# Six times self-defense?



## wainscottbl (Oct 31, 2015)

So this novel is: 

A woman is accused of murdering her husband in cold blood, but she says it was self-defense. He was coming at her with a knife. At first, because it is set in Wyoming, I said she shot him with the family heirloom revolver six times. But that might be plausible in a woman defending herself who does not know guns. She shoots the gun until it is empty. It is only six bullets, and she is in fear. Say she's never shot a gun before. 

1. How likely do you think it would be for a woman who is being attacked by her husband with a knife (he is across the room) to pop six into him in defense? Would she likely stop around three shots? Assume she has never shot a gun. 
2. Do you think a semi-auto, like a Glock, would be better or worse for this? She can shoot more than six, like she is in a trance. Since the trigger is lighter it can help her defense, but it may hurt it on a whole since she shoots so many times. 

I know there are cases like this where a defendant is accused of shooting in cold blood because they shot so many times in fear Nevertheless, what might work better to make her look like the woman who killed her husband with premeditation and deliberation? She kept going. That's one of the main things the cops are grilling her about.


----------



## TJ1985 (Oct 31, 2015)

http://www.12newsnow.com/story/20933948/investigators-seek-answers-in-hardin-county-shooting-death 
Another take on it is this: http://www.kfdm.com/shared/news/top-stories/stories/kfdm_vid_3538.shtml Locals have always felt the boyfriend angle didn't hold water but that's the media for you. 

This happened the county east of me, and it was considered self-defense by the general public. Why? Because he was a local "tough guy". I never heard how it all ended in the courts, but most of the locals felt he "had it coming" because he was known to be a mean drunk. I figured I'd have heard if she or her boytoy were sent off, so it's plausible that the self-defense defense could hold up even if there were several rounds fired. 

Generally speaking, having talked with someone who encountered a grizzly bear up close, when it's your life on the line most folks don't really notice how many times they fire. They just keep squeezing until the threat stops even if they're dropping the hammer on spent chambers.


----------



## ismith (Oct 31, 2015)

I have a hard time believing there are many women in Wyoming that haven't shot a gun.


----------



## PhunkyMunky (Oct 31, 2015)

Well, when I was getting certified for Armed Security for Federal Contracts, I was taught to shoot until the threat is eliminated. It could take one bullet or ten, but shoot until the threat is eliminated. And how many of those rounds hit the guy? All six? And she doesn't know how to shoot? How far away was she? It's easy if it's point blank but it takes some marksmanship the further away from the target you are. Plus adrenaline and other factors. 

So in court, it's entirely plausible that Self Defense could have taken six bullets. The only factor is whether there is proof that he was a threat, and whether she genuinely felt in fear of her life and they have to be happening simultaneously. She can't shoot the guy after the fact and call it self defense. So the scenario is entirely possible.


----------



## popsprocket (Oct 31, 2015)

The self-defense argument relies on the use of appropriate force. The husband had a knife and wanted to kill her, but she shot him dead first. The number of bullets doesn't particularly matter because the response was equal to the threat. I wouldn't find it hard to believe that a court found her innocent of murder no matter how many shots were fired, assuming the husband _really was_​ trying to kill her,


----------



## alanmt (Oct 31, 2015)

ismith said:


> I have a hard time believing there are many women in Wyoming that haven't shot a gun.



My first thought was - "it's Wyoming, she should know how to shoot a gun."

I think there is another important factor you left out: where is he hit and what happens to him after each shot. Also, what is the caliber of the revolver. If she blows his face apart or  a big chunk of it out, she probably won't keep shooting. If he drops, she may stop shooting. If she's battered or enraged, she's more likely to keep going, I think.


----------



## PhunkyMunky (Nov 1, 2015)

alanmt said:


> My first thought was - "it's Wyoming, she should know how to shoot a gun."
> 
> I think there is another important factor you left out: where is he hit and what happens to him after each shot. Also, what is the caliber of the revolver. If she blows his face apart or  a big chunk of it out, she probably won't keep shooting. If he drops, she may stop shooting. *If she's battered or enraged, she's more likely to keep going, I think.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> Important factor as well. I think after a certain point it will be murder rather than defense.


----------



## wainscottbl (Nov 1, 2015)

PhunkyMunky said:


> Well, when I was getting certified for Armed Security for Federal Contracts, I was taught to shoot until the threat is eliminated. It could take one bullet or ten, but shoot until the threat is eliminated. And how many of those rounds hit the guy? All six? And she doesn't know how to shoot? How far away was she? It's easy if it's point blank but it takes some marksmanship the further away from the target you are. Plus adrenaline and other factors.
> 
> So in court, it's entirely plausible that Self Defense could have taken six bullets. The only factor is whether there is proof that he was a threat, and whether she genuinely felt in fear of her life and they have to be happening simultaneously. She can't shoot the guy after the fact and call it self defense. So the scenario is entirely possible.



I am running into a wall. I was trying to present this as a sort of woman against great prejudice story. The problems.

1. Wyoming is a stand your ground state. It is a red state. I knew both. What I wanted to do was use this as her defense. That is why I picked Wyoming. I decided I wanted a Western state after deciding I did not want my first choice of a Southern one. But I knew I wanted stand your ground. Stand your ground only requires feeling of imminent, severe bodily threat. The woman is, from the standpoint of proving the case, on the side of innocence or justification.  

2. I was also going to have some of the prejudiced acquaintances of the victim on the jury, but realized that is certainly not allowed. I knew better, but my zeal made me forget. I also wanted to use the conservative man's Biblical authority over the wife as a prejudice of the jury. I am not sure it would be. Most conservatives and Christians who believe in the authority of the husband do not believe it is absolute or some sort of lordship. That's a petty straw man. I knew that, and I was not going to make this factor black and white by any means. My intention was to place this prejudice in the jury, but it cannot be exaggerated. I can't think of many conservatives, including myself, who think a man can tell a woman to "cook his dinner right now" .  


3. It seems hard to prove first degree murder, especially in a conservative, stand your ground state. Second degree would be the more likely approach but the accusation is she murdered him because he found out about her affair. That it was staged even. If you watch true crime, that sort of stuff does happen. There is one case where a guy shot himself like four times in not vital areas after he shot his wife dead so he could "get away" with it. He did not because the police put it together. So a staged self-defense shooting could be put together by police. If a guy can shoot himself and the police can figure out that, then they can "figure out" (read get it wrong) that she shot him claiming self-defense by staging it. The matter at hand is that then I suppose, not the gun or shots.  


In any case, I am doing flashbacks of the investigation though. Also I am going to stage the crime and everything. I am going to try and find the BB pistol and do it. Can't be using a real one! Might shoot my eye out! And it will be a realistic interrogation. Like the ones you see in true crime. Not too much dramatic flair. The trial will have to balance between reality and drama, but I think the police investigation can be pulled off without looking like Law and Order. I love shows like The First 48 and Forensic Files. It's much less dramatic there because in real life you can't smack witnesses on the head, threaten them, go in without probable cause every day. I mean cops do it, but on Law and Order they do it all the time. Intimidation happens, but I don't want it in my novel. I have an eccentric detective in my other one. I want this to have a calmer approach. But doing the investigation will help. 

Oh, and the prosecution is going to offer a second option of second degree murder in the trial.


----------



## popsprocket (Nov 1, 2015)

> I was also going to have some of the prejudiced acquaintances of the victim on the jury



They can still certainly be brought up as witnesses by the prosecution and testify against the woman.


----------



## wainscottbl (Nov 1, 2015)

popsprocket said:


> They can still certainly be brought up as witnesses by the prosecution and testify against the woman.



Yes. They cannot defame her character though. That's inflammatory, though the affair is fair game so far as it says within the proper bounds. The affair is the alleged motive after all. But I would say the only thinga allowed are objective, factual questions to the affair, not to her character. The jury can infer there. They can say she did this and that, but not she is this, Even calling her adulterer would be inflammatory. Though maybe basic questions of 

Q. Have you ever known her to be dishonest? 
A. Yes. 
Q. How?
A. She stole such and such once from me. 
Q. So she is a thief? 
A. Objection. Inflammatory. [she steals once. Calling her a thief would imply she does it all the time.]
Q. Did you see the defendant with John Doe [the man she had the affair with]
A. Yes. 
Q. Did they look intimate? 
A. Yes. Very. 
Q. Did you know the defendant in high school? 
A. Yes. 
Q. Was she known as a loose girl? I mean, was she known to have sex with a lot of men? 
A. Objection. [this might be on one or more grounds. Then it would be up to the judge to decide. If the matter of this was public fact, it might be allowed. It may well not. Her character in high school says nothing of her twenty years later. I am not sure if this would even be asked. A little drama is needed. But just saying that route can only go so far before being unlawful] 

In other words it's a good route, but only to a point!


----------



## Sam (Nov 1, 2015)

There are a couple of flaws with this particular story arc. 

One, a revolver is not a good choice weapon for someone who has never fired a gun in their life. A .357 magnum weighs about 1.5 pounds and has a 4- to 5-pound trigger break (that's the amount of force required to pull the trigger). A .44 magnum weighs about 2.5 pounds and has roughly the same trigger break (in fact, most single-action revolvers take around 4 to 5 pounds of pressure to pull the trigger). That doesn't seem like much, but in a life or death situation, that's an extra half-second to second of squeezing to loose off a round. In life or death, a second is the difference between surviving or dying. 

Two, a revolver kicks like a mule. Take a look at this video of a woman firing a .357 magnum (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuuuIa63524). Presumably, she's been learning to shoot for a couple of weeks, or maybe a month, because her stance (while still in need of much work) is not as raw as that of a complete tyro. Look at how hard she's squeezing the trigger. Look at her face. She's cringing in anticipation of the recoil and the shot itself. Now consider a complete novice, who has never fired a gun in their life, standing in that same position and staring into the face of a knife-wielding lunatic charging at them. Her stance will not be optimum to deal with the recoil, and the harder she has to squeeze the trigger, the more anxious she'll become. When the first shot is fired, the recoil will almost certainly take her by surprise. It may even knock her off balance and send her to the floor. 

For that reason, there is no chance that any person who has never fired a gun, who has never learned proper stance and feet positioning, who has never felt the recoil of a revolver, who has never squeezed a trigger, will be able to, in a moment of sheer terror, fire off six shots from a revolver and hit the target six times. 

No chance.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Nov 1, 2015)

I don't know how it is in Wyoming, but guns are fairly unavailable here, most women killed by men are strangled, most men killed by women stabbed. Think about it, the man wants her to shut up, the woman feels physically inferior and arms herself. With his hands around her throat she is point blank for a gun, up close for a knife; and if you want evidence of self defence he is quite likely to mark her throat.


----------



## J Anfinson (Nov 1, 2015)

Sam is right for the most part about trigger pull, however caliber and whether the gun has been modified can change things. I had a Ruger Super Blackhawk single action in .44 Magnum a few years ago that I'm sure someone had a gunsmith lighten the trigger pull on. It was probably less than a two pound pull. Depending on ammo it kicked like a mule or wasn't so bad. But I've grown up around guns, served in the army, and still shoot a little now so I know how to handle just about anything. For someone who hasn't fired a large revolver, it might be better for them to get experience with something either extremely light recoil (like a .22 Long) or marginal (like a .32 or .38 )

All that said, a single action also requires you to cock the hammer for every shot, so if you need them to fire faster then double action would be better, though trigger pull will increase. Either that or make the gun a semi-auto and change the caliber to something fitting (9mm, .357 Sig, .40, .41 mag, .45...)

So

1. Unlikely with a revolver. One or two shots would be more believable, assuming he's hit.

2. Semi-auto is far more believable since it's easier to fire quickly.


----------



## PhunkyMunky (Nov 1, 2015)

> There is one case where a guy shot himself like four times in not vital areas after he shot his wife dead so he could "get away" with it. He did not because the police put it together.



Self inflicted gunshot wounds surely would have powder burns with it. Plus there is the angle of the shot. It would be pretty quickly found to be self inflicted and if the guy murdered his wife then shot himself to make it appear self defense... I can't see how he'd get away with it unless the LAPD Officers that worked on OJ Simpson's case did the investigation and he paid for OJ Simpson's lawyer. 

I don't have a lot of experience with revolvers myself. I've shot them on occasion but not enough to get to know them like I know my Glock. I'd defer to J Anfinson on this matter. 

I likewise agree, if he's close enough to put hands on her, then he's likely left marks. Her wrists, arms, throat, anywhere his hands grabbed her or struck her would leave a mark. 

We had a 20 year old woman recently who slugged my 12 year old daughter and had a kung fu grip on her arm when she did it. The bruise was slight, but it was there. That woman now sits in jail, although I'd have loved to hold her down while my wife left a few bruises of her own... But you know. Legalities and police, it's much easier to simply have her arrested. Besides, once I calmed down my views changed. Either way, all it took was my cell phone pic of the bruise and a few witnesses.


----------



## wainscottbl (Nov 1, 2015)

Sam said:


> There are a couple of flaws with this particular story arc.
> 
> One, a revolver is not a good choice weapon for someone who has never fired a gun in their life. A .357 magnum weighs about 1.5 pounds and has a 4- to 5-pound trigger break (that's the amount of force required to pull the trigger). A .44 magnum weighs about 2.5 pounds and has roughly the same trigger break (in fact, most single-action revolvers take around 4 to 5 pounds of pressure to pull the trigger). That doesn't seem like much, but in a life or death situation, that's an extra half-second to second of squeezing to loose off a round. In life or death, a second is the difference between surviving or dying.
> 
> ...




Thanks! I'll fix that. She has fired a gun then! I never said she didn't yet. So I'll make that part of it. And it will be a regular handgun I think.


----------



## wainscottbl (Nov 1, 2015)

PhunkyMunky said:


> Self inflicted gunshot wounds surely would have powder burns with it. Plus there is the angle of the shot. It would be pretty quickly found to be self inflicted and if the guy murdered his wife then shot himself to make it appear self defense... I can't see how he'd get away with it unless the LAPD Officers that worked on OJ Simpson's case did the investigation and he paid for OJ Simpson's lawyer.
> 
> I don't have a lot of experience with revolvers myself. I've shot them on occasion but not enough to get to know them like I know my Glock. I'd defer to J Anfinson on this matter.
> 
> ...




Oh no. The self-infliction case is a real case I cited, not this one! It was on Forensic Files. The police figured that out, yes. 


Here is the situation 

1. Drunk husband gets up and gets very angry. He's been thinking of suicide all day, so the gun it out and loaded. He comes at her with a knife from the other side of the kitchen. 
2. He throws the knife aside. It chances to land on the counter. He tells her he will simply strangle her. 
3. She shoots him, knife free, half-way across the room. So he is not near the counter. And that it just happened to land on the counter? Yeah right, the police say. 

Oh, and there will be a diary entry or two that makes her look guilty. "Things would be better if my husband were dead, etc. I love [my adulterous partner]. I would run off with him if I could." The writings of a suffering woman. No, "I will kill him." But it makes for good circumstantial evidence.


----------



## ismith (Nov 1, 2015)

My wife attended a concealed carry course taught by a retired Highway Patrolman a few years ago. Before the course she had fired a rifle a moderate amount and a handgun very little.  She found a Smith and Wesson Chief Special, which is a 5 shot 38 special snub nose double action, at a gun show and fell in love with it.  We bought a speed loader for it and 250 rounds of ammo for it.  She took it and a Beretta M92 9mm to her shooting course and did very well with both.  The interesting thing is that she preferred and shot better with the little .38 Special.  The instructor had never seen someone pick up the use of the speed loader as fast as she did. My point, besides bragging on my wife, is that some people can pick up a firearm and once they are comfortable with it they can be shooting like they have done it every weekend for 20 years.


----------



## wainscottbl (Nov 2, 2015)

I am trying to work all this out. I've got a map of the kitchen and how the shots worked. A guy gets shot, he falls. But with adrenaline is may be a bit slower. A guy might get two, even three shots before he falls, I'd say. In this case he stumbles back. She shoots him in the back two times. Also she knows guns very well. So the argument for the prosecution is:  

"You know guns well. Now, maybe if you were ignorant of them, you might keep firing, but this was a revolver for one, not a Glock, and that requires you to deliberately pull the trigger. And your aim was pretty good from so far. And you kept shooting even when he had turned around and was clearly down, struggling. No, you staged this." 

I acted it out. I still have a lot to work out. This is a back burner work. I just finished my medical examination. Time for the autopsy now. It did help me, crazy as it sounds. I posted about this on this section. Anyway, it allowed me to determine where the fatal wound was, or likely was. There was a shot wound to the jugular, but after a stabbing. The knife pierced and organ, maybe too, but not the heart or lungs, so....

Anyway, staging can help. Easier to stab than shoot though. I had to just point the gun. And draw up the scene.


----------



## Sonata (Nov 2, 2015)

Apologies but I have keyboard problems and to be honest I did not mean Thanks for the post.

You asked the question in  your thread which I did my best to answer.

http://www.writingforums.com/threads/161330-Cause-of-death-%28liver-or-artery-%2

I know nothing about guns but may I suggest that you look into what would kill first?


----------



## Minu (Nov 8, 2015)

Sam said:


> One, a revolver is not a good choice weapon for someone who has never fired a gun in their life. A .357 magnum weighs about 1.5 pounds and has a 4- to 5-pound trigger break (that's the amount of force required to pull the trigger). A .44 magnum weighs about 2.5 pounds and has roughly the same trigger break (in fact, most single-action revolvers take around 4 to 5 pounds of pressure to pull the trigger). That doesn't seem like much, but in a life or death situation, that's an extra half-second to second of squeezing to loose off a round. In life or death, a second is the difference between surviving or dying.
> 
> Two, a revolver kicks like a mule. Take a look at this video of a woman firing a .357 magnum (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuuuIa63524). Presumably, she's been learning to shoot for a couple of weeks, or maybe a month, because her stance (while still in need of much work) is not as raw as that of a complete tyro. Look at how hard she's squeezing the trigger. Look at her face. She's cringing in anticipation of the recoil and the shot itself. Now consider a complete novice, who has never fired a gun in their life, standing in that same position and staring into the face of a knife-wielding lunatic charging at them. Her stance will not be optimum to deal with the recoil, and the harder she has to squeeze the trigger, the more anxious she'll become. When the first shot is fired, the recoil will almost certainly take her by surprise. It may even knock her off balance and send her to the floor.
> 
> ...



Why is she using a .357? Or a .44? Big guns. Most novice females, even men, are going to hesitate in picking up a gun like that, they can be intimidating. An experienced female shooter would hesitate due to the reasons you stated [what is she supposed to do, run around the kitchen table screaming and waving the gun until she can get into stance?] 

It's mentioned and I agree why not a .38 special? Snub-nosed or regular. The recoil is no where near as extreme but it is an effective gun - police did use the rather versatile .38 special for a reason. Because unlike the .357 you don't need to be full on stance to use a .38 special, those seconds to arrange yourself are indeed killers. I have used both weapons and worked a part of my career with a .38 special. Of the two, a .38 special would be a far better choice of weapon for the situation.



As for how many times he is shot. Depends on the situation. In one of our simulations for my career we work in a training center that is supposed to echo a variety of situations in real life, with dummies that sort of "pop up". One of those dummies took me by surprise. I didn't even think, I just reacted. Within seconds of seeing this dummy I had shot it between the eyes - because despite how we were trained to hit center of mass the dummy was close enough (less than a dozen feet, which is inside the typical "danger zone" of someone with a knife) that with my experience with guns I knew there was a 97% chance I was getting a bulls' eyes. If that was a real life situation the guy with the knife would be dead long before even getting close enough to nick me. 

If your female victim is experienced in using weapons she's going to be aiming one of two places - center of mass or if close enough and she's confident enough the head. And that's going to work against her in the courts. Say she's a female with two tours of duty [military] and her husband is just a drunkard. The prosecution is going to have a field day... particularly when people with live gun experience [military, police, etc.] react differently than the general public in such situations. Even the most experienced member of a shooting team can freeze when face to face with someone that is wanting to kill them and likewise a public in a violent situation will be different... so yeah she could lock down and keep firing a revolver even if it's empty. I've _*seen *_that happen. 

I'd like to know a bit more on the history & the end result. Is the husband an abuser? Does he keep his feet for a bit or drop like a sack of potatoes? How big is he in comparison to the wife? How close is he? Etc. 


Someone mentioned that the woman should have signs of an attack on her - bruising, etc. - not necessarily. There was a case a while back, I'll see if I can find it, where the woman was married to a chronic abuser. She bought the gun to defend herself ... when he came at her for that final time she "struck first". Due to the history it was considered self defense. He said he was going to kill her this time and she thought him serious.


----------

