Woman charged for trying to shoot tires of shoplifter

[hjmick]

She hasn't forfeited her "right to defend herself".

There are plenty of other effective means to defend herself.

Now, I don't own a gun or anything but for a woman like myself, a gun is the ultimate "equalizer." I don't have the size, strength or height to fight off a would be full-grown male attacker.

Rubbish!

Take a self defense class and you will quickly learn that size and strength have nothing whatsoever to do with defending yourself. The bigger the "male attacker" the larger your target areas. And if you haven't taken a self defense class and believe that a gun will be the "ultimate equalizer" you will quickly discover that is a fallacy. Your attacker will disarm you before you can ever draw your gun, let alone aim and fire it. Hollywood isn't real life. You don't get to see your attacker coming. You have to be able to defend yourself with whatever you have at a moment's notice. It won't be a gun.

Oh, so you think I could physically fight off an attacker, but that he could easily disarm me? Hmm.

Yes, because you are focused on a lump of metal that will only "defend" you if your attacker is more than 20' away and you can see them coming at you and you have practiced drawing, aiming and firing in less time than it takes them to reach you. Trained cops know that they can't do it in less than 20' and they have to qualify on a shooting range twice a year.

On the other hand if your attacker jumps you from behind your self defense class training tells you to drive your heel down into his foot with all your weight behind it you will inflict enough pain to break out of his grasp and be able to run faster than he can with an injured foot. And that is just one technique out of many that you will be taught to handle all kinds of different situations where your gun would be useless.

I agree. ALL cops should be disarmed immediately. Same go's for the Secret Service. Those clowns could never get a weapon out to protect the POTUS anyone.

From what I've heard, Hillary at the very least might want her SS detail disarmed...

 

[ChrisL]

So, you think she should lose her right for the rest of her life? She loses the right to defend herself?

She hasn't forfeited her "right to defend herself".

There are plenty of other effective means to defend herself.

Now, I don't own a gun or anything but for a woman like myself, a gun is the ultimate "equalizer." I don't have the size, strength or height to fight off a would be full-grown male attacker.

Rubbish!

Take a self defense class and you will quickly learn that size and strength have nothing whatsoever to do with defending yourself. The bigger the "male attacker" the larger your target areas. And if you haven't taken a self defense class and believe that a gun will be the "ultimate equalizer" you will quickly discover that is a fallacy. Your attacker will disarm you before you can ever draw your gun, let alone aim and fire it. Hollywood isn't real life. You don't get to see your attacker coming. You have to be able to defend yourself with whatever you have at a moment's notice. It won't be a gun.

I'm 5 feet 1 inch tall, and I weigh about 105 pounds. I could NOT physically fight off a 6 foot tall man. My ex was 6 feet, and when we wrestled, all he would have to do is put his body weight on me, and I would go right to the ground. I could not physically withstand his weight on me.

You don't "wrestle" with an attacker. You hit them as hard you can as soon as your can in their most vulnerable areas. Your ex would be writhing in pain on the ground if you kicked him in the shins or the groin. He would be blinded if you jabbed your fingers in his eyes. He would be stunned if your hit him in the mouth with your keys or rammed your elbow into his solar plexus.

You don't "fight fair" with an attacker. You injure them as quickly and as painfully as you can as quickly as you can.

I would be afraid that I would injure him and make him even more angry. Some would get very angry if you did that and instead of stopping the person, it can sometimes have the opposite effect. Besides, what about women (or men for that matter) who are not physically capable of defending themselves because they are disabled or maybe have a disease or something? Maybe they are just very old and feeble.

 

[ABikerSailor]

She hasn't forfeited her "right to defend herself".

There are plenty of other effective means to defend herself.

Now, I don't own a gun or anything but for a woman like myself, a gun is the ultimate "equalizer." I don't have the size, strength or height to fight off a would be full-grown male attacker.

Rubbish!

Take a self defense class and you will quickly learn that size and strength have nothing whatsoever to do with defending yourself. The bigger the "male attacker" the larger your target areas. And if you haven't taken a self defense class and believe that a gun will be the "ultimate equalizer" you will quickly discover that is a fallacy. Your attacker will disarm you before you can ever draw your gun, let alone aim and fire it. Hollywood isn't real life. You don't get to see your attacker coming. You have to be able to defend yourself with whatever you have at a moment's notice. It won't be a gun.

I'm 5 feet 1 inch tall, and I weigh about 105 pounds. I could NOT physically fight off a 6 foot tall man. My ex was 6 feet, and when we wrestled, all he would have to do is put his body weight on me, and I would go right to the ground. I could not physically withstand his weight on me.

You don't "wrestle" with an attacker. You hit them as hard you can as soon as your can in their most vulnerable areas. Your ex would be writhing in pain on the ground if you kicked him in the shins or the groin. He would be blinded if you jabbed your fingers in his eyes. He would be stunned if your hit him in the mouth with your keys or rammed your elbow into his solar plexus.

You don't "fight fair" with an attacker. You injure them as quickly and as painfully as you can as quickly as you can.

I would be afraid that I would injure him and make him even more angry. Some would get very angry if you did that and instead of stopping the person, it can sometimes have the opposite effect. Besides, what about women (or men for that matter) who are not physically capable of defending themselves because they are disabled or maybe have a disease or something? Maybe they are just very old and feeble.

Go back up the thread and see where I told you how to do a judo throw. And trust me............even if you're light, the force of gravity on their body WILL make them hit the ground, leaving you with their arm and an exposed armpit. If you hit it with even just a medium amount of force, you WILL hit nerve bundles in there, and their arm will be useless for at least 5-10 min.

Hit 'em hard enough, and you can dislocate their arm or break ribs, making it VERY difficult to fight.

 

[ChrisL]

Now, I don't own a gun or anything but for a woman like myself, a gun is the ultimate "equalizer." I don't have the size, strength or height to fight off a would be full-grown male attacker.

Rubbish!

Take a self defense class and you will quickly learn that size and strength have nothing whatsoever to do with defending yourself. The bigger the "male attacker" the larger your target areas. And if you haven't taken a self defense class and believe that a gun will be the "ultimate equalizer" you will quickly discover that is a fallacy. Your attacker will disarm you before you can ever draw your gun, let alone aim and fire it. Hollywood isn't real life. You don't get to see your attacker coming. You have to be able to defend yourself with whatever you have at a moment's notice. It won't be a gun.

I'm 5 feet 1 inch tall, and I weigh about 105 pounds. I could NOT physically fight off a 6 foot tall man. My ex was 6 feet, and when we wrestled, all he would have to do is put his body weight on me, and I would go right to the ground. I could not physically withstand his weight on me.

You don't "wrestle" with an attacker. You hit them as hard you can as soon as your can in their most vulnerable areas. Your ex would be writhing in pain on the ground if you kicked him in the shins or the groin. He would be blinded if you jabbed your fingers in his eyes. He would be stunned if your hit him in the mouth with your keys or rammed your elbow into his solar plexus.

You don't "fight fair" with an attacker. You injure them as quickly and as painfully as you can as quickly as you can.

I would be afraid that I would injure him and make him even more angry. Some would get very angry if you did that and instead of stopping the person, it can sometimes have the opposite effect. Besides, what about women (or men for that matter) who are not physically capable of defending themselves because they are disabled or maybe have a disease or something? Maybe they are just very old and feeble.

Go back up the thread and see where I told you how to do a judo throw. And trust me............even if you're light, the force of gravity on their body WILL make them hit the ground, leaving you with their arm and an exposed armpit. If you hit it with even just a medium amount of force, you WILL hit nerve bundles in there, and their arm will be useless for at least 5-10 min.

Hit 'em hard enough, and you can dislocate their arm or break ribs, making it VERY difficult to fight.

And some of these guys are VERY bad guys who have done time in prison and also know how to fight and defend themselves. If everyone was capable of fighting back against their attackers, then nobody would get hurt.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Rubbish!

Take a self defense class and you will quickly learn that size and strength have nothing whatsoever to do with defending yourself. The bigger the "male attacker" the larger your target areas. And if you haven't taken a self defense class and believe that a gun will be the "ultimate equalizer" you will quickly discover that is a fallacy. Your attacker will disarm you before you can ever draw your gun, let alone aim and fire it. Hollywood isn't real life. You don't get to see your attacker coming. You have to be able to defend yourself with whatever you have at a moment's notice. It won't be a gun.

I'm 5 feet 1 inch tall, and I weigh about 105 pounds. I could NOT physically fight off a 6 foot tall man. My ex was 6 feet, and when we wrestled, all he would have to do is put his body weight on me, and I would go right to the ground. I could not physically withstand his weight on me.

You don't "wrestle" with an attacker. You hit them as hard you can as soon as your can in their most vulnerable areas. Your ex would be writhing in pain on the ground if you kicked him in the shins or the groin. He would be blinded if you jabbed your fingers in his eyes. He would be stunned if your hit him in the mouth with your keys or rammed your elbow into his solar plexus.

You don't "fight fair" with an attacker. You injure them as quickly and as painfully as you can as quickly as you can.

I would be afraid that I would injure him and make him even more angry. Some would get very angry if you did that and instead of stopping the person, it can sometimes have the opposite effect. Besides, what about women (or men for that matter) who are not physically capable of defending themselves because they are disabled or maybe have a disease or something? Maybe they are just very old and feeble.

Go back up the thread and see where I told you how to do a judo throw. And trust me............even if you're light, the force of gravity on their body WILL make them hit the ground, leaving you with their arm and an exposed armpit. If you hit it with even just a medium amount of force, you WILL hit nerve bundles in there, and their arm will be useless for at least 5-10 min.

Hit 'em hard enough, and you can dislocate their arm or break ribs, making it VERY difficult to fight.

And some of these guys are VERY bad guys who have done time in prison and also know how to fight and defend themselves. If everyone was capable of fighting back against their attackers, then nobody would get hurt.

See.................the only reason that someone would be stupid enough to grab you from behind (see the judo throw), is if they already feel like they can overpower and intimidate you.

Throw them on the ground? You've surprised and confused them, and now have the upper hand. Most (granted.......not all.......) muggers when confronted with resistance will run away if they aren't armed.

 

[Derideo_Te]

She hasn't forfeited her "right to defend herself".

There are plenty of other effective means to defend herself.

Now, I don't own a gun or anything but for a woman like myself, a gun is the ultimate "equalizer." I don't have the size, strength or height to fight off a would be full-grown male attacker.

Rubbish!

Take a self defense class and you will quickly learn that size and strength have nothing whatsoever to do with defending yourself. The bigger the "male attacker" the larger your target areas. And if you haven't taken a self defense class and believe that a gun will be the "ultimate equalizer" you will quickly discover that is a fallacy. Your attacker will disarm you before you can ever draw your gun, let alone aim and fire it. Hollywood isn't real life. You don't get to see your attacker coming. You have to be able to defend yourself with whatever you have at a moment's notice. It won't be a gun.

I'm 5 feet 1 inch tall, and I weigh about 105 pounds. I could NOT physically fight off a 6 foot tall man. My ex was 6 feet, and when we wrestled, all he would have to do is put his body weight on me, and I would go right to the ground. I could not physically withstand his weight on me.

You don't "wrestle" with an attacker. You hit them as hard you can as soon as your can in their most vulnerable areas. Your ex would be writhing in pain on the ground if you kicked him in the shins or the groin. He would be blinded if you jabbed your fingers in his eyes. He would be stunned if your hit him in the mouth with your keys or rammed your elbow into his solar plexus.

You don't "fight fair" with an attacker. You injure them as quickly and as painfully as you can as quickly as you can.

I would be afraid that I would injure him and make him even more angry. Some would get very angry if you did that and instead of stopping the person, it can sometimes have the opposite effect. Besides, what about women (or men for that matter) who are not physically capable of defending themselves because they are disabled or maybe have a disease or something? Maybe they are just very old and feeble.

That is why you take the self defense class. The objective is to injure the attacker in such a way that you can safely get away from them.

Now the scariest thing ever is to put a deadly weapon in the hands of someone "very old and feeble" IMO. They can't see properly to aim, they can't aim properly because they can't even hold the weapon straight and the recoil will probably do them more harm than whatever they are shooting at and missing.

Even in the hands of a trained cop hitting someone is a great deal harder than it looks. How many shots were fired in Ferguson and how many went wild? Guns aren't even a realistic defense for police officers. They are trained in ways to not need to use their weapons because they already know that Hollywood and real life are two entirely different things.

And let me turn this around on you. You have your gun, you aim and fire and all you manage to do is inflict a minor flesh wound before your attacker overwhelms you and takes away your gun. Now he has the means to kill you because you made him angry and you provided him with a gun.

 

[Correll]

The trigger happy bitch should mind her own business and let Home Depot deal with shoplifters.

I say throw the fucking book at her for endangering the public.

So, actual jail time for not hurting anyone?

Seems a bit much.

 

[williepete]

It illustrates the fact that carrying concealed firearms is for one's lawful self-defense, not to act as 'law enforcement.'

Several years ago, I was attending a CHL recurrent class to renew my license. In the front row of the class were two rancher women who were going through initial training. They kept disrupting the class about how they were going to put a stop to the illegals breaking through their fences and trespassing on their land. The instructor kept reminding them that a CHL didn't grant them LE authority but they didn't get it and kept disrupting the class with their braggadocio. The instructor finally had to read them the riot act in front of the class and threaten to boot them out without a refund until they pulled their heads out of their posteriors. He really got in their faces to the amusement of the rest of the class. They shut up. When we got to the range to qualify, the range officials were just itching to wash them out. I'm not sure if they got their CHLs but they sure got an attitude adjustment from the instructors.

A CHL is for one's lawful self-defense. A telephone is for law enforcement. That is made extremely clear in a CHL class.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I know that in order to stay current with my Security Force quals, I had to spend 1 weekend a month at the shooting range.

Most civilians don't get that kind of range time.

 

[Correll]

Only a trained psychiatrist/psychologist could attest to that! Stupid doesn't mean crazy.

One thing that vast majority of all criminals have in common is stupidity. She fits the profile and she has just committed a crime with a lethal weapon.

Whose profile? And where do you draw a line, and who is making these decisions regarding our natural rights? What if a person suffered from depression 25 years ago?

The profile of criminals!

And you are fixated on a mental evaluation when none is needed.

She is patently stupid and she has committed a crime with a lethal weapon. The penalty for that crime should be that she loses her 2A rights to possess a gun.

Or are you arguing that all criminals have a 2A right to own guns?

So, you think she should lose her right for the rest of her life? She loses the right to defend herself?

She hasn't forfeited her "right to defend herself".

There are plenty of other effective means to defend herself.

No, there isn't.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, I don't agree with what the woman did, that's for sure, but do I think she should lose her right forever because of it? I don't really know. I lean towards no because it would be the government that ultimately decides and our rights were also meant to PROTECT us from our own government. Lol.

 

[Derideo_Te]

One thing that vast majority of all criminals have in common is stupidity. She fits the profile and she has just committed a crime with a lethal weapon.

Whose profile? And where do you draw a line, and who is making these decisions regarding our natural rights? What if a person suffered from depression 25 years ago?

The profile of criminals!

And you are fixated on a mental evaluation when none is needed.

She is patently stupid and she has committed a crime with a lethal weapon. The penalty for that crime should be that she loses her 2A rights to possess a gun.

Or are you arguing that all criminals have a 2A right to own guns?

So, you think she should lose her right for the rest of her life? She loses the right to defend herself?

She hasn't forfeited her "right to defend herself".

There are plenty of other effective means to defend herself.

No, there isn't.

Your ignorance is always so readily apparent.

Women's Self Defense

 

[idb]

I agree. Deflection is dangerous. The first shot takes the glass, the second tap goes to the head.

It's idiots like you who make responsible gun owners like me cringe. Kill a shoplifter? Since when did shoplifting warrant the death penalty? You are the type of person who should relinquish their right to bear arms, seriously. I question your mental capacity to exercise good judgment and I suspect you have some underlying psychological issues that should prohibit your access to firearms. Kill a shoplifter? You are one fucked up individual and you should really try thinking before you ever post again, at the very least before you post on topics such as this. You add nothing to the argument favoring gun ownership, and it could be argued, successfully, that you hinder the afore mentioned argument.


As to the woman in the story, she's a fucking idiot just like Likkmee. Just like Likkmee, she adds nothing to the argument favoring gun ownership, and it could be argued, successfully, that she hinders the argument. At the very least she should lose her CCW. Permanently.

I would agree if she had fired her weapon in the commission of a violent crime. Then she should be locked up and lose her rights.

Do you also think we should apply these standards to drivers? Obviously, there are a LOT of stupid drivers on the roadways who cause a lot of deaths every year.

I would agree if she had fired her weapon in the commission of a violent crime.

I would have thought shooting at someone who is no threat would constitute a violent crime.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Well, I don't agree with what the woman did, that's for sure, but do I think she should lose her right forever because of it? I don't really know. I lean towards no because it would be the government that ultimately decides and our rights were also meant to PROTECT us from our own government. Lol.

Your right to own a firearm has nothing whatsoever to do with "protecting" you "from the government".

 

[ChrisL]

Now, I don't own a gun or anything but for a woman like myself, a gun is the ultimate "equalizer." I don't have the size, strength or height to fight off a would be full-grown male attacker.

Rubbish!

Take a self defense class and you will quickly learn that size and strength have nothing whatsoever to do with defending yourself. The bigger the "male attacker" the larger your target areas. And if you haven't taken a self defense class and believe that a gun will be the "ultimate equalizer" you will quickly discover that is a fallacy. Your attacker will disarm you before you can ever draw your gun, let alone aim and fire it. Hollywood isn't real life. You don't get to see your attacker coming. You have to be able to defend yourself with whatever you have at a moment's notice. It won't be a gun.

I'm 5 feet 1 inch tall, and I weigh about 105 pounds. I could NOT physically fight off a 6 foot tall man. My ex was 6 feet, and when we wrestled, all he would have to do is put his body weight on me, and I would go right to the ground. I could not physically withstand his weight on me.

You don't "wrestle" with an attacker. You hit them as hard you can as soon as your can in their most vulnerable areas. Your ex would be writhing in pain on the ground if you kicked him in the shins or the groin. He would be blinded if you jabbed your fingers in his eyes. He would be stunned if your hit him in the mouth with your keys or rammed your elbow into his solar plexus.

You don't "fight fair" with an attacker. You injure them as quickly and as painfully as you can as quickly as you can.

I would be afraid that I would injure him and make him even more angry. Some would get very angry if you did that and instead of stopping the person, it can sometimes have the opposite effect. Besides, what about women (or men for that matter) who are not physically capable of defending themselves because they are disabled or maybe have a disease or something? Maybe they are just very old and feeble.

That is why you take the self defense class. The objective is to injure the attacker in such a way that you can safely get away from them.

Now the scariest thing ever is to put a deadly weapon in the hands of someone "very old and feeble" IMO. They can't see properly to aim, they can't aim properly because they can't even hold the weapon straight and the recoil will probably do them more harm than whatever they are shooting at and missing.

Even in the hands of a trained cop hitting someone is a great deal harder than it looks. How many shots were fired in Ferguson and how many went wild? Guns aren't even a realistic defense for police officers. They are trained in ways to not need to use their weapons because they already know that Hollywood and real life are two entirely different things.

And let me turn this around on you. You have your gun, you aim and fire and all you manage to do is inflict a minor flesh wound before your attacker overwhelms you and takes away your gun. Now he has the means to kill you because you made him angry and you provided him with a gun.

Well hopefully I would shoot him again. Lol. Seriously, I would be frightened for my life and, though I know the consequences and how I might feel about it later on, I don't think I would hesitate to shoot someone who was threatening me with bodily harm. I put myself in the shoes of actress, Sandra Bullock, cowering in her bedroom or closet (where ever she was hiding) in fear with no means to really defend herself and not knowing at all what the person's intentions are toward her. I would rather have a gun in my hands at that point.

Of course, I am speaking in hypothetically here, because I've never been "attacked" like that before. I did have a person break into my room when I was about 15 once though. It turned out to be the pervy harmless neighborhood kid, but it was one of the MOST frightening experiences I have ever had without going into too much detail. I slept with a baseball bat beside my bed for some time afterwards and was ready to bash his brains out if he tried anything funny again.

 

[Correll]

Whose profile? And where do you draw a line, and who is making these decisions regarding our natural rights? What if a person suffered from depression 25 years ago?

The profile of criminals!

And you are fixated on a mental evaluation when none is needed.

She is patently stupid and she has committed a crime with a lethal weapon. The penalty for that crime should be that she loses her 2A rights to possess a gun.

Or are you arguing that all criminals have a 2A right to own guns?

So, you think she should lose her right for the rest of her life? She loses the right to defend herself?

She hasn't forfeited her "right to defend herself".

There are plenty of other effective means to defend herself.

No, there isn't.

Your ignorance is always so readily apparent.

Women's Self Defense

Yeah, that woman is going to beat that guy. Not.

 

[williepete]

Well hopefully I would shoot him again. Lol. Seriously, I would be frightened for my life and, though I know the consequences and how I might feel about it later on, I don't think I would hesitate to shoot someone who was threatening me with bodily harm. I would rather have a gun in my hands at that point.

If you are trained and ready, you'd do the right thing to protect you and yours.

You'd get a kick out of spending time with my darling wife. She's what we call in the South an "Iron Magnolia". Sweet, delicate and feminine as long as you don't threaten anything she loves.

----

 

[anotherlife]

She should go to jail and pay reparations, tires are not cheap, but why take away her gun from her? Just double up her jail time, I think.

She opened fire in a crowded parking lot without any justification for doing so and needlessly endangered the lives of others.

She proved that she is unfit to have any guns in her possession and should absolutely never be allowed to have them in public.

I thought the constitution is unconditional in protecting everyone's right to be armed, with any type of weapon they want. The protection is from the others in public that shoot back at her. Or, to be more exact, her mental state would never have gone this far, if she had been made to wonder how many could shoot back at her.

She just forfeited her right to own a gun by proving that she is a danger to others and cannot be trusted with a firearm in public. Basically she is an unconvicted felon and needs to be treated like one.

Busy parking lots are not the OK Corral. Who wants to be in fear for their life every time they go to the Supermarket that some Gun Fetishists isn't going to open fire and randomly imperil the lives of innocent people.

The purpose of a CCW is to protect you in the event YOUR life is in danger. It is not a permit to open fire whenever you want to play at being Rambo at your local 711.

But governments never protect you. Governments build prisons. That is not for your protection.

 

[anotherlife]

You don't resort to a firearm to solve a petty shoplifting problem. In cases of armed robbery, yes, and in certain cases of grand larceny, perhaps... but shoplifting? Hell no​

Why shouldn't you be allowed to defend your merchandise with any force you want to use, deadly or not?

 

[anotherlife]

It was really stupid, but should we "discriminate" against stupid people? I know that what she did was really freaking stupid, but at the same time I'm conflicted because I know how important our rights are. What criteria should the government use in order to determine who is able to practice their natural rights to self defense?

Interesting dilemma, maybe the government could withdraw from micromanaging everyone's rights in Europe and America, and then the people will naturally resolve all the problems like they had always done, before omnipotent nanny governments were engineered.

I don't know about that either. Then how many stupid people would be shooting off guns in parking lots around innocent bystanders? Perhaps if you are charged with a "stupid" type of crime, then there some be some kind of mandatory safety class and then be able to gain the right back? I don't know, just throwing ideas around.

This requires trust in government social programs. They have proven not to work. I think disarming the people at any excuse is a socialist intrusion against your individual interest.