What if…

[cambeul41]

My wife had a question, a hypothetical situation, for me this evening that I had no good answer for. No matter what decision that one might make, I could only predict bad outcomes.

She had heard on the news that four boys had attacked a 13 year old girl in a nearby park and attempted to sexually molest her. At one point they had her pinned to the ground, but apparently she managed to escape.

The attackers were only 9 and 10 years old. No sizes or ethnicities were mentioned. How the ages were known was not mentioned. Details were sparse.

Her question was this: If she, my 110 pound wife, were attacked by these same four, if they had her down on the ground, but she was able to get her gun hand free – would she be justified in shooting?

My thought was yes. Ability, opportunity, and intent to cause her serious harm or death were present. She would certainly be in fear, sheer terror, of serious harm or death. The fact that she had been swarmed and was off her feet and under the attackers was proof of that. She would have no knowledge of their ages and despite their ages they were demonstrating that they had overwhelming force.

On the other hand we know what the attackers’ families would say. Their innocent angels were just playing out what they had seen on TV or had heard the bad big boys talking about. They meant no harm, but that evil woman had maliciously gunned them down with little or no provocation.

My question to you is this: Trigger time or not. Or is this one time that a “warning shot” might be appropriate?

 

[Kodiaz]

That is a lose lose situation. The parents of the "little Angels" would be on TV crying foul. I'm sure your wife would be in court as a defendant. Depending on what state she might even be convicted.

 

[hso]

This is an example of why only having one tool in your toolbox won't get the job done properly. If she had no other choice would she shoot a pack of dogs that attacked her? Would anyone condemn her? If she had no other choice she would be justified.

On the other hand, putting yourself in the position to have no other choice except to be a helpless victim or shoot someone isn't really giving yourself choices. Perhaps this can be used as a motivation for deciding to get some self defense training or to learn to use a baton or to learn to carry OC so that there are choices when a shoot or not shoot situation isn’t crystal clear?

 

[-sean-]

Those little perverts! If you caught me on a bad day, I would say that they should be executed just on general principle.

Couldn't she just touch off a few rounds into the grass? And then be prepared to defend herself if they don't back off. (I doubt they'd stick around.)


--Sean

 

[mnrivrat]

a hypothetical situation,

And a good thing it is just that , because I don't think it would play well at all to shoot a 9 or 10 year old even if they were in a group of evil brats .

 

[Fudgie Ghost]

Here's how the headline would go:

"Woman shoots unarmed children during dispute. . ."

Yourtown, USA---A xx year old woman shot and severly wounded three yy year old children today . . . one witness says the woman was being attacked, but other witnesses said the children were only "messin' with" the woman----"Y'know, they waz razzin' her and all, but dey weren't gonna do no harm!" "She diden' have no right to be shootin' dem kids!. . . "

Some or all of the "children" would somehow be descriped as "honor students", or "hard working", or "trying to build a better life for themselves" although they would also give a nod to " some of the youths had had brushes with the law", however, they would invariably be downplayed as "minor infractions" "rowdy behavoir", etc. Read "The Bonfire of the Vanities" by Tom Wolfe.

When they rape, rob, and terrorize, they're "thugs, hoodlums, animals", etc. When someone gives them a dose of their own medicine, they suddenly become "children" or "youths." More perversion of the language.

A pox on all their houses. . .

 

[1911Ron]

Never fire warning shots bad bad idea as to other tools very good idea, but if you fear for your life, you may not have time to escalate your level of force.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

If it was me I would shoot them and take my chances in court. Nobody has the right to violate another person's body like that. There are some things that you should just expect to be shot for doing. Rape is one of them. Age isn't even a question. If you're old enough to do the crime, you're old enough to do the time.

I don't know why it is so difficult to understand. You don't even have to be a Christian. Treat people how you want to be treated. Don't rape. Don't steal. Don't kill, and you won't be shot. Otherwise, don't hold your breath because some people simply are not going to be easily victimized.

 

[M2 Carbine]

It makes no difference the age of the attacker. If they are big enough to do you serious harm they are old enough to suffer the consequences.

In the past there's been packs of young predators seriously hurt and even kill.
I don't ask the age of a Rattlesnake before I kill it.

And the hell with their parents. If they had raised the kids right the little parasites wouldn't be trying to harm someone.

 

[Foxtrot427]

Id say she would be. They understand what they are doing and if he physically cant stop them...

 

[rangerruck]

think forward, what would happen after the warning shot? they would run away and then start to brag to them selves about how billy bad a## they were, or they would be scared and tell there parents, or in the first situation, the same thing would happen, eventually one of the other parents would find out about the warning shot. Problem is, in either scenario, the story of reverse rape, ot intimdiation by your wife would be the circulation of the days, before the trial of attempted manslaughter came about. Your wife would have to be the one to immediately go to the police, whether she shoots one of them or not, whoever gets to the police first wins, and we all know this.

 

[akodo]

i'd look at it from this angle, once the gun clears the leather, how do the kids react? If they stop, back up, and bolt, then shooting is uncalled for. If they continue the assault even when confronted with a firearm, yea, shooting is necessary to save yourself.

 

[rayra]

Kill the Leader / instigator. And anyone with the gumption to step up in his place. And I mean Kill.

 

[orangeninja]

it would be a civil and legal disaster. But if deadly force is warranted then it is, if not, then it is not.

I agree with carrying more than one tool, not every thing is a nail and a hammer goes only so far. Supplament a gun with good old fashioned OC foam. Inexpensive, no permanent damage, able to bring the meanest 10 year old down and you don't need a permit to carry it, 'least not around here 'bouts.

Once they see the leader with a three foot string of snot screaming for mommy and unable to see, the rest may be less inclined to take on your wife.

 

[Ruger451]

1911Ron,

Why is it such a bad idea to fire a warning shot? (please forgive me if this is a stupid question) Although I also agree that a defensive shooting would be justified in this scenario, it seems that pulling from holster and perhaps firing a warning shot would alert these little b@stards as to what they were really facing, and maybe alert nearby people that something is going down around the corner. Just a thought, but please tell me if I'm wrong.

 

[Lupinus]

while it would be a political nightmare I'd rather have my wife defend herself, not be rapped, and deal with the crap storm later

 

[Optical Serenity]

If deadly force is justified, then the legal aftermath is worth it.

 

[GrammatonCleric]

Preventing Rape

If your wife (or any woman put into this same hypothetical situation) must draw her firearm, she should shoot to kill. To not do so would be unethical, simply because, what if, after the thugs leave her alone once she fired a warning shot, they ended up doing the exact same thing to some other woman? Some people just need killing.

 

[FilJos]

This is a perfect time to shoot first and ask questions later. I haven't seen enough ten years old to know about them, but I have had contact with many 14-17 year olds in jail for murder that have been certified as adults.

Most of them have a sort of dazed look about them all the time. The kind of look that makes you think "This person has no soul and would kill me if only given the chance." It's a scary kind of vibe that suggests that these little monsters are dead to the world. I'm not saying that they are like natural born killers or anything that glamorous, just that they don't seem to have a mental capacity that goes beyond "kill and eat."

So yeah, defend yourself and let the courts settle the rest.

 

[sacp81170a]

I know this is the high road, so I won't use the words that come immediately to mind when describing juvenile thugs like this. Parents can generally be held civilly liable for the misbehavior of their children. (rant)Gun 'em down, make sure they're dead, and then file suit against the parents for causing you mental anguish for having to defend yourself against the pack of rabid animals that they failed to control.(/rant) I feel better now, I think I'll go have a cup of coffee...

 

[LAK]

What HSO said.

Incidently the gang rape of very young or teenage girls is not uncommon in the U.K. in recent years, with the assailants often being in the early teens age groups, and the assaults often taking place within the neigborhoods themselves.

When it comes down to it, girls - and boys - who are below the age and physical stature to reasonably take care of themselves shouldn't be out on their own to begin with. And those who are mature, responsible and of age to do so should have the tools to defend themselves in progressive forms.

In this particular case one would have to know whether a woman would have had the opportunity to draw a weapon if needed. Many adult women would not suspect that 9 and 10 year old boys could constitute such a threat, and they could theoretically have her at a disadvantage before even a suspicion of intent was evident.

Which is why being good with one's hands, feet, elbows, knees etc is a good place to start. For really young kids, these days I can think of nothing better than to have them enrolled in longterm unarmed martial arts training in one of the more aggressive disciplines. By the time they are in their teens they ought to be out of the soft target category for many or most situations.

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

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[mmike87]

Several issues come to mind here.

First of all, in all 50 states, rape is considered "grevious bodily harm" and meets the standard for using deadly force.

Considering that these are kids, we come to the "disparity of force" issue. Would a reasonable person, a 110 pound woman, faced with an assault by four kids, feel like she was in danger of death or grevious bolidy harm?

It's a tough question. I've seem some pretty big 10 year olds, and 4 of them could certainly overpower a small woman if they tried hard enough. However, it's not an argument that I'd like to be forced to make - but I do think that it is possibly an argument that CAN be made.

Personally, if I feel that I am in danger of death or grevious bodily harm, then I'm shooting, no matter who it is. The alternative to not shooting is death. If you don't feel that the alternative to shooting is death or grevious bodily harm, then you're not justified to begin with.

We all hope we're never forced to make such a decision.

 

[HankB]

This is what happens when yesterday's gangbangers grow up and have kids, and those kids have kids . . . each generation gets worse, until now we have what some shrinks have referred to as feral youth.

If a pack of these has enough strength to seriously endanger someone's safety and initiates violence, IMHO it justifies the use of ballistic deterrence.

Regardless of the age of these little monsters, a petite woman attacked by these vermin, if she ends up in court at all, is IMHO (and IANAL) almost certain to gain a jury's sympathy in any civilized jurisdiction.

A healthy 200-lb man . . . may be a different story.

 

[Nickotym]

As to the question about the warning shot: What happens if one of the kids suddenly moves while you are doing this and gets in the way of the bullet? Or it ricochets? Or hits a bystander? None of those have a good outcome.

 

[ACP230]

The possibility that someone attempting rape, no matter what age, may be HIV positive, should also be considered when thinking over this scenario.