The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 29, 2001, 07:00 AM   #1
Keiller TN
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 18, 2000
Posts: 483
A Nashville woman shoots the her abductor with his own Tec 9 handgun. The story here: http://www.newschannel9.com/vnews/topstories/991104364/
Keiller TN is offline  
Old May 29, 2001, 08:40 AM   #2
Oatka
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 28, 1999
Location: Nevada
Posts: 3,076
In Tennessee she will get away with it. In Kalifornia they'd hang her out to dry. In any event, a little chlorine in the gene pool.
Oatka is offline  
Old May 29, 2001, 10:08 AM   #3
R Varn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 6, 1999
Posts: 115
By law, if he was running away, she was no longer in danger, so shooting him could bring a murder charge.

That being said...nice shooting lady. This will turn out fine since no jury in Dalton, GA would ever convict this woman of any crime.
R Varn is offline  
Old May 29, 2001, 02:55 PM   #4
PreserveFreedom
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
All of a sudden I heard the shot and I looked up and she was pumping 3 more shots into him and then she ran out
OR...the typical Tec9 jammed after four rounds.
 
Old May 29, 2001, 03:14 PM   #5
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,715
I think her actions fall under the "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" category.
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old May 29, 2001, 08:52 PM   #6
papercut
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2000
Location: Cobb County, Georgia, USA, near the Big Chicken
Posts: 922
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ran the AP wire story version of it. Here it is:

Quote:
Tennessee man shot to death at truck stop
Associated Press

A Tennessee man was shot to death at a truck stop on Monday, apparently by a former girlfriend he had kidnapped from her mother's home earlier in the day, Whitfield County sheriff's officers said.

The woman, identified as Alisha Cox, 38, of Nashville, had been taken captive after the man broke into the home and shots were fired, Nashville police said. They said the woman's mother, who wasn't identified, was later found dead in the home.

The man put the woman in a truck, tied her up and drove to Whitfield County, where he stopped at the truck stop to pick up food and beverages, Whitfield County Sheriff Scott Chitwood said.

Cox then freed herself from her bonds and got out of the truck, carrying a pistol, Chitwood said.
"He confronted her and we believe made an aggressive move toward her at which time she began shooting," Chitwood said.
Witnesses said the woman chased the man across the parking lot, shooting several times.

"She shot him in the side of the head," said witness Gaylin McDaniels, "and when he hit the ground, she hesitated, and shot him twice in the back."

Police said Cox apparently acted in self-defense and charges were pending.

The man was not immediately identified by police, pending notification of relatives. Officers said he was 31 and lived in Nashville.
The link is http://www.accessatlanta.com/partner...529dalton.html but that may go down at any time.
papercut is offline  
Old May 29, 2001, 09:07 PM   #7
Redlg155
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 13, 2001
Location: NW Florida
Posts: 2,307
Witnesses said the woman chased the man across the parking lot, shooting several times.

"She shot him in the side of the head," said witness Gaylin McDaniels, "and when he hit the ground, she hesitated, and shot him twice in the back."

Police said Cox apparently acted in self-defense and charges were pending.


Damndest case of self defense I have ever heard of! Still, even if charges were brought against her, she could definitely plead temporary mental insanity caused by the stressful situation and emotional trauma of losing her mother. Hell, that's what I would plead!


Good Shooting
RED
Redlg155 is offline  
Old May 29, 2001, 09:39 PM   #8
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,374
Ouch. Oh man, she's got problems if things actually went down as described in the story.

That's perilously close to murder.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old May 29, 2001, 09:43 PM   #9
Marko Kloos
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 12, 2000
Location: Enfield, NH
Posts: 5,521
Goodness gracious!

That was at the Pilot truck stop in Dalton?

I used to work for Pilot until last month. I installed computer systems for them, including the Dalton location. Tamara and I stop at the Dalton Pilot every time we drive down to Atlanta for the weekend.

I carried on the job all the time, truck stops being what they are. This was in my back yard, so to speak. And some folks wonder why I carry...
__________________
"The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." --A.E. Van Vogt, The Weapon Shops of Isher

the munchkin wrangler.
Marko Kloos is offline  
Old May 29, 2001, 09:49 PM   #10
madkiwi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2000
Location: Missoula, MT
Posts: 227
Well, if he killed her mother, then she was reasonably fearing for her life (no doubt).

No jury, even in California, would convict. That said, here in the PRK juries are not allowed to decided the validity of the statutes etc (no jury nullification) so if charges were bought, and it was cut and dried, then it would require a judge to sentence her to time served or something. But in a murder case we probably have little flexibility with sentencing guidelines etc.

Best thing is that they do not press charges.
madkiwi is offline  
Old May 29, 2001, 10:42 PM   #11
private_idaho
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2001
Posts: 166
"no jury nullifcation" - I don't think so. The judge may tell you you need to "decide only the facts" and accept the law - in fact, he or she will do that in every state - but ultimately, why a juror decides "guilty" or "not guilty" is ALWAYS up to that individual juror, and there is NOTHING the courts, the judge, or anyone else can do or say to stop that juror.

(Sorry, I know this is slightly OT, but EVERYONE should know the power of the juror, especially if they are a juror.)
private_idaho is offline  
Old May 29, 2001, 11:57 PM   #12
Jeff Thomas
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 9, 1998
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,753
I'd wager there aren't too many prosecutors foolish enough to take this one on. Lousy self defense example, but ... I'll bet there aren't too many jurors that could look her in the eye and convict.

That's one more violent SOB who won't be hurting another woman.

Regards from AZ
Jeff Thomas is offline  
Old May 30, 2001, 02:58 AM   #13
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,374
Sorry, Madkiwi, it often doesn't work like that.

You can fear for your life, and you can use deadly force to protect yourself in the face of an imminent threat, but running after, and shooting someone in the back when they're down, is grounds for a manslaughter/murder charge and very possible conviction.

Right or wrong, there is tons of case law on this. The predicate fear defense is a tough one to construct and win, and there are a lot of women in prison whose attorneys tried it, and lost. Even when there is compelling, long-term abuse with high probability of more abuse in the future, it's an extremely tough case to win.

A good prosecutor would likely argue that the woman's actions weren't based on predicate fear (I THINK that's the correct term), but on... revenge.

A counter argument to that angle could be severe temporary emotional disturbance, again a real crap shoot, which the successful use of has as much to do with getting a sympathetic jury as it does the skill of your defense.

If the woman goes to trial, and if the facts of the case are basically those related in the articles, I'd say it's a 50/50 chance her walking/going to jail.

My gut feeling, though, says 60/40, with her going to jail more likely than not.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old May 30, 2001, 08:24 AM   #14
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,715
The location of the shots, in the back, is not germaine to most of the legal stuff I have seen. By germaine, I mean that the laws don't specifically say you can't shoot someone in the back. Either you had the right to use lethal force, or not. If you did have the right to use it, then shot placement on target does not matter.

The same goes for the fact the guy was on the ground. His position and being shot in the back will be used to create the atmosphere that the man was no longer a threat and it will be used to make the female victim look bad, but those 'facts' are not legal issues per se.

Something else to consider and this may be somewhat contrary to what Mike Irwin was saying. The guy may have been dead on the ground when she shot him again in the back. This will be something the coroner may be able to determine. If so, the lethal force issue on a dead body becomes somewhat moot because her first shot to the head may be ruled as being self defense. If the head shot killed him, for the follow-up shots she is guilty, potentially, of lesser crimes such as mutilating a corpse or reckless discharge of a firearm.
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old May 30, 2001, 08:26 AM   #15
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA
Posts: 24,798
Texas law, as written, clearly states that if a reasonable and prudent person has reason to believe that the one running away is an ongoing threat to the community, deadly force can be used. (Granted, the shooting occurred in Georgia...)

Since in this case the woman surely had reason to believe the guy had murdered her mother and kidnapped her, she certainly had reason to believe he was an ongoing threat.

And when the cops publicly say they think it's self-defense, the odds are that it will indeed be called self-defense.

, Art
Art Eatman is offline  
Old May 30, 2001, 12:56 PM   #16
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,374
Double Naught & Art,

Obviously, this differs from state to state.

In Pennsylvania, generally, if you shoot someone in the back while they are fleeing, ESPECIALLY if they are unarmed, even if they've just slaughtered a whole flock of nuns, you've got problems.

I'm not 100% certain, but I'm pretty sure that it's the same in Virginia.

The idea of constituting an ongoing threat to the community is also a tough one.

In this situation, it could be argued that the man posed no true ongoing threat to the community at large, as his actions were only directed at the his ex and apparently her mother. There's no evidence that the greater community was in danger by his escape, only this woman.

Any way you cut it, this is why we have jury trials.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old May 30, 2001, 01:19 PM   #17
El Rojo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 4, 2000
Location: People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 2,057
I was thinking about this the other day.

As I was waiting in a very slow line at the Big K, I was running some senarios through my head should an armed robber come in through the door there and hold up the register. I do this often when I am carrying and I think it is a good idea to plan ahead, plus it gives me something to do as it takes 5 minutes for the manager to bring some extra change to the register.

There were some kids at the front of the line and if an armed robber was holding a gun to the clerk's head, I would have had a tough time shooting him with so many kids around. I also thought about what if the guy just took off out the door if I announced my precense. In the PRK, I think I am going to let a guy with a gun run out the door. I don't think it would be a good idea to shoot him in the back. Now our local police department shoots armed robbers all of the time. It is like their claim to fame. They pride themselves of riding the world of these armed robbers who come up from LA and try to pull one over in our county. Very often the criminals career is permenantly ended by the Bakersfield Police. Even guys who are running away across empy fields get shot in the back.

I could say that I observed a threat to the public as a police officer would. But without a department to back me up and without the official training to hide behind, I don't think it is worth it. If I am in a situation and the guy runs away, I am going to opt to keep a bead on him until he is out of sight. And even then, I will still remain on guard until I am positive they are not going to come running back in. The whole point is if I don't have to take a life, then I won't. I am not interested in lawsuits and losing my firearm as evidence. I am not interested in being instant justice. I am only interested in using the minimal force necessary to stop a direct threat to my life or other lives around me.
El Rojo is offline  
Old May 30, 2001, 02:42 PM   #18
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,374
Rojo,

In that scenario, unless the person makes it obvious that he is going to pull the trigger, I'm not going to draw my gun.

No way, no how.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old May 30, 2001, 02:48 PM   #19
Mr. James
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2001
Location: The Old Dominion
Posts: 1,521
Interesting thread...

On one hand, I'd have to agree with Mike Irwin that an aggressive anti-gun prosecutor could have a field day describing in all its gory detail this "vigilante execution," including the coup de grace administered to this fallen, possibly mortally wounded, scumbag - er, poor, defenseless victim. After all, it will never do if the sheeple start taking up arms and defending themselves; there'd be mayhem in the streets, as compared to the perfect comity and order that presently obtain.

On the other hand, this sumb**** just kidnaped a woman after gunning down her mother in her own home. I'd be loathe to conclude this threat was not ongoing - who knows what the hell he's capable of?

As to Art Eatman's happy observation, I can't recall a case where the authorities openly opined that it was self defense, but later changed their collective minds and filed charges. I'm sure it's happened, though.
__________________
"...A humble and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise." Ps. li

"When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law." —Frederic Bastiat
Mr. James is offline  
Old May 30, 2001, 03:08 PM   #20
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA
Posts: 24,798
Well, Mr. James, we all know there are anti-gun, anti-self-defense prosecutors...

Had this happened at a truckstop in most parts of west Texas, she'd get a medal and a victory parade--and a collection would be taken up for first-class airfare home.

Fair enough, I think...

Art
Art Eatman is offline  
Old May 30, 2001, 05:31 PM   #21
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,715
Maybe I misread something. I understood he was shot in the back once he was down AFTER being shot in the head. Hence, he was not shot in the back while fleeing.

Also, the woman had no way of knowing that when this guy was returning whether or not he was armed. He had proven to be armed previously and had used his weapon(s) against the woman and her mother. All she knew was that at least one gun was left behind and that was the gun she used against the guy.

If the first shot to the head killed the guy and that shot was ruled self defense, then the shots to the back are moot in terms of murder charges being brought against the woman. If the guy were alive, then she probably will have some additional series legal issues with which to contend.

Regardless of how this turns out in terms of legal matters, one thing this woman cannot be accused of is underestimating her enemy after he showed considerable determination in kidnapping her. She did the whole reverse Mozambique where she shot him in the head, assessed the situation, and place two COM from the sounds of it. Right or wrong, she made sure that the guy would never harm her again or anyone else. I understand this may be considered vigilante justice and as such, she may be legally wrong for what she did and she may have to pay the price, but by golly she stopped being victimized right then and there and there.

Hey, if Virginia or Georgia has a specific law that says it is illegal to shoot someone in the back, please send me the reference. I would greatly appreciate it. I don't need references that it is illegal to shoot someone while fleeing or some other condition, but clear cut statements that it is illegal to shoot in the back. For that matter, specific references from any state would be appreciated.
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old May 30, 2001, 05:46 PM   #22
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,374
Double Naught,

Given that the person is apparently face down on the ground makes for even LESS reason to shoot him in the back.

Once he began to flee, his status remains fleeing unless he reverses course and attempts to re-engage the other individual in the altercation, or attempts to engage another person in a hostile act.

But, once he hit the ground, it's also very likely that he was helpless. Granted, you and I both know that, from what we've read, it's no big deal that this scumbag was helpless.

But in our legal system everyone theoretically has the same rights (yeah, I know, don't choke laughing ), and the system tends to take a pretty dim view of shooting someone in the back when they're down, unless they're posing an IMMEDIATE threat, not a potential or perceived threat.

As for the specific references that it is illegal to shoot someone in the back, I don't think there is such a citation under Virginia law.

Why? Because it's NOT illegal to shoot someone in the back if he/she poses an immediate, grave threat to someone else.

So much of our law comes down to interpretation, intent, and condition.

That's why self-defense laws have language such as "reasonable belief that you are in grave danger" or "reasonable belief that someone else is in grave danger."

No law can be written to cover all SPECIFIC instances or events. What the intent is, though, is that the law be both specific AND general, so that the spirit of the law can be interpreted by the attorneys, courts, and juries.

__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old May 30, 2001, 05:56 PM   #23
Mark D
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2000
Posts: 383
Well...

Even if it went down as the article says, I would not blame her for shooting him while he was down. Sounds like she was just making sure he couldn't EVER threaten her again. If he indeed killed her mother, well... Sounds like he got what was coming to him.

Hopefully he never had the opportunity to reproduce.
Mark D is offline  
Old May 30, 2001, 06:00 PM   #24
Jhp147
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 27, 1999
Location: Texas
Posts: 597
going back toward the original thread....

I have, for the last 2 days, been reading out (in roll call) the teletype from the Tennessee department that was investigating this. The teletype briefly recounts the crimes the "suspect" had committed, what he was driving, who his hostages were, etc., so that officers would be aware of the situation should they stop the car. Today, I mentioned the BOLO I had been reading, and then recounted the last chapter. A VERY rousing cheer went up from the 18 or so officers present. Legal or not, it made a lot of folks' day.
Jhp147 is offline  
Old May 30, 2001, 08:48 PM   #25
WalterGAII
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 7, 1999
Posts: 1,516
Folks, this little gem happened in Dalton, GA, U.S.A., not some third-world country like Kalifornia or Hilloryork. She'll not only not be indicted, she'll probably be given a key to the city and a parade around the town square.

No jury nullification in Kalifornia?? What a ration of horsehockey! Ever hear of O.J. Simpson??
WalterGAII is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.18838 seconds with 7 queries