Housewife brews up plan to escape from robber: tea and conversation

Wednesday 09th July, 07:03 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 56 Total Comments Show All

SuperLib at 03:28 AM JST - 10th July

There's no way a person can possibly give one answer to cover all situations where someone has a knife. A 20-year old doped up guy with a wild look in his eye and a knife in his hand would be different from a 60-year old depressed looking older man with the same knife. Maybe one guy's knife has blood on it, the other guy's doesn't. You can't tell me that all people with knives are the same threat in all situations so there's one perfect answer to handle it all the time.

If she got away, then good for her. She made the right choice. But there's a difference between policy and hindsight. Maybe the exact same choice with a man who is in a different mindset at the time leads to her and her child being killed. If that were the case we'd all probably be sitting here saying how stupid she was to let someone into her house. Why not just yell FIRE! instead? Etc...

And if someone pulls a knife on you I think you have every right to use lethal force since he has a lethal weapon in his hand. But again it has to do with the specific situation. If someone pulls a knife and demands your wallet you should give it to him. If someone pulls a knife and leads to you believe he's going to cut you or kill you then obviously you should respond with force. And if someone puts you in a position where they are attacking with lethal force, I'm not sure how the weapon you choose to counter with your own lethal force matters. Shoot him if you have a gun, stab him if you have a knife, etc. Once it's a fight for your life there's no way you could have your wits about you enough to choose to use more of less force.
Smythe at 06:50 AM JST - 10th July

True the one error upon the woman was allowing the man into her suite. Still the amazing thing is though she lost some money she save the life of her child & herself, by slipping away. That is the outstanding bit in my mind.
mikihouse at 07:44 AM JST - 10th July

smythe, she did not let him in. The doors which are automated will be kept open for a certain time frame once you enter the code or swipe your card on the security slot. The old man took that chance to enter the building and so the story goes. Some people will act like they live in the building, make a phone call (fake one) and wait for some people to enter the door and take that chance to slip inside. Quite easy.
Zen_Builder at 08:00 AM JST - 10th July

I agree you can only judge the situation when you are in it and give an appropriate response.

What I was talking about is what you can do legally. Do many people think I get attacked and I can go medieval on their asses, etc and I am justified in doing so. Also remember dead people can't give statements pro or con.

In reality it don't work that way. That's why 97% of the so-called self-defense claims are thrown out in court upon closer examination of the facts. And many "Victims" are charged with assault, etc to their surprise.

This, is what the MAJORITY of Self Defense classes DON'T cover, oh they will hype you up and teach you ILLEGAL responses, etc. Never mind sell you a bunch of useless goods like "force-enhancers", etc.

That was my point.

Like I said she judged the situation and the persons intend and acted correctly.

Also agree with Mikihouse, too many people bask in the "security" of their homes and assume that anyone in the building must be entitled to be there and thus safe.

You would be surprised on how easy it is for someone to find out if the apartment is occupied, it can be done from the outside entrance door without knocking, touching it, etc.
JeromeInJapan at 11:24 AM JST - 10th July

When I read the title I was expecting that she gave him some steaming ocha the eyes.

Haha brave / smart lady. We need people like this is the Whitehouse
dany505 at 12:13 PM JST - 10th July

this is the reason why private citizens should be allowed to own firearms in this country to defend themselves, their loved ones, and their home over people that would hurt them for a mere Y10,000. I know that this is the typicall american shoot-em up way of looking at things, but oh well.
Zen_Builder at 12:22 PM JST - 10th July

dany505.

What can a gun do that a tazer can't?

And, yes, I am aware of the international rule about owning a tazer. If you want one you need to get tazered first yourself.

Been there, done it and it was NOT fun. Heck we needed paramedics to remove the hooks on some guys.

Yet, a tazer will only work if both probes/needles hit.
Triumvere at 04:07 PM JST - 10th July

I'm not saying you have to come out guns blazing...

Here's a realistic situation:

1)A man approached with a knife, demands money. 2)I draw my gun, and tell the guy to stay back. 3) The guy runs away, OR the guy advances on me and I shoot him.

Do you find this senario unreasonable?

Zen Builder, "going medieval" on someone is a fairly ill-defined term, however, as every situation is different the amount of force "necessary" has to be detemined by the defender's perception of the threat, held to a "resonable person's" standard. Quite subjective, I know, but in such cases I think a lot of leeway must be given to the defender. In otherwords, if you decde to become the agressor in an assault situation, then the law should be biased against you, in order to protect the victim.

I realize this standard is not the accepted standard in countries such as the UK, but I think it should be. I find recent EU assertions that "self-defence" is not a "human right" to be downright frightening and have been horrified by many recent cases in England.

PS. I do not own, not have ever fired a firearm.
Nessie at 02:41 PM JST - 11th July

I'm with SuperLib and Triumvere. Lethal force of knife versus lethal force of gun is morally justified and legal in many circumstances. Ovbiously, shooting a knife wielder in the back will usually get you convicted.
Blue_Tiger at 07:56 PM JST - 11th July

Amazing what calm nerves, and a peaceful response can do in a situation such as this. The Bible, in Proverbs, even speaks of this. This woman wasn't stupid nor lucky, but very brave, and intelligent to boot.
kjunluc2 at 04:11 AM JST - 12th July

Tea and Sympathy! She's fortunate that it didn't get past that.
helloklitty at 04:14 PM JST - 15th July

... at least no one was hurt.

Not physically at least.

shooting a knife wielder in the back will usually get you convicted.

What if the knife wielder is still in your house looking for you? Do you have to wait until he faces you before you shoot? I'd prefer to shoot asap.
Zen_Builder at 04:19 PM JST - 15th July

There is difference between shoot to kill and shoot to stop an attacker. NO?
Triumvere at 01:21 AM JST - 16th July

"There is difference between shoot to kill and shoot to stop an attacker. NO?"

Perhaps. I haven't fired a gun, so I can't tell you how easy it is. My guess would be that a professional would be able to do so, but not in every circumstance. (take "disabling" someone with a shotgun, for instance)

As for your average citizen, (even one with a lot of range time) I don't know. Under pressure, your first goal is to hit the guy. Where you hit is a secondary concern.

I don't think there is any need to try to kill the attacker, but then I don't know that people are trying to kill (as opposed to stop) in the average defense situation. Selectively disabling someone is probably more difficult than it sounds.
Zen_Builder at 05:05 AM JST - 16th July

I agree you will need training.

Same way that you will need training to properly asses the situation and react correctly when the adrenalin/shock sets in. Once you panic your reactions and judgement has become impaired already.

With a shotgun you can load non-lethal rounds.

I have done quiet a bit of research into that and wouldn't trust your average guy to act correctly. Yes, they will all claim "Better to be judged by 12 than be carried by 6" yet don't know what that statement actually refers too.