Man tries to rob woman in wheel chair

[scott1]

NEW YORK -- Margaret Johnson's wheelchair might have made her look like an easy target. But when a mugger tried to grab a chain off her neck Friday, the 56-year-old pulled out her licensed .357 pistol and shot him, police said.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WHEELCHAIR_SHOOTER?SITE=CAANG&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
It's terrible and sad how people take advantage of helpless handicap people

 

[Evo]

Good for her!

 

[hypatia]

WTG Ms, Johnson!

 

[Danger]

It's a good thing that she was going to the range to practice if she only managed to get him in the elbow from that distance.

 

[JasonRox]

It's a good thing that she was going to the range to practice if she only managed to get him in the elbow from that distance.

I don't think her intentions were to severely harm someone who is only stealing a necklace.

Some people go overboard when it comes to self-defence and end up getting charged themselves. Anyways, she did what she had to do.

 

[Mk]

I don't know if I would shoot somebody from trying to take my necklace. Then again, you don't know what they are going to do. HEADSHOT!

 

[JasonRox]

I don't know if I would shoot somebody from trying to take my necklace.

Some people think when they are getting attacked that they have a self-defense door open and can do whatever it takes to stop the person. In reality, you can't do whatever it takes. It has to be reasonable.

For someone who is not on a wheelchair, shooting a gun like the lady would have led to charges.

 

[z-component]

Couldn't she have just as easily threatened him with it instead of actually shooting? I agree it seems overboard.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't think her intentions were to severely harm someone who is only stealing a necklace.

The first rule of firearm defense is that you never pull a gun on someone unless you fully intend to use it.

Second rule: If you have to shoot, shoot to kill.

In Oregon, we don't need guns.

PORTLAND, Ore. - A nurse returning from work discovered an intruder armed with a hammer in her home and strangled him with her bare hands, police said.

Susan Kuhnhausen, 51, then ran to a neighbor's house Wednesday night to report the intruder, identified as Edward Dalton Haffey, 59, whose body was found by police.[continued]

http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=88966

In our case, Tsu is heavily armed. She doesn't like messing up her nails with all of that messy strangling.

 

[Math Is Hard]

I love Oregon women! They're like Texans!

 

[JasonRox]

Neighbors said Kuhnhausen's size - 5 foot 7 inches tall and 260 pounds - may have given her an advantage.

She probably ran him over and then jumped on him, which was probably the true cause of death... then later strangled him.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yeah those big old Oregons.

So you are saying that all Oregon and Texas women are fat?

 

[JasonRox]

So you are saying that all Oregon and Texas women are fat?

It was only relating to the article.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The point was that your comments were in poor taste.

No doubt, at 260 she had a slight advantage.

 

[JasonRox]

The point was that your comments were in poor taste.

No doubt, at 260 she had a slight advantage.

Maybe I should take that comment out to avoid any further confusion.

 

[tribdog]

Just shows the sad state of health care in this country. Some poor guy is reduced to robbing women in his wheel chair. Reminds me of the time I shot an elephant in my pajamas.

 

[Mk]

If you have to shoot, shoot to kill.

I am not much of a pacifist, but I am pretty against that. Shoot them in the leg or the arm, and hope you miss any arteries, when violent crime is intended (not by you).

 

[tribdog]

Any city newspaper~ Police fired 83 rounds, suspect was treated for smoke inhalation and a punctured eardrum.

Don't ask police to be marksmen.

You don't shoot someone unless a life is in danger and if a life is in danger you shoot to end that danger as fast and as surely as possible.

 

[Mk]

Which is neutrilizing the threat by shooting out their legs, and perhaps arms.

 

[scott1]

Which is neutrilizing the threat by shooting out their legs, and perhaps arms.

In the legs there are some major artires so you don't want to shot them in the legs.

 

[JasonRox]

In the legs there are some major artires so you don't want to shot them in the legs.

That's what I was thinking.

I think police officers are trained to go for the shoulders, and/or simply the body because aiming a handgun in action isn't probably the easiest thing.

Note: Most of us have never shot a handgun in action, so we can't compare it to a shooting range.

 

[Math Is Hard]

What if he had tried to rape the woman or kill her? Would it have been OK for her to shoot to kill in one of those cases?

 

[JasonRox]

What if he had tried to rape the woman or kill her? Would it have been OK for her to shoot to kill in one of those cases?

Probably not.

That's not self-defense.

Self-defense: It is generally a legal defense to a charge of homicide, assault, or battery to show that you had reason to believe that you were about to become the victim of serious bodily harm. However, you must simultaneously prove that you tried every other reasonable way of avoiding the situation. This includes running away and calling 911. You also lose this right to self-defense if you started the fight, chose to engage in mutual combat, or committed the defense solely in the protection of property. Errors in judgment don't count, either. So if you get into a fight on behalf of someone else, and that person is later found to have been the legal aggressor, then you become the aggressor's accomplice, and risk conviction for assault, battery, or manslaughter, as appropriate.

http://ejmas.com/jnc/jncart_svinth5_1199.htm

Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force. However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm

So, shooting and killing a potential rapists wouldn't be considered reasonable to stop him. A shot in the shoulder or two could be enough and maybe even less depending on the size and strength of the person. You probably don't even have to shoot because having the weapon alone might stop them.

But then, you have to prove that you had the reason to believe he/she was going to rape you. It's hard to prove if the person has no background of sexual violation and showed no intent in doing so. Just because someone confronts you in your home, this doesn't make it enough to assume it's going to be rape. It's all in your head at that point. Just like the first quote says...

Errors in judgment don't count, either.

For the lady in Oregon, I say that the man had absolutely no intent to rape her. Definitely not after seeing her.

Self-defense isn't completely disabling the person, but only enough to stop the situation and get yourself in a safe position basically. Now, thinking about this, the lady in the wheel chair should have been charged from the information we got. She made no attempt to threaten him with a gun, but simply just shot the gun right away. According to the above, she should have tried that option first.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Probably not.

That's not self-defense.
So, shooting and killing a potential rapists wouldn't be considered reasonable to stop him. A shot in the shoulder or two could be enough and maybe even less depending on the size and strength of the person. You probably don't even have to shoot because having the weapon alone might stop them.

If you've got no chance at running away, if you are in a wheelchair, how many alternatives do you have?

For the lady in Oregon, I say that the man had absolutely no intent to rape her. Definitely not after seeing her.

This demonstrates how little you know about the real world. You think that rape has something to do with physical attractiveness. Elderly women get raped. Little children get raped. And yes, even obese women get raped.

Self-defense isn't completely disabling the person, but only enough to stop the situation and get yourself in a safe position basically. Now, thinking about this, the lady in the wheel chair should have been charged from the information we got. She made no attempt to threaten him with a gun, but simply just shot the gun right away. According to the above, she should have tried that option first.

She was never in a safe position. She's lucky that wounding him didn't just make him mad enough to come back at her. Her safest position would have been to shoot the dirtbag dead.

 

[Mk]

In the legs there are some major artires so you don't want to shot them in the legs.

I already mentioned

Shoot them in the leg or the arm, and hope you miss any arteries

But I bet they have a better chance of living than if you hit the head or torso. Stomach region would break open the intestine, which also quickly causes death.

For the lady in Oregon, I say that the man had absolutely no intent to rape her. Definitely not after seeing her.

Although it was perhaps a joke, rape I read is about power, not the want for sex with a particular women. If you want to have sex with somebody, it is no good unless she wants it or likes it to, c'mon!

 

[JasonRox]

If you've got no chance at running away, if you are in a wheelchair, how many alternatives do you have?

Whatever alternatives you have, you must take them.

This demonstrates how little you know about the real world. You think that rape has something to do with physical attractiveness. Elderly women get raped. Little children get raped. And yes, even obese women get raped.

Humour?

She was never in a safe position. She's lucky that wounding him didn't just make him mad enough to come back at her. Her safest position would have been to shoot the dirtbag dead.

How do you know she never was in a safe position? If you have a gun pointed directly at someone, that would be quite a safe position.

Her safest position would have been to shoot the dirtbag dead?

WHOA! That attitude is worse than the attitude the criminal is carrying. He just wanted money or something with probably no intent to physically injure someone or KILL someone. Yet, you come around saying killing is the only solution? What if this person is just stressed out from family problems and is looking for money? Whatever the reason is... people make mistakes. People can change. Why take that opportunity away by shooting them dead over minor theft charges? You take someone's life away for something that small? Not many people would be alive today with that attitude.

I don't know, but shooting for the intent to kill over minor theft charges is just outrageous.

So far, if you were the lady in the wheelchair, after shooting him in the elbow, disabling him, and having a safe position on him (gun pointed right at him), you would have shot him directly in the head or heart to kill him because YOU feared he might come back at you? That's murder. 25 years. Ouch.

Edit: For the lady in the wheelchair's defence, she probably did not have the opportunity to have him in a safe position (gun pointing) so she did the next thing, which was shoot him. I'm not surprised she didn't get charged. No one got seriously injured. Shooting him in the head afterwards... well...

 

[Monique]

This story sounds like one out of the wild-west, people pulling out guns and shooting around. I guess there were no people around when that happened? What if she had missed his elbow and hit an innocent by-stander?

 

[scott1]

Shoot them in the leg or the arm, and hope you miss any arteries

There's a good chance if you shoot in the legs it will hit the arteries.

 

[shmoe]

I think people who suggest guns should be used for disabling people by shooting their arms, legs, feet, or cigarettes out of their mouths watch too much tv. Police are trained to go for centre of mass. A gun *is* deadly force, the goal is to stop the agressor and centre of mass is surest way to achieve this. You don't aim for winging someone when you feel your life (or someone elses) is threatened.

 

[Math Is Hard]

How do you know she never was in a safe position? If you have a gun pointed directly at someone, that would be quite a safe position.

Only if you've got faster reflexes and the attacker can't get the gun away from you.

Her safest position would have been to shoot the dirtbag dead?

WHOA! That attitude is worse than the attitude the criminal is carrying. He just wanted money or something with probably no intent to physically injure someone or KILL someone. Yet, you come around saying killing is the only solution? What if this person is just stressed out from family problems and is looking for money?

Not the victim's problem.

Whatever the reason is... people make mistakes. People can change.

They change really fast when you put a bullet in them.

Why take that opportunity away by shooting them dead over minor theft charges? You take someone's life away for something that small? Not many people would be alive today with that attitude.

Not many criminals anyway.

I don't know, but shooting for the intent to kill over minor theft charges is just outrageous.

Fair enough. We'll require all victims of violent crimes to inquire of the predator if they are only seeking to take our valuables or if they intend to do us bodily harm. Somewhat problematic if someone is pulling a necklace off your neck and you're choking at the time but perhaps sign language could be adopted.

So far, if you were the lady in the wheelchair, after shooting him in the elbow, disabling him, and having a safe position on him (gun pointed right at him), you would have shot him directly in the head or heart to kill him because YOU feared he might come back at you? That's murder. 25 years. Ouch.

Not if I am on the jury.

Edit: For the lady in the wheelchair's defence, she probably did not have the opportunity to have him in a safe position (gun pointing) so she did the next thing, which was shoot him. I'm not surprised she didn't get charged. No one got seriously injured. Shooting him in the head afterwards... well...

I realize my views on this are extreme but I find it very upsetting when people prey on the "defenseless", no matter what their reasons. And I agree with Monique that it was probably too risky a move if there were any innocent bystanders in sight.

 

[moose]

In the several self defense firearm courses I've taken in the past, it has been stated that shooting someone is only legal if there is a very strong indication that they will kill you... Anyway, if I were to ever get into a bad situation later in my life, I would not pull my gun and shoot until there is no other possible way out of the situation... If that happens, shoot to kill... Shooting someone in the leg or arm is BS. If the person is on certain drugs, the bastard probably won't even feel anything. If someone was about to kill you or someone around you and you shot them in the leg and it stopped them, then you're lucky. If someone can kill you, and you shoot them in the leg, they would all of a sudden have plenty more motivation to kill you without thought.

EDIT: Oh, in general situations, you should usually shoot twice in the chest rapidly and if the ***** is still coming at you or even still alive, concentrate for an instant and between the eyes...

 

[ptabor]

What if he's just stressed out and looking for money?

donate plasma, pawn your dvd collection or other valuables, or get another job. If you really must have money today, then go to a check advance establishment. You could go beg for money if you must.

The point is, have some personal responsibility.. take responsibility for your situation and do something constructive to get out of it. If you make the wrong choice then you'll face the consequences for your actions. If that includes losing your life, you have nobody to blame but yourself.

{ edited for grammar }

 

[Gokul43201]

I think people who suggest guns should be used for disabling people by shooting their arms, legs, feet, or cigarettes out of their mouths watch too much tv.

She was probably going for his funny bone!

"I never thought I would have to use my gun on a person," said Margaret Johnson, who has at least a dozen shooting trophies in her apartment and once shot a hole in a quarter from 30 feet away.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/451222p-379660c.html

You can win shooting trophies in your apartment, and shoot holes in quarters? What can I say? The Daily News was the only source carrying a story different from the short one in the OP.

 

[Evo]

Only if you've got faster reflexes and the attacker can't get the gun away from you.

Not the victim's problem.

They change really fast when you put a bullet in them.

Not many criminals anyway.

Fair enough. We'll require all victims of violent crimes to inquire of the predator if they are only seeking to take our valuables or if they intend to do us bodily harm. Somewhat problematic if someone is pulling a necklace off your neck and you're choking at the time but perhaps sign language could be adopted.
Not if I am on the jury.

I realize my views on this are extreme but I find it very upsetting when people prey on the "defenseless", no matter what their reasons. And I agree with Monique that it was probably too risky a move if there were any innocent bystanders in sight.

Bravo MIH! I agree 110%.!

 

[JasonRox]

The point is, have some personal responsibility.. take responsibility for your situation and do something constructive to get out of it. If you make the wrong choice then you'll face the consequences for your actions. If that includes losing your life, you have nobody to blame but yourself.

{ edited for grammar }

I totally disagree.

People make mistakes and minor theft charges isn't worth a death penalty. That's just pathetic.

So, um... if you ever make a minor tax problem, I'll get the gun.