Hey, I'm not a lawyer, and don't know Minnesota law on this issue anyways, but it seems to me that much would have to do with how fast on the draw the woman was. An attacker grabs a woman, and the woman draws and kills the attacker within a couple feet. If the woman maintains that the attacker had stopped the bike, and had begun to dismount, there may be a reluctance to indict, particularly if the attacker had a previous record of sexual assault.

I may be completely wrong, but it doesn't seem as clear cut to me, Mitch.

True, phones aren't as reliable as we'd like them to be.
But at least phones don't kill people in the heat of the moment.
For that reason (and more) Lorika wouldn't actually get a gun.
She'll probably get mace - or something similar - instead.
(Stun guns? I don't know what else is out there...)

And I think you're right Will. I think a judge or jury would be sympathetic to responding to an attacker with force, within some short timeframe.

As has been said before about mace or pepper spray, "If somebody starts shooting a gun at me, don't expect me to defend myself with a condiment." Or to trot out another one, guns don't kill people in the heat of the moment. If guns cause violence, all of mine are defective.

On a more practical note, getting mad is about the best thing she could have done once she'd been grabbed. If the attacker had come back for another pass the anger has her body pumped full of adrenaline, which makes for better chances of surviving an attack. That's one of the things good training teaches you.

I would recommend, rather than buying something like mace, pepper spray, or a gun, taking a self-defence class. She had the awareness to realize the guy was skeevy, but didn't step out of reach. A good self-defence class will teach you to avoid the problem in the first place, and defend yourself only when there's no other choice.

Will,

Dicey at best. County attorneys in the Twin Cities will dig and dig and dig for excuses to put a self-defense shooter away . There are four legal preconditions for using lethal force in self-defense in Minnesota (let's see if I can remember them all from Joel Rosenberg's book): You can't be a willing participant in the altercation, there has to be a reasonable threat (reasonable *to a jury*) that you were in mortal danger, you have to make every reasonable attempt to NOT go lethal, and the force you use has to be reasonable. Put yourself in the place of a jury, and go over the story and ask yourself if the writer would have flunked ANY of those four tests. If so, bad news.

Chuck: Phones DO kill people in the heat of the moment; people who rely on them to bring help when they're in a jam. Yeah, I know - you're talking about the victim - but statistically the number of *legal* permit-holding carriers who shoot people "in the heat of the moment" is vanishingly small . As to your second graf - see above.

Dave: Good advice.

Mitch, I agree that it would be dicey, but I think for the jury a lot would have to do with the attacker's history. Getting unanimity that an attacker with a prior history of sexual assault didn't need to be shot might not be easy, even in Minnesota. The woman would have to be fast on the draw, however. An attacker shot in the back at 25 feet might be tough to explain away.

Will,

Juries are indeed flaky. But jury instructions can be very, very clear; all four of the criteria need to be met, or the shooter is guilty. And I'm not sure if history would be allowed into evidence; the shooter would not reasonably know that before shooting someone (lawyers?).

Women DO have an advantage in these cases, though.

Just brandishing can sometimes solve the problem. If you end up getting overpowered and killed with your own gun, then you were right to be afraid I guess. If you're completely wrong, then you're just embarrassed. You just have to remember that brandishing is a definite escalation. It's only fatal if you pull the trigger though.

"Just brandishing can sometimes solve the problem."

Yes, but...

"If you end up getting overpowered and killed with your own gun, then you were right to be afraid I guess."

(True, but exceedingly rare)

"If you're completely wrong, then you're just embarrassed."

Not entirely true. If the perp races to the courthouse and reports you, it could cause a problem for you; there will be an investigation, and possible charges.

I only mention it because it does happen.

Mitch makes a good point about brandishing. I think the important point is that what constitutes a 'reasonable' situation for brandishing is a much lower standard than firing. If you were justifiably frightened (and women generally have 'disparity of force' in their favor when accosted by men) then I bet you could line police officers up around the block that will say: 'I would have drawn in that situation, myself.' Drawing and holding a firearm at your side is also different than drawing and holding down on someone. I don't recall if Minnesota makes a legal distinction between the two but I'm willing to bet that a grand jury would.

Regarding brandishing, as Mitch says, it can get you in trouble.

Again, there's rules that cover this. Implicit in Jeff Cooper's second rule of gun safety ("Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.") is the idea that you don't point a gun unless you're willing to have whatever you're pointing at get very seriously messed up.

If you haven't decided that you're willing to kill someone to defend yourself, a gun isn't the right answer. Get yourself some running shoes and a nice squirt-bottle of condiment.