Friday, November 16, 2012

Criminal Act Disguised as a Legitimate DGU

Local news reports
A Longview woman who was walking at Lake Sacajawea with her 6-year-old son pulled a gun on a man who exposed his genitals to her Wednesday evening, according to police.

The 35-year-old woman was near Martin Dock around 8:10 p.m. when the man approached her “aggressively,” sat down and began performing a sex act, then suggested she should watch him, according to the woman and accounts from police.

“I put the magazine in my gun. I cocked it,” the woman said in an interview Thursday night. “I said, ‘You need to leave or Ill shoot you. I’m going to blow your brains out.’ ”

“Oh, [expletive]!” the man declared, before running away.
As distasteful as this guy's behavior was, there was no threat of bodily harm. There was no reason to draw the gun and certainly no reason to threaten to blow his brains out. A simple walking away and calling the police would have sufficed.

You see, this is one of the ways gun-rights fanatics compile those incredible totals of so-called DGUs. Many of them are criminal acts disguised.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

19 comments:

  1. So she's supposed to wait until he's raping her or her 6-year old before she does anything. God, you're a dumb fuck.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, she's supposed to wait till there's a reasonable fear of something like that. This wasn't it.

      Delete
    2. How the hell do you know? You weren't there. "Reasonableness" in the legal sense is only relevant to HER state of mind, not to a Monday-morning quarterback like you. You should know that Mr. Bannerman.

      Delete
    3. You think you know who I am, but you don't. I told you that on FB, but your ignorance will not be beat.

      Delete
    4. FB? What are you talking about? What do you mean by FB?

      Delete
  2. See the people that Mikeb attacks: a mother protecting her child. See the people who--by implication, at least--he defends: a sex offender. The man here was committing a violent sexual act. Exposing himself in public in front of a woman and her young child indicates a danger of more serious action to come. The only thing wrong here is that she didn't have the magazine in the gun and a round in the chamber already.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It didn't sound like a violent act to me, it sounded like some sick pervert who tried to expose himself. The use of a gun was uncalled for. You tell me, what's minimum requirement for drawing down on someone? Isn't it the threat of death or serious bodily harm? This sounds like she was outraged and offended.

      Delete
    2. You have *got* to be kidding me!?!?! the situation de-escalated and the perv left...I'd call that a completely legit dgu..You're telling me that you would turn your back on this perv and risk things getting physical?? I certainly wouldn't..Good on her but like Greg said she needs to have one in the chamber..

      Delete
    3. Jake, by your standards, you could draw down on someone for looking at you funny. You never know when it's about to get dangerous. You can't take any chances.

      Delete
  3. A sick pervert beating off at a lady and her child from < 21 ft. (see Tueller drill) qualifies as assault as far as I'm concerned. Are you suggesting she should have turned her back to walk away, thus exposing herself to attack? Are you afraid that had she fired the Democrats would have lost a voter?
    _Revjen45 - Certified Instructor: Home Firearm Safety, Basic Rifle, Muzzleloading Handgun, Modern Handgun, Basic Personal Protection Inside The House. Degreed Professional Gunsmith

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What other non-threatening behavior would you consider assault? How about a hostile look. They often precede a physical attack.

      Delete
  4. If it is a legitimate sexual attack, the woman’s body has a way of walking away.

    -MikeB’s “War on Women”.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mikeb, why do you play stupid? A dirty look isn't a crime. Exposing and playing with oneself in public is a crime. Can't you see the difference? When someone commits one criminal act, the chances are that others will follow.

    If this man had merely stuck out his tongue or made jerking motions in front of his closed pants, that wouldn't have been cause to pull the gun. The fact that he committed a gross misdemeanor under Washington law by exposing himself to a child of six and to the child's mother changes the game. Men who do that move on to do more violent acts. In fact, over at TTAG, one commentor gave a link to a news article about this woman finding the man in the sex offender registry, meaning that his act was a felony.

    Absorb that message. The man was committing a felony, and the armed good citizen stopped it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also, her gun was not in a ready state. She got it ready at that point. I haven’t read confirmation that she even pointed it at him, and she certainly didn’t shoot him in the ass as he ran away while trying to pull his pants up. Yet, you Mike, want her to be arrested in front of her 6 year old child after calling the police to report this. What is the matter with you?

      Delete
    2. You cannot draw you gun at people for committing public crimes unless you are in danger.

      Delete
    3. If you read Washington's statutes on the lawful use of force:

      http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.020

      you can see, particularly in items #3 and #6, that the mother here followed the law. She didn't shoot. She used her gun to stop a felony in progress and a potentially violent attack.

      Delete
  6. Good draw. Sorry to make your day(so to speak), but this is a wholly legitimate use of a firearm.

    ReplyDelete