Advertisement

Archive for Friday, April 13, 2012

Man accused of striking 16-year-old during alleged road-rage incident

April 13, 2012

Advertisement

A 33-year-old man was cited for misdemeanor battery after he was accused of striking a 16-year-old girl with her baseball cap Thursday afternoon during an alleged road rage incident.

Sgt. Trent McKinley, a Lawrence police spokesman, said the incident occurred near Sixth and Michigan streets, and the man was accused of becoming angry at the girl after he perceived she had hit her brakes unnecessarily while she was in traffic ahead of him. He’s accused of approaching the woman’s vehicle, opening her door and taking off her cap and hitting her with it.

McKinley said an officer was called by a third party about 4:15 p.m. about the incident, so it occurred some time before then. The suspect was located nearby, interviewed and given the notice to appear in municipal court on the battery charge.

Municipal court officials said Friday that information about the citation was still in the process of being forwarded to the court clerk’s office and that additional details, including the man’s name and court date, could not be released.

Comments

amac 2 years, 8 months ago

OMG people. please try to be patient with young drivers!

tomatogrower 2 years, 8 months ago

I guess it's a good thing she didn't have a gun. She might have felt threatened and killed him. And guess what, guy, you don't get to decide when someone is going to use a brake. It's not your decision. You just find another route when you can. What a jerk.

Uhlrick_Hetfield_III 2 years, 8 months ago

Except she apparently tried to cause him to have an accident and she gets away scott free? That's not fair. The good thing though is that karma will always come back to bite people like these in the behind. They'll both do it again, or engage in other behavior that will result in negative consequences.

Deja Coffin 2 years, 8 months ago

When I commuted to Lenexa from Jefferson County for work the people I found to be texting/reading something on their phones the most were men in the upper 20's- early 40's range. I'm not saying grown men text more then teenagers or anything.... maybe they're just not as good as hiding it. But I always thought it was weird to see grown men sitting there texting away while driving. They should know better!

tomatogrower 2 years, 8 months ago

Well, if purple people are going to run around a crimson and blue town, they should stay in their cars. :>)

collective82 2 years, 8 months ago

Title should be "man hits 16 year old girl with hat" not make it sound like he punched someone though I fully agree with G_rock 110%.

FlintHawk 2 years, 8 months ago

Geez!!! And what difference would THAT make?!

Steve Jacob 2 years, 8 months ago

Opening her car door, that's serious stuff. Anyway, no accident, at the most honk your horn and give the finger. Not saying that acceptable, but that's worst case.

ksjayhawk74 2 years, 8 months ago

"the man was accused of becoming angry at the girl after he perceived she had hit her brakes unnecessarily while she was in traffic ahead of him."

She didn't hit her brakes unnecessarily, you were following too close, Jck-ss!!!

If you're following the correct distance behind a car (2 seconds), it doesn't matter how quick they stop.

DillonBarnes 2 years, 8 months ago

Ah, don't we all feel like hitting a 16 year old driver from time to time?

homechanger 2 years, 8 months ago

I am SO glad it was not my 16 year old driver he assaulted. He should be too.

rockchalker52 2 years, 8 months ago

Big tough guy. What a redneck. Dumber than dumb. Send him to anger management, the dillrod. Any consequences he faces should include an apology to the young lady.

infidel 2 years, 8 months ago

Agreed Larry, but this is Kansas we do no have any requirement to register any gun. I would use my weapon in my car, no need for conceal carry, if it left out in the open, I do have a ccl license, and many of my Lawrence friends do as well

jafs 2 years, 8 months ago

If you shoot and kill somebody who's about to hit you with your hat, be prepared to face legal charges, and almost certainly get convicted, and wind up in jail.

OldEnuf2BYurDad 2 years, 8 months ago

If that had been my daughter, his ears would be digesting alongside the Taco Bravo that's in my stomach. Daddy doesn't go for that.

pace 2 years, 8 months ago

I am not jumping to judgement. Once some guy in the lane behind me, honked (a lot) when I stopped for a yellow light turning red. It wasn't a sudden stop, I realized he wanted me to keep going, He didn't want to stop. I wanted to stay in front of him and go as slow as possible. I knew it was road rage (mine). So I just gave him a wave, okay, it was with one finger. A lot of stuff is in the details. I hope she wasn't hurt, I hope he wasn't drunk. I would hope noone is ready to murder because someone was rude. But by the comments there are some out of control loonies out looking for a chance or excuse to blow someone away. That seems to be a more dangerous attitude than some teen teasing the old fart by braking in front of him or a full grown man who doesn't know to keep his hands off others property. Use your words, even if they are under your breath. Don't just shoot someone because they touched your car. Don't grab some cap and hit a person. Use your words or go get a smoothie.

costello 2 years, 8 months ago

I agree. I'd feel very threatened if someone approached my car and opened the door.

It's such a weird story, though. If I saw the driver behind me get out of his car and walk toward mine, I'd just drive away - or at the very least lock the door. So I assume she was prevented in some way? Had she pulled into a parking spot, and his car was blocking hers? Did he follow her? Or did he rear end her, so she thought he was approaching her to talk about the accident? And why did a "third party" call the police? I would have called the police myself. Did she go home and tell her mom, and her mom reported it? It makes he wonder if the girl knew the man.

Weird story.

jafs 2 years, 8 months ago

Yes, I had the same thought - why weren't her doors locked?

costello 2 years, 8 months ago

Years ago an 18 year old woman was driving home from work at midnight. She was passing my parents' home off 56 highway when another car drove her off the road. She drove up to my folks' house looking for help, and the other car followed her. The man in the other car approached her with a knife and demanded she get out of her car. She was locked in with the windows up, but she complied and he raped her in his car. I've never understood why she didn't just stay in her car, maybe run over him!

My parents were in the house calling the sheriff and getting a gun. Help was on the way, but of course she didn't know that.

I guess it's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback, saying I would have run him down with my car. The only thing I can think is that she was so frightened, she wasn't thinking clearly.

jafs 2 years, 8 months ago

That's a sad story.

I always lock my doors whenever I get in my car - just seems like a good idea to me.

She could also have driven away, and gotten a pretty good lead before he could get back into his car, perhaps.

James Minor 2 years, 8 months ago

An example should be made of him. Hitting a young lady, possibly threatening her safety, battery, and road rage. Tough guys like him should get the special suite at the DCJ and forced to wear pink underwear. I bet he will get the feeling of what it is like to be a little girl when he is getting slapped around after the lights are off in the jail!!!!

FlintHawk 2 years, 8 months ago

This is why I drive with my doors locked and, usually, with windows closed.

Got in the habit in Denver to keep panhandlers, druggies and weirdos from opening my door or grabbing me through the driver's side window. (I worked in the CBD.)

Never considered road-ragers' opening my door. They usually just ride my bumper, flip me off or honk incessantly —although I've not had the pleasure of those responses in Lawrence.

If this incident happened to my 16-year old, I would want to have a little "talk" with the idiot.

Kendall Simmons 2 years, 8 months ago

Because lots of people come from small towns where they still feel safe driving down the street with their doors unlocked. Heck, in the "good old days", no one ever locked their doors...and I miss those days...well, at least as far as locking doors goes :-)

notorious_agenda 2 years, 8 months ago

DillonBarnes, Because it was a 16 year old girl. She was probably completely oblivious to the ensuing hat attack. The fact that the doors were unlocked just promotes that idea. She must have been going 1mph over the speed limit and tapped her brakes to slow down like any cautious new driver would.

Jeff Supernaw 2 years, 8 months ago

Good thing she was wearing a hat and not a hoodie.

imastinker 2 years, 8 months ago

It sounds like these two people deserve each other! At least they spend their time abusing other idiots rather than inflicting their idiocy on the rest of the populace.

Kendall Simmons 2 years, 8 months ago

What two people are you talking about? Surely not the girl.

I mean, just because the jerk that slapped her 'thought' she hit her brakes "unnecessarily" doesn't mean that she actually did. Certainly you realize that he wasn't in a position to see what she saw.

And many people don't automatically lock their car doors when they're inside. And not doing so doesn't make one an idiot.

imastinker 2 years, 8 months ago

She's an idiot for engaging anther idiot!

She probably did brake check him for being an idiot, but who knows. Either way, once he got out of the car she should have driven off with the doors locked and windows up.

She didn't, making her an idiot.

jaywalker 2 years, 8 months ago

Educated guess: he was following too close or intentionally tail-gating, she hit the brakes to back him off, he blew his stack. Hope part of his punishment is anger management classes.

Kendall Simmons 2 years, 8 months ago

Or how about "guessing" that the person in front of her hit their brakes, so she hit hers reflexively??

Instead of assuming the worst (which isn't particularly educated), you have to remember that only he says that he thought she hit her brakes unnecessarily. Even more important...remember that he couldn't see what she saw in front of her!

I'm curious as to why so many of you are so eager to accept the opinion of this jerk as fact.

gambailey 2 years, 8 months ago

so, this one time, I was making out with my girlfriend in my car...and this man approached the car, so I sped off...when we got out of the car, his hook hand was hanging from the door handle. No, really.

Bailey Perkins 2 years, 8 months ago

I saw that happen and couldnt figure out what was going on. Turned in the intersection and saw the guy go up, open the door and smack the driver, and then walk back to his car. Crazy...

Jason Johnson 2 years, 8 months ago

Someone opens my car door, and they're not a friend or family, they're going to meet my .38

That guy was a moron.

hujiko 2 years, 8 months ago

So let me get this straight, some dude driving down 6th street on a Friday afternoon didn't know there would be traffic and drivers braking unexpectedly? What a total idiot. Use another road if you're in such a poor mood, everyone knows that the arterial streets fill up with bad drivers at those times.

I'm not blaming the girl, but since she is clearly a novice it is possible she instigated the attack by intentionally messing with the other driver. I know I have fooled with people behind me in traffic, and I have seen it done to others, so it's not a stretch. All I can say is it's not worth giving crazy people reason to take matters into their own hands, imagine if this guy had fully snapped and did something worse.

Lawrence drivers are terrible enough, don't add to it.

ksjayhawk74 2 years, 8 months ago

Are you saying that the problem with America is that is not OK for a 33 man to walk up to a teenage girl's car, open the door and hit her? So long as she wasn't physically hurt, it doesn't matter?

Blame Obama, right?

DillonBarnes 2 years, 8 months ago

When Bush was president, we could beat teenagers with baseball hats, stocking caps, scarves, jackets, socks, you name it!

infidel 2 years, 8 months ago

The act of coming up from anyplace and opening my car door and striking me, would be accepted as a violent threat against me, use of force would be justified. Perhaps you should go sit through a concealed carry class for eight hours and learn what the attorney general has to say about use of force. And yes, not one of my vehicles, leaves my Lawrence house with out at least one loaded weapon in it, if even to drive to the quickie mart a couple of blocks from the house

jafs 2 years, 8 months ago

Use of force that is reasonably necessary to defend yourself from the threat.

Shooting somebody is almost certainly not reasonable in that situation, and killing them is certainly not.

jafs 2 years, 8 months ago

It's just not true.

No matter how many times people say it, or how strongly they believe it.

Your use of force must be reasonably necessary to defend yourself - that's a judgment call, of course, but if somebody pulls open your car door and hits you with a baseball hat, my judgment is that shooting them is not reasonably necessary for self defense.

The "I have no idea what they're capable of" idea is understandable, but I think it doesn't justify escalating violence legally.

Don't want to wind up being prosecuted? Don't over-react and shoot people.

Personally, I don't plan to be on either end of this sort of thing - I keep my car doors locked, and I don't carry a gun around with me.

machiavelli 2 years, 8 months ago

If you pulled a gun on me, I'd take it away from you faster than your old, fat ass could process what was going on and pump sixteen rounds into your head. Either that, or I'd pull my own and do the same

Fred Mertz 2 years, 8 months ago

jafs shooting someone to stop them from punching me is indeed reasonable. A punch can kill, it can maim and it can do great bodily harm so yes it is reasonable to shoot and kill someone who is going to punch you.

Don't want to get shot, then don't use violence to resolve an issue.

Now, I might not shoot them for all the reasons that have come to light with the Zimmerman case, but if you're a 16 year old girl and a stranger opens your door, takes off your hat and them proceeds to batter them, then it may be justified to shoot that person. How did she know he was going to stop with just one strike? How does she know he's not going to continue and pull her from the car and beat her to a pulp? Again, don't want to get shot then don't batter people.

DillonBarnes 2 years, 8 months ago

No, being hit with a baseball hat is not enough to justify self-defense. However, when they open the door, you don't what they are going to do or how far they are going to go. Fred-mertz made that point very well. Hopefully, I wouldn't have to draw my weapon in that situation. 1) my doors would have been locked. 2) I would have tried to drive away from the situation, even if that means taking it up on the curb to get away.

Also, I hope machiavelli doesn't have a gun.

jafs 2 years, 8 months ago

See my response to fm.

According to the case I've seen, somebody who escalated from a fist fight to a weapon lost their self defense claim, and had to pay damages. They were hit in a bar by somebody, and then they pulled a knife (or broke a bottle). When they claimed self defense, their claim was denied, and the judge stated that escalating the violence is not justifiable self defense.

My doors would have been locked, so it wouldn't happen to me.

And, I like your other idea as well.

The "how do I know how far they'll go" argument seems unconvincing to me, and clearly to a judge - that would make any confrontation a potentially deadly one, and justify the use of deadly force - this is clearly not the case in our legal system - it makes a variety of distinctions.

jafs 2 years, 8 months ago

Ok - go ahead then.

It's not really my problem - I'm just trying to educate people on self defense laws, which indicate the response must be reasonable necessary.

The "how do I know" argument isn't convincing to me - if we went with that, I could shoot somebody for looking at me funny - after all, I don't know he's not going to kill me, right?

I've seen small claims cases in which somebody was attacked in a bar by somebody who hit them, they responded by pulling out a knife (or breaking a bottle), and they wound up being responsible for the other person's injuries.

Their claim of self defense was denied, and the judge strongly stated that escalation is not justifiable self defense.

If you were right, then they could have used your argument and won - they didn't know what the other person would do, right?

Thinking_Out_Loud 2 years, 8 months ago

We can argue all you want about whether this scenario or that scenario justifies use of force. But it's all opinion. The only way to know for certain is to ask 12 of your peers. By then it's no longer hypothetical and you're having a bad life.

Kendall Simmons 2 years, 8 months ago

What gets me is all these gunslingers who apparently truly think they'd be able to get to their darned guns in the first place.

Heck, even if they all drove around with their guns sitting right beside them on the seat...no holster, no safety...okaaaay...chances are good they wouldn't even know the guy was coming up to their car until he jerked the door open.

Then, of course, they expect to have superb reflexes, not be at all startled so fully in control at all times...and for the guy who opens the door to have no reflexes or, if he grabs their gun arm, they expect to be the stronger person, even though they're constrained by a seat belt and there's a steering wheel in the way.

I'm not anti-gun...not even close...but I've never understood why people think carrying a gun will improve all their other skills. Of course, they are just sitting at their keyboards blowing smoke :-)

Clickker 2 years, 8 months ago

Hmmmm no name yet? However the other assault they immediately post the name.

WHO ARE THEY TRYING TO PROTECT?

Clickker 2 years, 8 months ago

why no name yet?

Who are they protecting?

Gonna come out sooner or later

FlintHawk 2 years, 8 months ago

I really hope you're kidding. If you're not: Who protects the kids in his classroom?

JayhawkFan1985 2 years, 8 months ago

a man did something similar to my mother in law several years ago on 9th and Iowa because he thought she cut him off just west of Emory where the lane drops. These people are dangerous. It is why I don't like conceal carry laws. You never can tell if these jerks are armed.

honestone 2 years, 8 months ago

Since I am a law abiding CC permit kinda person...if they did that to my daughter...I would have just pulled it out and shot him...then I would have beat her for being a snotty child...then I would have gotten a beer and relaxed What a bunch of idiots...

Kendall Simmons 2 years, 8 months ago

Who did you say was the idiot in your scenario?????

jaywalker 2 years, 8 months ago

jafs: "Use of force that is reasonably necessary to defend yourself from the threat.

Shooting somebody is almost certainly not reasonable in that situation, and killing them is certainly not."

Incredibly incorrect. Perhaps a review of concealed carry training would help you out on this.

"(One) caveat has to do with how you size up the criterion of ability. Here we are talking about the concepts of power and disparity of force. Clearly, a person with a gun or a knife, and the ability to use it, has the power to kill or cripple you. However, you can't shoot that person unless he has the immediate opportunity to use that ability on you, and he acts in such a manner that leads you to reasonably conclude you are in immediate jeopardy. What about if the threat does not have a gun, or a knife, or a bludgeon? There are several other factors that would fulfill the ability criterion:.....

.....A third factor is greater physical size and strength. If you are attacked by King Kong Bundy, you are on solid legal ground in using a force multiplier (a weapon) to avoid being killed or crippled.

....A fifth factor is male versus female. Our society assumes that females are more vulnerable and that there is a cultural predisposition for males to be more inclined than females to violent physical aggression. So, if you are female, and you are being attacked by a lone male, and the other criteria of opportunity and jeopardy are in play, you are on solid legal ground in terms of using deadly force if you have no other viable choice to avoid being killed or crippled. This would also include self-defense against rape."

I'd also contend that ripping open a stranger's car door is an invasion of personal property and space, and could be construed along the same lines as illegally entering someone's home.

Bottom line, the guy's lucky he didn't get shot. She would have been justified in doing so.

jafs 2 years, 8 months ago

"you are on solid legal ground...using deadly force if you have no other viable choice to avoid..."

This is what I've been saying all along - thanks for the support.

If you think that somebody hitting you with your hat is unavoidably going to kill, cripple, or rape you, I think that's not a reasonable perception of that situation. Especially if you're in your car, and could simply drive away. Or you could get out of your car and run away, into a store, etc.

One must reasonably conclude that one is in imminent danger, and to use deadly force the danger must be great as well, if you want to claim self defense and win.

It's a judgement call, both for the person in the situation, and also for a judge or jury, as to what's reasonable - I'm just giving you my take on it.

And, strongly suggesting that many on here seem to think that relatively small threats warrant the use of deadly force in self defense - you can believe that, but it's legally incorrect.

Any case law about opening a car door that's unlocked being equivalent to a home invasion?

Even in your quotations, somebody with a gun or knife must have "the immediate opportunity to use 'them', and must act in such a manner that leads you to conclude you are in immediate jeopardy". That means that somebody could have a knife or gun, in their pocket, but even that doesn't justify deadly force.

Those who claim "I don't know what they might be capable of", and use that to justify deadly force aren't using the correct legal criteria, even according to your own sources.

DillonBarnes 2 years, 8 months ago

I'm curious here, let's run a hypothetical. Let's say for some reason, your doors were unlocked and someone opened your door and started hitting you with your hat. What would you do then?

jafs 2 years, 8 months ago

I don't know.

But, I wouldn't pull out a gun and shoot them, that's certain.

What would you do?

DillonBarnes 2 years, 8 months ago

I wouldn't pull a firearm out if they were hitting me with a hat. I may have drawn it if someone approached my car like that and I didn't have an alternate route. That doesn't mean I'd shoot, there are plenty of incidents where a firearm can diffuse a situation without firing a shot.

Here is where I'm seeing a gap in our views on this. You keep going back to being hit with a baseball cap isn't enough to justify shooting someone. I would agree with that, if someone starts hitting you with a hat, it would be hard to make a case that they may have escalated that to death or serious bodily harm. However, the act of approaching a vehicle in anger on the road is a threatening enough act by itself. You don't know what those intentions are, obviously this person is angry enough to come physically confront me, how far with they take it? Unfortunately, they aren't walking up to your car announcing their intentions, "I'm going to give you a right old wallop with your own bonnet good sir."

So, if my doors were unlocked, and I wasn't paying attention, and was unable to exit the situation and someone opened my door and grabbed my hat and began hitting me, what would I do? That's hard to say, I'm sure I'd spend a second completely confused. Honestly, it would just be trying to put as much space between him and I, kicking, hitting, whatever would be needed to separate him.

jafs 2 years, 8 months ago

This is the problem with the "I don't know what they might do" argument.

It just doesn't fit the laws about self defense, as posted by jaywalker, and others.

That's probably because it could apply to any situation, and then people would be killing each other over a look, and claiming self defense.

jafs 2 years, 8 months ago

As I said in another post, it's a bit of a strange fit between the laws, and our emotions - most people in threatening situations aren't thinking that clearly, and thus making those sorts of judgements isn't that easy to do.

If she had seen him coming, she could easily have locked her doors, so I think it's fair to say she didn't see him before he got to her car.

I would also be shocked, and surprised, and might react the same way you would - that seems very reasonable to me, and almost certainly legal in self defense.

It's just not true that a threatening act, in and of itself, justifies killing somebody in self defense, according to our laws. It must be a threatening act that puts one in reasonable fear for one's life, or grievous bodily harm, and according to jay's post, unavoidable by other means. That means, if you can run away, you can't legally kill them. In his post, even if they have a weapon in their pocket, they have to take it out and threaten you with it directly.

"How far will they take it" while understandable, doesn't fit that definition and those guidelines.

DillonBarnes 2 years, 8 months ago

The "how far will they take it" argument is definitely a simplification of the process on my part. You have to quickly judge the situation, most of which you'll do unconsciously. How angry does this person look? Are they holding any weapons? What kind of car is this person driving (it can make a difference)? You just have to gauge (and kind of guess) what kind of threat this person is to you. In this situation, drawing a firearm is very unlikely unless you cannot escape and the person begins to try and forcefully enter your vehicle.

Take comfort in the fact that there haven't been any cases, that I'm aware of, of these questionable self-defense shootings in Kansas. So although I can understand your worry about people shooting in self-defense over a bad look, it just hasn't been happening.

jafs 2 years, 8 months ago

Yes, and all of that is hard to do well under stress, when the fight or flight instinct kicks in, adrenaline is churning, etc.

Not yet, maybe. But as self defense laws are weakened, and the idea that you can just "stand your ground" even if you could run away, I predict more of this sort of thing.

I hope I'm wrong, of course.

DillonBarnes 2 years, 8 months ago

I hope you're wrong, too. I don't think most concealed carriers, even the ones who come on here and said, "I'd just SHOOT him" really would have acted that way.

The general philosophy of concealed carry, is to use it as a last resort. I think the proof of that is the lack of incident over the last 5 years. No doubt some concealed carriers have found themselves in unfavorable situations, but we can assume they avoided the situation or solved it without firing.

jaywalker 2 years, 8 months ago

"If you think that somebody hitting you with your hat is unavoidably going to kill, cripple, or rape you, I think that's not a reasonable perception of that situation. "

Thanks for being obtuse. Really lends credibility to your argument. Of course the act of hitting someone with a hat doesn't lend to any of that. But a 33 year old MAN ripping open a teenage girls door by itself is the overt act. Your unwillingness to view the potential for harm here is what's "not a reasonable perception of that situation."

"Even in your quotations, somebody with a gun or knife must have "the immediate opportunity to use 'them', and must act in such a manner that leads you to conclude you are in immediate jeopardy"."

Ya know, I left that in there because I KNEW you'd hang your hat on it instead of actually considering the other factors listed. Makes me sad that it was so predictable. Disparity of force, power and size, male vs. female; 3 mitigating factors spelled out in front of your eyes that meet this situation to a T, yet you choose to ignore them and go with the one offered that doesn't. And you wonder why people get angry with you.
In your eyes, the 16 year old girl needs to wait and see what's going to happen next - a strange irate man has just stormed up to her vehicle and ripped open the door - yes, I'm sure she should wait until he gets his hands on her. She'll have no problem fighting back then. Unfortunately, in the eyes of the law as shown in the factors cited, she had every right to use a force multiplier. Your "take" is wrong.

"And, strongly suggesting that many on here seem to think that relatively small threats warrant the use of deadly force in self defense - you can believe that, but it's legally incorrect."

First, I never "strongly suggested" any such thing. Second, it's not legally incorrect in this situation, as my quotations prove.

"Any case law about opening a car door that's unlocked being equivalent to a home invasion?"

No, that's why I used words like "contend" and "could be construed." And the fact the car or a home is unlocked makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.

jafs 2 years, 8 months ago

Well, I think you're wrong, and you think I am.

Ok.

I'm "strongly suggesting" that what many people seem to believe is wrong, that all threats are potentially deadly ones, and justify the use of deadly force in response.

Your post states that women can use deadly force legally if they "have no other viable choice to avoid being killed or crippled" or raped. A guy who opens your door without a weapon in broad daylight on a crowded public street is not putting somebody in that situation, in my view.

I understand that these are emotionally charged questions, because we're all a bit afraid of being attacked, and that if we are, our emotions take over, the fight or flight instinct kicks in, and that most of us would prefer to pull out a gun rather than get into a fistfight.

But the law makes lots of distinctions, and imposes the burden of reasonableness on those decisions, to justify claiming self defense, especially with the use of deadly force.

It's not a great fit, in some ways, because one's judgement isn't the clearest when attacked, but I suppose it's the best we can do, so that people don't shoot people for looking at them funny, and claim self defense.

jaywalker 2 years, 8 months ago

"Well, I think you're wrong, and you think I am"

No, there's no 'think' about it. I've provided evidence backing my points from law enforcement. I know you're wrong.

jafs 2 years, 8 months ago

Actually, you haven't done that at all.

Your citations support my view more than yours.

jafs 2 years, 8 months ago

I didn't say she should or had to wait until he "got his hands on her" - I said she can't legally shoot and kill him in self defense, according to our laws.

If she kicked him in the balls, I think that would probably be legally justified self defense, even if she did it before he hit her.

If she pepper sprayed or maced him, that might be legal as well.

In your own citations, a "force multiplier" is acceptable to avoid being killed or crippled.

Not to avoid being hit or hurt - these are the distinctions our legal system makes, and you supply good evidence of that.

I suggest you re-read your own post, and think about it.

jaywalker 2 years, 8 months ago

"I said she can't legally shoot and kill him in self defense, according to our laws."

Mystifying. The evidence has been cited yet you still want to pretend it hasn't.

" In your own citations, a "force multiplier" is acceptable to avoid being killed or crippled.

Not to avoid being hit or hurt "

Once again you refuse to recognize the situation. How is the girl supposed to be able to tell what's about to happen? And you're parsing:
"If you are attacked by King Kong Bundy, you are on solid legal ground in using a force multiplier"; "attacked" = an irate, larger, adult male makes the incredibly aggressive move of invading her vehicle. That's an "attack", dear heart, and she could reasonably conclude that his actions are meant to cause serious injury.
"So, if you are female, and you are being attacked by a lone male, and the other criteria of opportunity and jeopardy are in play, you are on solid legal ground in terms of using deadly force" - so she can use a force multiplier in order to avoid being crippled or killed. How is that so difficult to grasp? Somehow for you he needs to have a weapon visible or she just has to sit back and take it until he's broken some bones, got his hands around her throat, dragged her to his vehicle...........that's just plain dumb. If she takes action beforehand, she IS avoiding being crippled or killed. She's not a psychic, nor does she have to be. The aggressive, overt act is enough to be reasonably in fear of her well-being, especially because of the age, size, and gender disparity. As is written out in front of your eyes.

I'm not the one that needs to read it again.

jafs 2 years, 8 months ago

I've read your post numerous times, and it supports my view.

All threats are not deadly threats - that's why the law makes those distinctions.

You leave out parts of your citations as well - "if you have no other viable choice".

The law requires that you make an assessment, and according to the actual KS statutes, it must be a "reasonable" one, necessary for your self defense.

That means that "I didn't know what he might do" isn't enough - you must reasonably believe your life is in danger, or "grievous" bodily harm is imminent.

I am more and more concerned that you will wind up being the next Zimmerman or Martin, or like your friend who wound up in jail. If I remember that right, your view didn't match the legal system's conclusion.

And I urge you to take steps so that doesn't happen.

deec 2 years, 8 months ago

"That means that "I didn't know what he might do" isn't enough - you must reasonably believe your life is in danger, or "grievous" bodily harm is imminent." I hate guns. But every woman in the world knows on some level that she is a potential rape victim. If a guy opens the door, you don't know what his intentions are, but they likely won't be pleasant. I think this might influence a jury or judge.

jafs 2 years, 8 months ago

Maybe.

In the original statutes as posted by somebody, rape isn't even mentioned.

The criteria for using deadly force in self defense are a threat to life, or the threat of "grievous bodily harm".

I don't know if rape is generally considered that or not, or if it's up to a jury.

Keep your car doors locked, and call 911 - that's my best advice for preventing this sort of thing.

Katara 2 years, 8 months ago

One must 21 in order to have a permit for concealed carry. This girl was 16. She still wouldn't be able to own a gun under Federal gun laws.

Why are people arguing about a situation that legally could not have occurred here?

notaubermime 2 years, 8 months ago

Why does everything have to be gun this and gun that? What is wrong with mace?

50YearResident 2 years, 8 months ago

All this BS over the mere flip of the hat! He would probably get 20 years if he had actually tutched her, according to most posters here!

Commenting has been disabled for this item.