught doing something illeagl. Never judge lest you be judged. and do not judge until you have all the facts. I thought we lived in a country that we were inocent until proven giulty sounds like all of you have convicted this man before he has even had a trial. CHECK YOUR SELVES because GOD is the only one that is to be judging anyone. I think this is a big fat LIE to cover up something else. Think about it people why wait 3 weeks?

    ReplyDelete