No Self Defense For Women

[R. Richard]

You are a woman, alone in your own house in Virginia. Your ex-boyfriend is leaving and he has choked you. He is going back and forth from the house to his car and will be back in no more than a few seconds. You arm yourself with a .22 pistol and lock the door. Your ex-boyfriend comes back, kicks the door in and begins to choke you. You may not use your gun to protect yourself. You are to wait for the police to arrive from the doughnut shop. Or, you can abandon your home and belongings and run for it. However, you may not use your gun to protect yourself. Is this fair? If so, why?

Woman gets prison term in fatal shooting

BY ALAN COOPER
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER May 6, 2005

Lloyd Jamal Whitaker Jr.'s departure on Sept. 29 from the home he had shared with Carolyn Taylor did not go smoothly.

He had made several trips to his car with boxes of belongings from the house in the 1300 block of Enfield Avenue.

But Taylor, 33, told police that he had choked her during one of his trips back to the dwelling, and she had locked the door behind him and put a .22-caliber pistol in her pocket.

When Whitaker, 28, kicked in the door and choked her again, she fired a shot downward to get him away from her, she said. The bullet lodged in Whitaker's pelvis, and he bled to death from what appeared at first to be a superficial wound.

Taylor pleaded guilty in January to involuntary manslaughter, and Richmond Circuit Judge Richard D. Taylor sentenced her yesterday to serve three years and four months in prison.

Before she was sentenced, Carolyn Taylor apologized to Whitaker's family and added, "I never meant for him to die. . . . The gun that I had took his life, but I feel that it might have saved my life."

Whitaker's parents testified that his departure from the home was part of an effort to get his life on track. "It's like a part of me left," Lloyd Whitaker Sr. told the judge. "He should have been allowed to leave as he was preparing to do and we wouldn't be here."

Deputy Commonwealth's Attorney Diane Abato told the judge that Taylor could have left the apartment or called police to keep the confrontation from escalating.

"But as so often happens in this city, people arm themselves and think that solves the problem," she said.

 

[SeaCat]

Seems strange, but not knowing the laws in Virginia or all of the facts about this case I have to reserve judgment.

Cat

 

[elsol]

a) It's her word against a corpse's... so from my reading 'She SAID he choked her..."

So we automatically take someone's word; 'Uh, she was choking me, officer. I had to kill her!"

b) She pled guilty to manslaughter.

What's the problem here?

He kicked down the door... here's a plausible explanation for that; she locked the door with his shit still in the house.


Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Some days I look to my sex and weep.

No wait, that's every day.

 

[SummerMorning]

Here, LC, have a spliff. It seems to make the world a cheerier place.

 

[R. Richard]

a) It's her word against a corpse's... so from my reading 'She SAID he choked her..."

So we automatically take someone's word; 'Uh, she was choking me, officer. I had to kill her!"

b) She pled guilty to manslaughter.

What's the problem here?

He kicked down the door... here's a plausible explanation for that; she locked the door with his shit still in the house.


Sincerely,
ElSol

She pled guilty to INVOLUNTARY manslaughter. If she had shot him as he kicked in her door that might have been manslaughter [and you have to wonder why]. Involuntary manslaughter in this situation would mean that they were struggling.

There is no indication as to whether or not she was choked. However, when an amateur chokes someone it leaves very easily identifiable marks [trust me, I am an expert here]. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that he did indeed try to strangle her and left said marks, otherwise the prosecution would have destroyed her assertion.

If he kicks down doors when he is denied access, he should not be walking the streets, for public safety here. All he had to do was call the police and they would have let him take his possessions from the house. He was not under any time constraint about contacting the police, she was.

I read here a woman who was defended by a public defender who did not put up much of a defense.

JMHO.

 

[Guest]

a) It's her word against a corpse's... so from my reading 'She SAID he choked her..."

So we automatically take someone's word; 'Uh, she was choking me, officer. I had to kill her!"

b) She pled guilty to manslaughter.

What's the problem here?

He kicked down the door... here's a plausible explanation for that; she locked the door with his shit still in the house.


Sincerely,
ElSol

something tells me theres just a tad more to it than this.

 

[SummerMorning]

something tells me theres just a tad more to it than this.

Somehow, I agree.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

She pled guilty to INVOLUNTARY manslaughter. If she had shot him as he kicked in her door that might have been manslaughter [and you have to wonder why]. Involuntary manslaughter in this situation would mean that they were struggling.

There is no indication as to whether or not she was choked. However, when an amateur chokes someone it leaves very easily identifiable marks [trust me, I am an expert here]. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that he did indeed try to strangle her and left said marks, otherwise the prosecution would have destroyed her assertion.

If he kicks down doors when he is denied access, he should not be walking the streets, for public safety here. All he had to do was call the police and they would have let him take his possessions from the house. He was not under any time constraint about contacting the police, she was.

I read here a woman who was defended by a public defender who did not put up much of a defense.

JMHO.

Actually, and I maybe wrong, but it sounded as though all the public defender did was offer her plea. When you plead guilty, there isn't a trial, and thereofre, the prosecution would have no chance to "destroy her assertion."

It was involuntary manslaughter, which basiclly means she didn't intend to take his life, but that the means with which his life was taken were ones that could have been avoided, yes? You can correct me if I misunderstand (it's not like I've spent time in a courtroom over such matters to know for certain). If that is the case, then it is apparent that the courts and this Diane Abato, as well as the defendant herself, as having plead guilty, felt there were other options she could have pursued, including the mentioned. Had the police been called, the article would have mentioned it. But there she was, scared enough to weild a firearm, and she doesn't call them?

That's questionable in and of itself. I'm not saying she isn't honest, but from a rational standpoint (and when it comes to the courts, you have to be rational at some point) why didn't she try to run out the back when he approached from the front, or call the cops after he tried to choke her the first time?

Q_C

 

[LadyJeanne]

Actually, and I maybe wrong, but it sounded as though all the public defender did was offer her plea. When you plead guilty, there isn't a trial, and thereofre, the prosecution would have no chance to "destroy her assertion."

It was involuntary manslaughter, which basiclly means she didn't intend to take his life, but that the means with which his life was taken were ones that could have been avoided, yes? You can correct me if I misunderstand (it's not like I've spent time in a courtroom over such matters to know for certain). If that is the case, then it is apparent that the courts and this Diane Abato, as well as the defendant herself, as having plead guilty, felt there were other options she could have pursued, including the mentioned. Had the police been called, the article would have mentioned it. But there she was, scared enough to weild a firearm, and she doesn't call them?

That's questionable in and of itself. I'm not saying she isn't honest, but from a rational standpoint (and when it comes to the courts, you have to be rational at some point) why didn't she try to run out the back when he approached from the front, or call the cops after he tried to choke her the first time?

Q_C

They always try to get you to plead guilty so as to avoid a trial by jury. Saves them money in court costs and time on an overbooked docket. If you don't have enough money to make bail, you sit in jail while you wait for the trial, which could take months. And, if you're not wealthy enough to hire an experienced attorney, all you get is an overworked public defender who will advise you to take the deal if the evidence is the least bit sketchy. They tell you you're better off pleading guilty and accepting a three year sentence than going before a jury where you might get more time, especially if you can't prove you're innocent. If you're not a sophisticated criminal, you believe them.

We don't know why she didn't run out the back way - maybe she didn't have a back way. My apartment doesn't, though I have a fire escape I'd have to lower first to get down. Why didn't she call the cops? It doesn't take very long to walk to a car, dump some stuff in it and walk back. Maybe she didn't believe she had time, especially if he'd already been choking her and she wasn't thinking clearly. Maybe she didn't believe they'd arrive before he choked her to death.

 

[minsue]

The simple fact is she pled to it, whatever her motivations. There's only so much a court can do in that situation.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Maybe she didn't believe they'd arrive before he choked her to death.

That's one of the things I don't understand. He was choking her to death and then decided to go out and put more boxes in the car, and then came back to choke her to death some more?

 

[Samandiriel]

That's one of the things I don't understand. He was choking her to death and then decided to go out and put more boxes in the car, and then came back to choke her to death some more?

Thank you.

 

[LadyJeanne]

That's one of the things I don't understand. He was choking her to death and then decided to go out and put more boxes in the car, and then came back to choke her to death some more?

Yeah, I'm a little unclear on the whole situation, and can't quite see it myself. But I used to live in a neighborhood where 'domestic disturbances' were common. My neighbor and her daughter's father were constantly on the brink of murdering each other, and I had to call the police on a number of occasions. Abusers always come back, and you don't know if he's going to the car to get his gun or take another drink.

 

[R. Richard]

They always try to get you to plead guilty so as to avoid a trial by jury. Saves them money in court costs and time on an overbooked docket. If you don't have enough money to make bail, you sit in jail while you wait for the trial, which could take months. And, if you're not wealthy enough to hire an experienced attorney, all you get is an overworked public defender who will advise you to take the deal if the evidence is the least bit sketchy. They tell you you're better off pleading guilty and accepting a three year sentence than going before a jury where you might get more time, especially if you can't prove you're innocent. If you're not a sophisticated criminal, you believe them.

You have a very clear view of the process! If you do not have the money for a good attorney, you do not really have a chance.

As to why she did not call the police. She has an ex-boyfirend who is probably larger and stronger than she is. He may be back at any second. Even if she calls the police, they may not respond or may take so much time that it is as if they do not respond. The police do not like domestic disturbance calls.

However, I do not endorse her use of a .22 pistol. Myself I use a .475 Wildey, a much superior self defense weapon.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

If it hapened in New York, I'd believe it no queastions asked. Since it occured south of the Mason Dixon line, I am very much curious about the circumstances. Usually, you have the right to defend yourself in your home in the states of the old Confederacy.

 

[R. Richard]

If it hapened in New York, I'd believe it no questions asked. Since it occured south of the Mason Dixon line, I am very much curious about the circumstances. Usually, you have the right to defend yourself in your home in the states of the old Confederacy.

Colly:
I have lived in both NYC and in the South. You are correct about the right to defend oneself in the South. This last is why I strongly suspect that the guy she killed was from one of the "ruling families." It would appear that the most likely situation was that the lady was poor and was railroaded into a confession when she realized that her public defender could not stand up to the aggressive prosecuter.

Many here in Literotica are not familiar with the practice of "shadow government" in the South.

JMHO.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

However, I do not endorse her use of a .22 pistol. Myself I use a .475 Wildey, a much superior self defense weapon.

OK, let's throw away any shadiness and unexplained phenomenons in the woman's version in this particular case, let's throw away any prejudice and assumptions, and let's throw away any difference of opinion on gun ownership.

Explain to me really slowly why would a gun that is considered of war-caliber in most of the world be a superior "self-defence" weapon.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

OK, let's throw away any shadiness and unexplained phenomenons in the woman's version in this particular case, let's throw away any prejudice and assumptions, and let's throw away any difference of opinion on gun ownership.

Explain to me really slowly why would a gun that is considered of war-caliber in most of the world be a superior "self-defence" weapon.

I can explain that to you Lauren. In simplest terms, a weapon with a heavier bullet weight is more likely to score a knock down and/or a telling hit. In most cases of self defense, the intruder is coming after the person holding the gun. You could, legitimatly score several hits with a .22 and not knock down a determined attacker unless you hit a major bone or organ. With a high calibre, high bullet weight shell, most any hit will score a knock down, giving you time to run, lock the door, shoot again, etc.

Some extra knockdown power can be achieved with smaller calibre bullets by using specialized ammunition. But in general, the bigger the bullet, the better the stopping power.

If you think about it dispassonately, it makes a good deal of sense. At my size, weight and physical strength, the worst thing that can happen to me is an assailant getting his hands on me, where he can use superior strength to control me. He could have been hit four or five times with a .22 and not be significantly hampered, depending on where he was hit. A single hit from my .38 and he will be impaired, if not incapacitated or dead.

Heavier bullet weight simply leads to more kenetic force at the impact sight. So in the case of home defense, or any defense of your person, a larger bore weapon is superior as it gives a better chance of keeping an assailant away from you.

 

[cloudy]

I can explain that to you Lauren. In simplest terms, a weapon with a heavier bullet weight is more likely to score a knock down and/or a telling hit. In most cases of self defense, the intruder is coming after the person holding the gun. You could, legitimatly score several hits with a .22 and not knock down a determined attacker unless you hit a major bone or organ. With a high calibre, high bullet weight shell, most any hit will score a knock down, giving you time to run, lock the door, shoot again, etc.

Some extra knockdown power can be achieved with smaller calibre bullets by using specialized ammunition. But in general, the bigger the bullet, the better the stopping power.

If you think about it dispassonately, it makes a good deal of sense. At my size, weight and physical strength, the worst thing that can happen to me is an assailant getting his hands on me, where he can use superior strength to control me. He could have been hit four or five times with a .22 and not be significantly hampered, depending on where he was hit. A single hit from my .38 and he will be impaired, if not incapacitated or dead.

Heavier bullet weight simply leads to more kenetic force at the impact sight. So in the case of home defense, or any defense of your person, a larger bore weapon is superior as it gives a better chance of keeping an assailant away from you.

Amen, Colly.

When my father bought me my gun, he showed me an article concerning a woman in Venice Beach, California. A large man had broken into her home but the woman considered herself fairly safe, apparently, since she had a .22. She hit him with it six times, emptied the gun into him, and he still killed her. That explained why my father bought a 9mm for me.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Amen, Colly.

When my father bought me my gun, he showed me an article concerning a woman in Venice Beach, California. A large man had broken into her home but the woman considered herself fairly safe, apparently, since she had a .22. She hit him with it six times, emptied the gun into him, and he still killed her. That explained why my father bought a 9mm for me.

The man who lived down the street from me when I was growing up was a vietnam vet. He talked very little about the war, but when I got my first pistol, a .22 that my father gave me to carry with me on the long drive to and from college, he came over and gave me a .45.

He said in Nam, he had emptied half a clip from a M-16 into a VC and it hadn't slowed him. Only his buddy on the .50 cal had saved him from having to go hand to hand.

I gave the .45 back to him when I got my .38, but I carried it under the seat of my car for 2 years. He was a very nice fellow, very concerned about the kids in the nieghborhood and an outspoken advocate of bullet weight. There aremen out there who can take several hits from a .22 and still be dangerous. there aren't many who can take one hit from a .45 much less several and still do you harm.

 

[R. Richard]

Explain to me really slowly why would a gun that is considered of war-caliber in most of the world be a superior "self-defence" weapon.

Slow explanation: b-u-l-l-e-t-p-r-o-o-f v-e-s-t.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I can explain that to you Lauren. In simplest terms, a weapon with a heavier bullet weight is more likely to score a knock down and/or a telling hit. In most cases of self defense, the intruder is coming after the person holding the gun. You could, legitimatly score several hits with a .22 and not knock down a determined attacker unless you hit a major bone or organ. With a high calibre, high bullet weight shell, most any hit will score a knock down, giving you time to run, lock the door, shoot again, etc.

Some extra knockdown power can be achieved with smaller calibre bullets by using specialized ammunition. But in general, the bigger the bullet, the better the stopping power.

If you think about it dispassonately, it makes a good deal of sense. At my size, weight and physical strength, the worst thing that can happen to me is an assailant getting his hands on me, where he can use superior strength to control me. He could have been hit four or five times with a .22 and not be significantly hampered, depending on where he was hit. A single hit from my .38 and he will be impaired, if not incapacitated or dead.

Heavier bullet weight simply leads to more kenetic force at the impact sight. So in the case of home defense, or any defense of your person, a larger bore weapon is superior as it gives a better chance of keeping an assailant away from you.

That makes some sense, Colly, but here is the classic counter-argument: In stressful and dangerous situations like these, when shots are fired, statistics show that only 1 in 5 shots actually hit the target. Wouldn't you say that, all things being equal, the larger the calibre of a gun, the less control the average person has over it, and the slower the re-shooting action? For the average person, what are the odds of being able to get a second shot out of a .475 before the attacker reaches him or her, compared to a .22?

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Slow explanation: b-u-l-l-e-t-p-r-o-o-f v-e-s-t.

Oh, because it's quite common for those hicks to get their combat gear on when they're about to beat their girlfriends...

 

[cloudy]

Oh, because it's quite common for those hicks to get their combat gear on when they're about to beat their girlfriends...

Good answer.

In my situation, Lauren, my 9mm is a semi-automatic. Pull the slide back once, and you're good to go until you empty the clip.....15 shots later. I should be able to hit somebody at least once, considering I've trained with it for over 20 years now.