Good Girls: 1, Bad Guys: 0

[Iceberg]

With the clarity of 20/20 hindsight, it's pretty obvious the guy didn't have a gun - armed criminals don't hide their weapons, relying on the fear that can be induced by the glint of blue steel. But in the heat of the moment, she probably wasn't thinking of that, and if somebody says "I have a gun" and acts like they do, the law will treat the sequence of actions which follows as if they had actually possessed a lethal weapon at the time of the incident.

Lethal force can legally be met with lethal force. He took his chances and lost. I have no sympathy for him, only for the woman who has to live for the rest of her life with the emotional consequences of having shot and possibly killed somebody. A better arrangement overall than having to live for the rest of her life with the consequences of having been assaulted and possibly raped.

[Iceberg]

I'm half-tempted to buy a gun for my sister who lives in Washington, DC except for the fact that she's a pacifist and would never carry it.

[aerius]

Aren't hollowpoint rounds illegal to sell to the general public?

Nope, only stuff like those supposed "Cop Killer" Black Talon(?) rounds.

If that had happened in England, she would've most likely been thrown in jail. I hate my country.

Seeing as how she thought that her car was more valuble than a human life, she'd deserve to be in there.

Let's see, she was threatened by a guy claiming to have a gun, that's enough justification to waste him on the spot. There's no need to wait for the fucker to shoot you before you blow his brains out, and doing so would be beyond retarded.

No, but I would say that if she was a super expert at unarmed combat, she has a responsibility not to use killing force when less will do the same job, and she would be aware of this difference, as this sort of thing is heavily emphasised by all major self defence establishments. Bad example, I think, you can get lucky with a gun and kill accidentally, if you know self defence, then you know what minimum force is, and when it should be used.

I disagree with this. In my view her responsiblity is to save herself from harm & death by any means neccessary, what happens to the attacker is secondary to this. I very much doubt the attacker is losing any sleep over her well-being, why should she care about his? Worrying about the well-being of a criminal scumbag is not what you want to be doing in a life or death situation, your focus is on getting your ass out of that situation any way you can. Oh, and that minimum force selfdefence thing is great in theory but doesn't work well in practice. Unless that is your idea of minimum force is breaking bones & joints and stomping the fucker's head into the ground.

[Nathan F]

Based on my use-of-force training as an MP, the lady was absolutely justified in shooting that guy. she even double tapped him center mass. Perfect. she met what she percieved as deadly force being potentially used against her with deadly force preemptively. Meh, idiot shouldn't have tried to carjack her. Hope he's removed from the Gene pool.

Two to the chest, one to the head, now the bad guy's dead dead dead.

[Col. Crackpot]

Hollow points are a much safer choice in a densely populated environment. you hit your target, and the bullet stops in your target. it doesn't blast through come out the other side and hit something else like FMJ's would.

[David]

If that had happened in England, she would've most likely been thrown in jail. I hate my country.

And considering that violent crime has escalated to point that the police are finally having to carry fire arms, the only people these fire arm control laws hurt are the law abiding citizens who want to protect themselves. Parliment doesn't seem to understand that people intent on breaking the law aren't going to be diswaded by gun control laws.


Damn I love living in a country with a constitution.

I think you misunderstand the British constitiion. It explicitly allows for people to be armed,

That the subjects which are protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law."

but it says nothing about the govwrnments ability oregulate gun ownership

Hmmm I'd always been told that most British rights were implied instead of specifically written down.

[Glocksman]

I'm half-tempted to buy a gun for my sister who lives in Washington, DC except for the fact that she's a pacifist and would never carry it.

Unless you want her to go to jail, don't do it.

DC essentially bans handguns and longarms have to be stored locked up and disassembled. You have to have a (hard to get) permit to own long guns as well.


DC gun laws

DC is a nice place to visit, but I certainly wouldn't want to live there.

[MKSheppard]

I'm half-tempted to buy a gun for my sister who lives in Washington, DC except for the fact that she's a pacifist and would never carry it.

Or you could just tell me if anything ever happens to me, and the scum bag
responsible will end up having a short life....

[MKSheppard]

Or you could just tell me if anything ever happens to her, and the scum bag
responsible will end up having a short life....

Correct spelling, DAMN TYPODEMONS

[Glocksman]

Aren't hollowpoint rounds illegal to sell to the general public?

Nope, only stuff like those supposed "Cop Killer" Black Talon(?) rounds.

Black Talon is a hollowpoint with a thicker jacket that is supposed to expand into several sharp points.

It never was banned. Winchester simply dropped the name after being accused of being racist for using the name 'Black Talon'.

You can get the exact same ammo (except the jacket color is plain copper instead of black tinted copper) today from Winchester under the name SXT.

The 'cop killer' bullets were the KTW teflon coated AP bullets that were sold to Law Enforcement only even before the ban on pistol AP bullets was passed back in the 1980's.

Ironically enough, it wasn't well known that police wore kevlar vests until NBC news publicized it heavily in their 'reportage' on the nonexistent 'cop killer bullet' problem.

After NBC got through, every gangbanger and his brother knew to take either a headshot or use a rifle.

[PrinceofLowLight]

Great. It'd be cool if she could get his head so she can put it on a pike outside her house.

[Jason von Evil]

Hate to break it to you all, but if she conciously fired the second shot, then she can be brought up on murder, if the guy died. If she fired the second shot without knowing, then it's still self defense.

[Howedar]

Smells like bullshit to me, unless you're talking about firing the second shot when the guy was already disabled and on the ground. If she fired the second shot before the effects of the first shot could be seen, she was still replying to deadly force with deadly force.

[Stuart Mackey]

Hmmm I'd always been told that most British rights were implied instead of specifically written down.

Oh, they are written down, you just have to know where to find the writing...The issue is, however, basic rights can be changed at the whim of the Government of the day as no parliment can bind the actions of its successor.

[Stuart Mackey]

Hmmm I'd always been told that most British rights were implied instead of specifically written down.

Oh, they are written down, you just have to know where to find the writing...The issue is, however, basic rights can be changed at the whim of the Government of the day as no parliment can bind the actions of its successor.

I would also add that thats the theory anyway..there are some safeguards.

[Zaia]

From assaultweb.net:

5)have your gun in a ready to use condition.

She used a keltec P11, which she chose for a few reasons. It has no safety, so there is one less thing to worry about in a stressful situation, it has a very heavy and long trigger pull, which makes it all but impossible to have an accidental discharge or for her young daughter to shoot it even intentionally. Her name is kelly and she liked the name of the pistol. It was also affordable.

I'm sorry, but keeping a gun with no safety stashed somewhere unlocked is a bad idea when you have kids who can find it and accidentally set it off. I don't care how long and heavy the trigger pull is.

I'm glad she's safe and all, but the thought of that gun just sitting in her car, loaded and ready to fire with her kid around makes me feel sick.

[buzz_knox]

[quote="The_Lumberjack Bad example, I think, you can get lucky with a gun and kill accidentally, if you know self defence, then you know what minimum force is, and when it should be used.[/quote]

Self defense does not dictate the use of minimum force, it requires equivalent force. You can't escalate a situation, but if there is sufficient grounds to use deadly force, you are not required to use lesser force on the chance that it will be sufficient. You can choose to do so but the law doesn't require it.

[buzz_knox]

Nope, only stuff like those supposed "Cop Killer" Black Talon(?) rounds.

Black Talons were pulled off the market by Winchester voluntarilly, to defuse the media hysteria concerning the name and the false accusations surrounding the rounds. Winchester changed the name to Ranger and is selling them today. It's actually a superior round to the Black Talon, which never were as good as claimed.

"Cop killers" usually refer to armor piercing rounds which are heavily regulated by federal law in the US.

[buzz_knox]

Hate to break it to you all, but if she conciously fired the second shot, then she can be brought up on murder, if the guy died. If she fired the second shot without knowing, then it's still self defense.

The number of rounds fired is irrelevant when there was a clear justification for shooting to begin with. Police and civilians with training are taught to shoot until the threat is eliminated, and that often involves emptying the magazine. Whether she fired one round, two rounds, or thirty really doesn't matter as long as the threat existed (or was perceived to exist) during the shooting.

Glocksman, I didn't see your post until I did mine. You stated the history of the Black Talon better than I.

[General Zod]

If that had happened in England, she would've most likely been thrown in jail. I hate my country.

Seeing as how she thought that her car was more valuble than a human life, she'd deserve to be in there.

apparently her attacker thought her car was more valuable than her life. if i were in a similar situation i'd say fuck the attacker and do whatever it took to stop him if i was able to. he turned out to be unarmed, but he very well could have been. and in a case like that you don't want to take chances that the attacker is going to leave you alive, even if you do give them what they want.

[TheDarkling]

Hmmm I'd always been told that most British rights were implied instead of specifically written down.

It is from the English bill of rights0or "An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown" for its proper name) written in 1689 (another nation would plagiarise it exactly 100 years later ) but I doubt it still stands as the most current law on the issue.

[Jason von Evil]

The number of rounds fired is irrelevant when there was a clear justification for shooting to begin with. Police and civilians with training are taught to shoot until the threat is eliminated, and that often involves emptying the magazine. Whether she fired one round, two rounds, or thirty really doesn't matter as long as the threat existed (or was perceived to exist) during the shooting.

Glocksman, I didn't see your post until I did mine. You stated the history of the Black Talon better than I.

Bzzzt! Wrong! If she shot the guy a second time after he had fallen to the ground and was no longer a threat, then it isn't self defense. All she had to do after the first shot was jump in her car, lock the door, grab the keys and peel out of the parking lot like a bat out of hell, while calling the police. If she couldn't do that, then she could've just ran back to where she left.

[Stofsk]

Bzzzt! Wrong! If she shot the guy a second time after he had fallen to the ground and was no longer a threat, then it isn't self defense. All she had to do after the first shot was jump in her car, lock the door, grab the keys and peel out of the parking lot like a bat out of hell, while calling the police. If she couldn't do that, then she could've just ran back to where she left.

Except that if she did as you described then it looks bad on her because it appears as though she's running from the scene of the crime. Given the fact her assailant wasn't even armed, this would be even more damning; if she was defending herself, why did she run? People that run have something to hide, afterall...

Besides, as I read it, she fired off two rounds rather quickly, rather than shoot him once, he falls to the ground, then she stands over him and pulls the second round into him. You're right that if she did the latter she wouldn't be defending herself and would likely be guilty of murder. But I don't think that's the case here.

[buzz_knox]

Bzzzt! Wrong! If she shot the guy a second time after he had fallen to the ground and was no longer a threat, then it isn't self defense. All she had to do after the first shot was jump in her car, lock the door, grab the keys and peel out of the parking lot like a bat out of hell, while calling the police. If she couldn't do that, then she could've just ran back to where she left.

My statement was based on the article. To support your argument, you had to alter the circumstances. There is a considerable difference between a double tap and a revenge shot.

[Col. Crackpot]

The number of rounds fired is irrelevant when there was a clear justification for shooting to begin with. Police and civilians with training are taught to shoot until the threat is eliminated, and that often involves emptying the magazine. Whether she fired one round, two rounds, or thirty really doesn't matter as long as the threat existed (or was perceived to exist) during the shooting.

Glocksman, I didn't see your post until I did mine. You stated the history of the Black Talon better than I.

Bzzzt! Wrong! If she shot the guy a second time after he had fallen to the ground and was no longer a threat, then it isn't self defense. All she had to do after the first shot was jump in her car, lock the door, grab the keys and peel out of the parking lot like a bat out of hell, while calling the police. If she couldn't do that, then she could've just ran back to where she left.

bzzzt! buzz knox didn't say that it's ok to shoot someone on the ground. Waht was said was shoot as long as a threat exists.