TexasCHLforum.com

Oldgringo wrote: Through this six page thread, has the possibilty been raised that the purse snatcher just might have been the woman's husband/SO/live-in, etc. and was just trying to retrieve his stuff that she had lifted? If so, my apologies for missing that post.

Thats a stretch, but I guess anything is possible.

Raider4Life wrote:In my opinion the reason why I got my CHL was to protect mine and my families life. I would never risk shooting anyone over things.

Lets put this into prospective if you were to shoot someone and the cop/DA decided to file charges just to cover themselves
Just to hire a lawyer for the preliminary hearing would be around $25000 and then if they decide to go to trial you are looking at another $75000. So unless they are stealing something I value more than $100K I would let them go. That is what LEO's and insurance is for.

Though I totally respect your decision, and am glad you have drawn your line in the sand, the discussion is not about shooting over property. It is about what you would do in the OP's situation. There are many opinions as to what we would do, but the one thing everyone seems to agree on is a snatched purse does not justify the use of you CCW.
(Although we do have one member that is willing to run him over with an automobile... ) - Which I do understand...I would rather have my automobile impounded than to have my weapon impounded....

Oldgringo wrote:

speedsix wrote:"...What would you have done if you would have been able to do something about it?..." was the original question...prudent and not is a matter of opinion...it quickly turned into several subdivisions of why would you, should you, why shouldn't you, etc...all pertinent to giving the OP our opinions and reasons for and against...and what is legal to do is a very informative part of that...our arguments are to get at what's really right to do and not...not at all out of hand, nor even off topic...

I agree with WildBill.

Where do all of these legal experts come from?
...what is legal will be determined in the proceedings in the local court house...and then reviewed in the appellate courthouse...and then sent back to the local courthouse...and then by the bankruptcy judge...and then by...

Well the "legal expert" I am speaking with came from Baylor Law School and the other sits on a Federal Bench....So...IANAL..But THEY are..

speedsix wrote:

HotLeadSolutions wrote:PC §9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force
is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes
of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by
the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose
is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly
force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

This section deals with the entire chapter (all of chapter 9)...not just a section. When it says "For purposes of this section" is is just defining what section .04 does. It establishes that the production of a weapon is force...not deadly force IF the conditions are met. Further it reads "creating an apprehension that he will use deadly
force if necessary" That, to me, reads that you are creating the apprehension that you will use deadly force if it comes down to it. That it may not be warranted now, but you see it headed that way and are announcing that you are ready if it comes right down to it.

Just one situation I see where this might be necessary is if someone is approaching you with a baseball bat or a club. They are 60 feet away and walking toward you. (with the intent of doing you harm) At 60 feet do I feel comfortable shooting him? NO. But I do feel comfortable producing a weapon to let him know I will shoot if he doesn't stop.

...BUT "this chapter" DOES NOT justify the use of force in this case...so THIS SECTION says that since the use of deadly force is NOT justified by this CHAPTER in this case...Section 9.04 does NOT provide protection for producing or threatening deadly force...9.04 doesn't apply UNLESS the crime justifies use of deadly force as authorized in the CHAPTER...

Chapter 9 does justify use of force in this situation...Just not DEADLY force. CHAPTER 9 deals with ALL force. Not just DEADLY force. According to 9.04 if you are justified in using force, you are justified in producing a weapon to create the apprehension that you will use deadly force if needed.

BUT...to restate, if you are not justified in using deadly force displaying a weapon puts you on a very slippery slope.

gigag04 wrote:First of all, the correct offense here is "theft from a person" which is a state jail felony. This is obviously assuming the victim doesn't suffer injury.

Secondly, the use of deadly force would most likely not be justified. Even somehow acquitted of criminal charges, you'd be strung up in civil court. Early I stated that I would give chase. I have the ability of identifying myself as a peace officer. I also have been in situations where I have had to chase people, so I can function in that a little more comfortably the average lay person.

Are we seriously advocating pulling the trigger here? (Gringo I'm clear on your sarcasm - I thought it was hilarious)

No, not advocating pulling the trigger at all. As clearly stated earlier, I would not draw on the guy in the original post. Just pursue and help the lady in the parking lot.

BTW...gigag04...Thank you for your service.

PC §9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force
is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes
of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by
the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose
is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly
force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

This section deals with the entire chapter (all of chapter 9)...not just a section. When it says "For purposes of this section" is is just defining what section .04 does. It establishes that the production of a weapon is force...not deadly force IF the conditions are met. Further it reads "creating an apprehension that he will use deadly
force if necessary" That, to me, reads that you are creating the apprehension that you will use deadly force if it comes down to it. That it may not be warranted now, but you see it headed that way and are announcing that you are ready if it comes right down to it.

Just one situation I see where this might be necessary is if someone is approaching you with a baseball bat or a club. They are 60 feet away and walking toward you. (with the intent of doing you harm) At 60 feet do I feel comfortable shooting him? NO. But I do feel comfortable producing a weapon to let him know I will shoot if he doesn't stop.

speedsix wrote:...so if the use of deadly force would not be justifiable (theft in daytime) then the threat of deadly force wouldn't be protected by this, the way I read it...and we're back to the listed crimes already posted...if I understand this rightly..."...for the purposes of this section..." means, to me, that deadly force must be justifiable in the situation before the following statement applies...

Not necessarily true. Chapter 9 covers force and deadly force, so you may be covered under the provision. BUT if you are not justified in using deadly force, drawing your weapon puts you on a very slippery slope.

In response to Jumping Frog, "I recall that holding someone at gunpoint is ordinary force, not deadly force." There is a difference in producing a weapon (low and ready) and holding someone at gunpoint are two different things. The penal code reads "a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon" The law considers holding someone at gun point "deadly conduct" - ie the off duty officer that was charged after pointing his weapon at the guy urinating on a building in Dallas. The charges were later dropped, but only because the victim filed an "affidavit of nonprosecution."

On a side note: I think you only have to be a lawyer if someone is paying you for legal advice, in this case...my advice is worth exactly what you paid for it.

austinrealtor wrote:Yall are focusing on details of theft vs. robbery and missing the more important point that the crime had ALREADY happened. There was no longer imminent danger to OP or the purse snatch victim and using deadly force to recover property on behalf of third person in this case is a very slippery slope.

Think of the situation like this: would you intervene if you were NOT carrying? Because unless the criminal commits additional crimes (I.e. you block the purse thief's exit and he escalates, pulling a knife on you) then you're most likely not justified to draw your weapon on him in this case.

Like AR said, you are focusing on the wrong issue. I did not say I would immediately draw down on the guy. I said I would pursue and try to help. As far as having the "Right to Pursue" you do not have to be a LEO to pursue and help, the law says:


Texas Code of Criminal Procedure
Art. 14.01. [212] [259] [247] OFFENSE WITHIN VIEW.
(a) A peace officer or any other person, may, without a warrant,
arrest an offender when the offense is committed in his presence
or within his view, if the offense is one classed as a felony or as an offense against the public peace.

That law seems pretty broad. I would say that purse snatching would fall under that category (offense against the public peace) or even a felony if the purse was one of the $600.00 to $1000.00 varieties. Not real sure I would even want to make a citizens arrest, I would be happy to just beat the snot out of the guy, roll the dice and see what happens legally. What is he going to say? "Hi, 911?? I stole a ladies purse, and this guy chased me down...beat my butt and now I need the police..." I don't see that call going well.

We all have to make our own decisions. I am aware of the consequences I may face. Today he is snatching purses, tomorrow he will be holding up people at gun point in some parking lot somewhere. I would rather stop it now before the next victim is my wife. I just can't sit by and watch things like that happen. It is not in my wiring. The only thing that has to happen for evil to prosper, is for good people to do nothing.

gigag04 wrote:Eh depending on my attire and equipment I'd try to hawk him down.

Im tired of seeing young punks profit from the hard work of others.

-----------------> (Quoted from a previous post)Some points to consider.

1. Being sued for medical expenses should you use force to stop the dude. Really? Do you think that would happen? In TX we are insulated from civil liability for justified use of force.
2. Having criminal charges filed against you for excessive use of force. Again...Really? Justified use of force is spelled out pretty clearly in TX
3. Having to defend yourself in court for needing to use deadly force in a situation you voluntarily entered, and arguably escalated, despite having no legal duty or necessity to do so. Some people might not feel it necessary, some might. But when I give pursuit I am not escalating anything...When I encounter this fine young man, if he decides to produce a weapon, he has decided what his life is worth. (btw...The SCOTUS has decided that LEO's have no duty to protect citizens either....)