Posted on 10/20/2009 11:48:01 PM PDT by chuck_the_tv_out
FOREST GROVE, Ore. - Police have arrested a man after a woman was sexually assaulted in her own home in Forest Grove, just west of the Portland suburb of Hillsboro.
Floyd Dale Elliott faces rape and burglary charges after being accused of entering the victim’s home in the middle of the night last month. Police said he then tried to rape her.
The woman reportedly grabbed a gun, hidden near her bed, and started firing.
No one was hurt.
The victim’s friends identified Elliott in the investigation. Elliott was arrested without incident.
UPDATE: KATU’s investigation has uncovered that Elliott is a 53-year-old transient. The woman was 23 years old, and was asleep in her home at the time.
We’re told that the woman grabbed a 22-caliber rifle, fired it in Elliott’s general direction, and he ran off. Police arrested him not long after the incident in his van on Forest Grove’s Fir Road.
Police tell KATU that Elliott did not break in, as other media has reported. Police said the house was unlocked and the suspect let himself in. A burglary charge still applies, since he was not supposed to be there. Police said this is important to note so people in Forest Grove “aren’t thinking some crazy guy is breaking into houses and trying to rape women.”
Police also told KATU that Elliot knew the victim’s friends, and had gone out with them earlier that night.
Your edit of the title added “non” victim.
What’s up with that?
“Your edit of the title added “non” victim”
Because she was NOT a victim. She had a gun, and so was NOT a victim.
Legally, she is very much a victim. The fact that she fought back doesn’t negate that.
It’s got nothing to do with legally. What words are in a headline doesn’t change her legal status.
They want to turn us all into whining little victims. But this brave girl picked up a gun and did not become a victim.
She is a victim, deal with it. And she fought back.
I think we are having a disconnect here.
The fact that she is a victim doesn’t mean that she is out there trying to claim victim-status....but whether you like it or not, she was a victim of a crime or crimes and did what she had to do to protect herself.
In other words, if you want to argue that she is not a victim, you would have to necessarily argue that the suspect(s) committed no crime.
It is called Entering Without Breaking Without Owners Permission. At least it is called that in Michigan.
prominent democrat fundraiser John Wayne Gacy had 33 victims.
victim: http://i35.tinypic.com/2u90sc8.jpg
victim means the scumbag won. don’t believe legalist hype. nothing changes the fact there was a crime, least of all a word.
I think you just went off into your own world. Have a good...night.
Someone needs to get this girl to the range with a handgun her size and give impart some shooting skills.
.22 caliber rifles are not the best self defense weapon. Besides, she missed.
The proximity of a .22 rifle and her willingness to use it means she she managed to avoid victim status. She was an intended victim.
I’m with you on this one. Her actions definitely kept her from becoming a victim of rape.
Absolutely. By being armed and using the rifle to defend herself , she saved herself from becoming a victim of rape. We know what you were saying in the title. :-)
I wonder if she would agree that she’s not a victim? I wonder if the lawyers would agree? I’d imagine she’s quite traumatized despite her ability to defend herself.
Sometimes the positions taken in these threads are idiotic.
Give it a rest.
Give what a rest? The idiotic argument that the woman was not a victim because she defended herself.
Or am I posting too much on this thread?
Actually, "chuck" is right, and you're wrong.
****Police said the house was unlocked and the suspect let himself in. A burglary charge still applies, since he was not supposed to be there. Police said this is important to note so people in Forest Grove “aren’t thinking some crazy guy is breaking into houses and trying to rape women.” ***
Does the fact that her door was unlocked and he let himself in really mean that some crazy guy isnt breaking into houses to rape women.?? Not to me it doesnt.
However she should keep her door locked. For her own safety.
and she needs some practice with whatever weapon she chooses. I would bet the sound of the rifle being fired had a traumatic effect on the rapists weaponry.
Yeah, I found that statement to be very odd.
She was the target of a rapist.
She was NOT raped.
So in that sense, no, she is not a victim, because she fought back with her GUN!
(and that is a GOOD thing!)
You are trying for the political definition of words. I prefer the traditional uses.
ON the title:
Too many times, the media will actually claim that people who use guns to defend themselves are not victims, but are the criminals. Often the headlines will be written so that the criminal who was shot by someone defending themselves sounds like the real victim.
It is in THAT context that your addition of “non” to the title made some people upset. It sounded like the arguments anti-gun people make to say that the attempted rapist was the victim since the woman shot at him.
It seems clear from your comments that your intention was different. After all, another thing the media does often is to pretend that guns don’t keep people safe. In that context, calling the woman a “rape victim” when she was able to keep from being raped looks like another case where the reporter wants us to think the gun was useless to her.
So in that context, adding “non” to the title was your way to shout out that the gun saved her from the rape.
So now we have two sides, both of whom support guns because they keep people safe from rapists who break into their houses, fighting each other over your addition of the word “non” in the title.
If I were to make a suggestion, it would have been better if you had, instead, just added “(victim prevents rape with gun)” to the end of the title. It would have made your point without risking confusing people.
No one was hurt.
Now remember: According to public health experts, this woman's gun failed to protect her in an assault since the bad guy wasn't actually shot.
Yep. She was a crime victim. This sounds like an overflow of the arguments when the media would call the burglar a shooting victim.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
