WOman sees man with gun, so runs over him with her car. Police won't charge her

[Pete7469]

This is the pertinent information from the article.

She thought he was going to do something to them, so she yelled out of her car window, ‘Hey, they’re just kids, leave them alone,’” said Detective Sgt. Steven Roberts, of the Aliquippa Police Department. “He turned and pointed this at her, and she thought it was a real weapon and that she was about to be shot or that the kids were in danger, so she gunned her car and struck him.”

According to that statement from the Detective she made the right call and was in fear of being shot.

Since I wasn't there I won't second guess her judgment. It's up to the investigators and forensics people to determine whether or not her story is plausible. If they choose that there is no reasonable cause to pursue charges I will accept it.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I'm afraid that analogy doesn't work. You'd need something like an anti-gun -- a device which would render nearby guns useless. Then you'd have an analogical fire extinguisher.

-- which is kind of a fascinating idea; I'm tempted to poll the site on a question like, "if you could walk around with either a gun or an anti-gun, which would you choose?"

But fighting guns with more guns is just escalation, not equalization. Wouldn't matter what the weapon was; if everyone walked around with a knife, then everyone would have the means and opportunity to stab someone. All they would need would be motive. And they probably wouldn't have to wait long. At the root of all this is the culture of violence and the value of might-makes-right, but we'll have to leave it there lest we wend off topic.

Well when you don't have a f*cking anti-gun device your best option is to have one yourself.

Might makes absolute right when it comes to self defense. Only an idiot would walk into a gun fight with a set of chopsticks thinking the other people are cheating so they have an advantage.

Guns are the number one weapon of choice to defend yourself against the number one weapon the criminals may bring to the fight. Arm yourself with whatever else you may want to but in the end the gun is your best option.

I don't think you grasp my point here, and it's got nothing to do with choice of weapon.

That being, it's not necessary to walk into the fight in the first place. When you're not IN a fight, then the question of who's armed with what is irrelevant. Same goes for looking for a fight. Why would we be walking around looking for a fight? Your sentence bolded above assumes that you're already in a fight, or about to be. Why are we assuming that?

I don't usually do this but I agree with Pete here:

Why would you walk around an urban area with a long gun? Even a "sawed off" 'long gun'?

Not that I've never done it, I just knew to keep it encased in an ambiguous container.

You're missing the point. You don't get the choice to walk into the fight. The criminal has already decided you are involved by their actions. You're in a fight for your life when another person using his timeline and his weapon of choice decides you are. If you want to be drug into this fight with nothing that's your choice. You do of course have a second course of action and that is being prepared for the worst case scenario as afforded to you by the second amendment. You could actually defend yourself along with defending others that didn't plan ahead.

Being armed isn't looking for a fight. It's being prepared for one you never wanted to be involved in in the first place but were prepared for just in case.

 

[Pogo]

Well when you don't have a f*cking anti-gun device your best option is to have one yourself.

Might makes absolute right when it comes to self defense. Only an idiot would walk into a gun fight with a set of chopsticks thinking the other people are cheating so they have an advantage.

Guns are the number one weapon of choice to defend yourself against the number one weapon the criminals may bring to the fight. Arm yourself with whatever else you may want to but in the end the gun is your best option.

I don't think you grasp my point here, and it's got nothing to do with choice of weapon.

That being, it's not necessary to walk into the fight in the first place. When you're not IN a fight, then the question of who's armed with what is irrelevant. Same goes for looking for a fight. Why would we be walking around looking for a fight? Your sentence bolded above assumes that you're already in a fight, or about to be. Why are we assuming that?

I don't usually do this but I agree with Pete here:

Why would you walk around an urban area with a long gun? Even a "sawed off" 'long gun'?

Not that I've never done it, I just knew to keep it encased in an ambiguous container.

You're missing the point. You don't get the choice to walk into the fight. The criminal has already decided you are involved by their actions. You're in a fight for your life when another person using his timeline and his weapon of choice decides you are. If you want to be drug into this fight with nothing that's your choice. You do of course have a second course of action and that is being prepared for the worst case scenario as afforded to you by the second amendment. You could actually defend yourself along with defending others that didn't plan ahead.

Being armed isn't looking for a fight. It's being prepared for one you never wanted to be involved in in the first place but were prepared for just in case.

Now we're getting somewhere.

You don't get the choice to walk into the fight. The criminal has already decided you are involved by their actions

< Stop right there.

-- why should we assume that scenario in the first place? Whence comes this imaginative idea? Who said this criminal even exists?

(you've gotta understand, I don't go to movies or watch TV, so this is a serious question)

And the corollary: what happens when this fertile imagination concocts a threat where, it becomes clear later, none exists?

Yeah, I think that's literally looking for trouble.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I don't think you grasp my point here, and it's got nothing to do with choice of weapon.

That being, it's not necessary to walk into the fight in the first place. When you're not IN a fight, then the question of who's armed with what is irrelevant. Same goes for looking for a fight. Why would we be walking around looking for a fight? Your sentence bolded above assumes that you're already in a fight, or about to be. Why are we assuming that?

I don't usually do this but I agree with Pete here:

You're missing the point. You don't get the choice to walk into the fight. The criminal has already decided you are involved by their actions. You're in a fight for your life when another person using his timeline and his weapon of choice decides you are. If you want to be drug into this fight with nothing that's your choice. You do of course have a second course of action and that is being prepared for the worst case scenario as afforded to you by the second amendment. You could actually defend yourself along with defending others that didn't plan ahead.

Being armed isn't looking for a fight. It's being prepared for one you never wanted to be involved in in the first place but were prepared for just in case.

Now we're getting somewhere.

You don't get the choice to walk into the fight. The criminal has already decided you are involved by their actions

< Stop right there.

-- why should we assume that scenario in the first place? Whence comes this imaginative idea? Who said this criminal even exists?

(you've gotta understand, I don't go to movies or watch TV, so this is a serious question)

And the corollary: what happens when this fertile imagination concocts a threat where, it becomes clear later, none exists?

Yeah, I think that's literally looking for trouble.

It exists because it's reality. You don't ever hear that some completely sane person went off the rails and shot someone because their life was going along swimmingly. The criminal exists the moment he decides he is going to hurt people that have nothing to do with him as some sort of revenge or profit motive.

 

[Pogo]

You're missing the point. You don't get the choice to walk into the fight. The criminal has already decided you are involved by their actions. You're in a fight for your life when another person using his timeline and his weapon of choice decides you are. If you want to be drug into this fight with nothing that's your choice. You do of course have a second course of action and that is being prepared for the worst case scenario as afforded to you by the second amendment. You could actually defend yourself along with defending others that didn't plan ahead.

Being armed isn't looking for a fight. It's being prepared for one you never wanted to be involved in in the first place but were prepared for just in case.

Now we're getting somewhere.

You don't get the choice to walk into the fight. The criminal has already decided you are involved by their actions

< Stop right there.

-- why should we assume that scenario in the first place? Whence comes this imaginative idea? Who said this criminal even exists?

(you've gotta understand, I don't go to movies or watch TV, so this is a serious question)

And the corollary: what happens when this fertile imagination concocts a threat where, it becomes clear later, none exists?

Yeah, I think that's literally looking for trouble.

It exists because it's reality. You don't ever hear that some completely sane person went off the rails and shot someone because their life was going along swimmingly. The criminal exists the moment he decides he is going to hurt people that have nothing to do with him as some sort of revenge or profit motive.

And voilà, there it is. Circular reasoning. No basis. That's my point. Thanks, you were a good sport.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Now we're getting somewhere.

< Stop right there.

-- why should we assume that scenario in the first place? Whence comes this imaginative idea? Who said this criminal even exists?

(you've gotta understand, I don't go to movies or watch TV, so this is a serious question)

And the corollary: what happens when this fertile imagination concocts a threat where, it becomes clear later, none exists?

Yeah, I think that's literally looking for trouble.

It exists because it's reality. You don't ever hear that some completely sane person went off the rails and shot someone because their life was going along swimmingly. The criminal exists the moment he decides he is going to hurt people that have nothing to do with him as some sort of revenge or profit motive.

And voilà, there it is. Circular reasoning. No basis. That's my point. Thanks, you were a good sport.

So criminals don't exist they only appear when you arm up to defend yourself? This is your circular reasoning?

 

[Pogo]

It exists because it's reality. You don't ever hear that some completely sane person went off the rails and shot someone because their life was going along swimmingly. The criminal exists the moment he decides he is going to hurt people that have nothing to do with him as some sort of revenge or profit motive.

And voilà, there it is. Circular reasoning. No basis. That's my point. Thanks, you were a good sport.

So criminals don't exist they only appear when you arm up to defend yourself? This is your circular reasoning?

My base question was, "where does this imaginary scenario come from" and your answer is "it exists because it exists". Circular reasoning. In other words --- irrational. And therefore no basis, a false premise.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

And voilà, there it is. Circular reasoning. No basis. That's my point. Thanks, you were a good sport.

So criminals don't exist they only appear when you arm up to defend yourself? This is your circular reasoning?

My base question was, "where does this imaginary scenario come from" and your answer is "it exists because it exists". Circular reasoning. In other words --- irrational. And therefore no basis, a false premise.

Your base question assumes there is no such thing as a criminal unless you attempt to defend yourself from one. Until then it's just another friendly transaction. Well a transaction you didn't really want to be part of and were forced into at threat of great bodily harm but hey...shoulda just went with that. If you just hadn't resisted we wouldn't have a crime here.

 

[The Professor]

This is similar to many other cases I've read. The fact the gun was a toy is not determinative. If the information provided by CBS Pittsburgh is accurate, there is only one question that matters: Did the woman reasonably believe the gun was real? If she did, she has a valid case of self defense. This is the relevant part of the link provided (highlights my own):

“She thought he was going to do something to them, so she yelled out of her car window, ‘Hey, they’re just kids, leave them alone,’” said Detective Sgt. Steven Roberts, of the Aliquippa Police Department. “He turned and pointed this at her, and she thought it was a real weapon and that she was about to be shot or that the kids were in danger, so she gunned her car and struck him.”

Every jurisdiction allows for the use of deadly force when a person reasonably believes such force is necessary to avoid death or serious bodily injury. It doesn't matter whether the perceived threat turns out to be illusory. It only matters that the person reasonable believed the threat to be real. Whether such a belief is reasonable is a matter to be determined first by the police and then, if an arrest is made, by a jury. The man pointed a gun at the woman. If the police concluded that a reasonably prudent person in the same situation as the woman would have believed the gun was real, there was no basis for an arrest.

It's really that simple.

 

[Noomi]

Looks like you'd better be careful around Pittsburgh. If you are carrying a gun, a citizen can decide you're probably going to rob or shoot someone, and can run over you with their car, just in case.

A woman did exactly that to a man who was walking along carrying what looked like a shotgun. Police have stated that they will not charge her for running over him.

I guess the 2nd amendment says you can keep and bear arms. It doesn't say people are forbidden to run over you if you do it. Of course, the Framers didn't know about cars in 1791.......

Why do I get the feeling there's more to this story?

BTW, the "gun" turns out to be an Airsoft fake gun, that only shoots little plastic pellets.

Oops.

----------------------------------------------------

Police: Aliquippa Woman Thwarts Robbery By Running Over Suspect « CBS Pittsburgh

Police: Aliquippa Woman Thwarts Robbery By Running Over Suspect

Reporting Christine D’Antonio
August 9, 2013 2:49 PM

ALIQUIPPA (KDKA) – Police say a Beaver County woman may have thwarted a robbery, by running over a suspect with her car.

It happened in the 2100 block of McMinn Street in Aliquippa. Aliquippa police say a witness saw Cameron White walking down a street carrying what appeared to be a sawed off shotgun. She called police, but noticed that White was heading in the direction of a group of children.

Police say she feared White was going to shoot the children, so she ran over him with her car.

White was taken to the hospital with non-life threatening injuries. Police believe he was actually going to rob the Circle K mini-mart down the road and that she may have prevented the robbery.

They say White was carrying an airsoft pellet gun which had been sawed off to look like a shotgun, and the orange tip had been taken off.

The Beaver County District Attorney says they are not going to charge her with running White over.

Evidence suggests he was up to no good. What should she have done? Waited until someone got hurt before she acted?

 

[The Professor]

Looks like you'd better be careful around Pittsburgh. If you are carrying a gun, a citizen can decide you're probably going to rob or shoot someone, and can run over you with their car, just in case.

A woman did exactly that to a man who was walking along carrying what looked like a shotgun. Police have stated that they will not charge her for running over him.

I guess the 2nd amendment says you can keep and bear arms. It doesn't say people are forbidden to run over you if you do it. Of course, the Framers didn't know about cars in 1791.......

Why do I get the feeling there's more to this story?

BTW, the "gun" turns out to be an Airsoft fake gun, that only shoots little plastic pellets.

Oops.

----------------------------------------------------

Police: Aliquippa Woman Thwarts Robbery By Running Over Suspect « CBS Pittsburgh

Police: Aliquippa Woman Thwarts Robbery By Running Over Suspect

Reporting Christine D’Antonio
August 9, 2013 2:49 PM

ALIQUIPPA (KDKA) – Police say a Beaver County woman may have thwarted a robbery, by running over a suspect with her car.

It happened in the 2100 block of McMinn Street in Aliquippa. Aliquippa police say a witness saw Cameron White walking down a street carrying what appeared to be a sawed off shotgun. She called police, but noticed that White was heading in the direction of a group of children.

Police say she feared White was going to shoot the children, so she ran over him with her car.

White was taken to the hospital with non-life threatening injuries. Police believe he was actually going to rob the Circle K mini-mart down the road and that she may have prevented the robbery.

They say White was carrying an airsoft pellet gun which had been sawed off to look like a shotgun, and the orange tip had been taken off.

The Beaver County District Attorney says they are not going to charge her with running White over.

Evidence suggests he was up to no good. What should she have done? Waited until someone got hurt before she acted?

You are correct. Some people do not understand that the guy pointed a gun at her.

When a man points a toy gun at someone, he should know that the other person might think the gun is real and feel threatened. When a woman's life is on the line every fraction of a second is critical. A threatened person does not have the opportunity for prolonged analysis. She must act immediately based upon her present perception of all the attendant circumstances. Any delay could be catastrophic.

I doubt that anyone would find the woman at fault if the man pointed a real gun at her. I further doubt it would matter if the gun turned out to be unloaded since there was no way the woman could have known that. By logical extension there should be no condemnation for her using deadly force to protect herself from a toy gun she reasonably believed to be real. Whether it's a real gun loaded, a real gun unloaded or a toy gun that looked real, to the person faced with a threat these situations are not similar - they are identical. The law takes this into account and allows for the use of deadly force in all three situations.

This case has absolutely nothing to do with the right to bear arms. The lady didn't use deadly force because he was exercising his 2nd Amendment rights; she ran him over because the jerk pointed a gun at her.

I hope the man has a full recovery and learns from his mistake. He is lucky he will not be charged with a crime for putting the woman in fear.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Looks like you'd better be careful around Pittsburgh. If you are carrying a gun, a citizen can decide you're probably going to rob or shoot someone, and can run over you with their car, just in case.

A woman did exactly that to a man who was walking along carrying what looked like a shotgun. Police have stated that they will not charge her for running over him.

I guess the 2nd amendment says you can keep and bear arms. It doesn't say people are forbidden to run over you if you do it. Of course, the Framers didn't know about cars in 1791.......

Why do I get the feeling there's more to this story?

BTW, the "gun" turns out to be an Airsoft fake gun, that only shoots little plastic pellets.

Oops.

----------------------------------------------------

Police: Aliquippa Woman Thwarts Robbery By Running Over Suspect « CBS Pittsburgh

Police: Aliquippa Woman Thwarts Robbery By Running Over Suspect

Reporting Christine D’Antonio
August 9, 2013 2:49 PM

ALIQUIPPA (KDKA) – Police say a Beaver County woman may have thwarted a robbery, by running over a suspect with her car.

It happened in the 2100 block of McMinn Street in Aliquippa. Aliquippa police say a witness saw Cameron White walking down a street carrying what appeared to be a sawed off shotgun. She called police, but noticed that White was heading in the direction of a group of children.

Police say she feared White was going to shoot the children, so she ran over him with her car.

White was taken to the hospital with non-life threatening injuries. Police believe he was actually going to rob the Circle K mini-mart down the road and that she may have prevented the robbery.

They say White was carrying an airsoft pellet gun which had been sawed off to look like a shotgun, and the orange tip had been taken off.

The Beaver County District Attorney says they are not going to charge her with running White over.

She profiled him...uh oh.

According to the story she made the right call.

Bullshit, according to the cops who jumped to conclusions about the mans intentions based on nothing more than that he was walking toward a store with a fake gun.

Most city streets eventually come to a store of some kind, so now its open season on all open carry gun owners?

roflmao

 

[JimBowie1958]

Now we're getting somewhere.

< Stop right there.

-- why should we assume that scenario in the first place? Whence comes this imaginative idea? Who said this criminal even exists?

(you've gotta understand, I don't go to movies or watch TV, so this is a serious question)

And the corollary: what happens when this fertile imagination concocts a threat where, it becomes clear later, none exists?

Yeah, I think that's literally looking for trouble.

It exists because it's reality. You don't ever hear that some completely sane person went off the rails and shot someone because their life was going along swimmingly. The criminal exists the moment he decides he is going to hurt people that have nothing to do with him as some sort of revenge or profit motive.

And voilà, there it is. Circular reasoning. No basis. That's my point. Thanks, you were a good sport.

There is nothing circular about what he said.

Dear Lord, Pogo, you are one stupid ass fucktard.

Criminals exist. Your statement that 'if' criminals exist is stupid as hell, as they obviously exist.

Then when Mike explains himself in support of his earlier claim, that does not make a circular argument.

Fuck.

 

[JimBowie1958]

And voilà, there it is. Circular reasoning. No basis. That's my point. Thanks, you were a good sport.

So criminals don't exist they only appear when you arm up to defend yourself? This is your circular reasoning?

My base question was, "where does this imaginary scenario come from" and your answer is "it exists because it exists". Circular reasoning. In other words --- irrational. And therefore no basis, a false premise.

It exists because it is a FACT OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, retard.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Now that the incredulity is fading, we should probably as a few routine questions:

1.) How did she "know" he was going to shoot the children?

2.) If I walk down a street carrying my own shotgun (mine's real), am I fair game for any woman with a car?

3.) Why is the woman's act NOT "assault with a deadly weapon", and/or "attempted murder"?

1- she didn't "know". No one knows the future.

2- not necessarily. It wouldn't have to be a woman.
Why would you be walking down the street with a shotgun in this country?

3- because a car is not a weapon; because she didn't try to kill him.

#2 - Why do criminals walk around with guns in this country?

#3 - A car is a weapon. It can be used to deliver car/truck bombs or simply run as many people over as possible in a very crowded area. In fact, more people die to legal car drivers than to legal and illegal gun owners combined like infinity to one.

 

[JimBowie1958]

This is similar to many other cases I've read. The fact the gun was a toy is not determinative. If the information provided by CBS Pittsburgh is accurate, there is only one question that matters: Did the woman reasonably believe the gun was real? If she did, she has a valid case of self defense. This is the relevant part of the link provided (highlights my own):

&#8220;She thought he was going to do something to them, so she yelled out of her car window, &#8216;Hey, they&#8217;re just kids, leave them alone,&#8217;&#8221; said Detective Sgt. Steven Roberts, of the Aliquippa Police Department. &#8220;He turned and pointed this at her, and she thought it was a real weapon and that she was about to be shot or that the kids were in danger, so she gunned her car and struck him.&#8221;

Every jurisdiction allows for the use of deadly force when a person reasonably believes such force is necessary to avoid death or serious bodily injury. It doesn't matter whether the perceived threat turns out to be illusory. It only matters that the person reasonable believed the threat to be real. Whether such a belief is reasonable is a matter to be determined first by the police and then, if an arrest is made, by a jury. The man pointed a gun at the woman. If the police concluded that a reasonably prudent person in the same situation as the woman would have believed the gun was real, there was no basis for an arrest.

It's really that simple.

IF what she said was true. Has anyone read what the victim here claims he did before this idiot ran over him because he was walking with a toy toward some kids?

He probably just made a common error when carrying something that could be mistaken for a gun when it isn't a gun; that everybody else will realize it is a gun too. Cops shoot people who called in a report of a crime all the time because the caller doesn't realize that the cops don't recognize them by sight and could very easily confuse them for the perps.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Ok, if I see a Catholic priest near young boys, can I run him over?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Ok, if I see a Catholic priest near young boys, can I run him over?

According to lib logic you can.

But then, they are idiots. Not sure it will stand up in court, though this one wont ever go to court.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Now that the incredulity is fading, we should probably as a few routine questions:

1.) How did she "know" he was going to shoot the children?

2.) If I walk down a street carrying my own shotgun (mine's real), am I fair game for any woman with a car?

3.) Why is the woman's act NOT "assault with a deadly weapon", and/or "attempted murder"?

1- she didn't "know". No one knows the future.

2- not necessarily. It wouldn't have to be a woman.
Why would you be walking down the street with a shotgun in this country?

3- because a car is not a weapon; because she didn't try to kill him.

#2 - Why do criminals walk around with guns in this country?

#3 - A car is a weapon. It can be used to deliver car/truck bombs or simply run as many people over as possible in a very crowded area. In fact, more people die to legal car drivers than to legal and illegal gun owners combined like infinity to one.

This is an obviously outrageous act by that idiot woman who cant tell a toy gun from a real gun, and the cops are simply saying to the public 'Open carry and we will ignore anything the public does to you as self defense.'

Pogo is doing his typical stupid, lying, stalling obfuscating rhetoric to pour water on the whole thing.

People like Pogo is partly why this country is about to commit demographic suicide. Whores like John Boner are another. Greedy bidnessmen like Zuckerberg are yet another.

But then again, if white conservatives are so stupid they cannot keep control of a party that is supposedly representing their interests (among others) in the political system, then they DESERVE to go extinct for being so fucking stupid.

 

[Politico]

I hope he sues the shit out of her.