Purse snatch at Wal-Mart. What would you have done?

[speedsix]

...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...

[HotLeadSolutions]

...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.

[speedsix]

...Sec. 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.

...but it says "Sec 9.04" and says "For the purposes of this section..." ....so the rest of the sentence applies to the section before, which is 9.04 only.....if deadly force is not justified...neither is threat of deadly force....if a daytime theft does not justify use of deadly force...don't pull your weapon... if the thief, on the other hand, picks up a 2x4 and attacks you...you then deal with a different situation...but not for a simple daytime theft...

[gigag04]

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)

[HotLeadSolutions]

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.

[KD5NRH]

She learned a hard lesson. Guys don't take their wallets out and put them in shopping carts, then turn their backs on them.

No, around here they leave them laying on the dashboard with the windows down. One of the major factors in BMV for the area.

[HotLeadSolutions]

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.

[Purplehood]

You would NOT have the legal right to pursue and use deadly force once the threat to the woman was gone. It would become a gray area REAL quick for you and the lines of justified pulling your gun would be fuzzy. So, you could end up having to defend yourself against an unjustified use of the gun and trying to scramble to prove what you did was legal.

I forget the various conditions spelled out in the CHL course regarding the use of ordinary force (i.e., not deadly force). I recall that holding someone at gunpoint is ordinary force, not deadly force.
However, if that lady had $20 in her purse, I don't think ordinary civilians have the right to use force to detain someone for a misdemeanor. Can anyone chime in with what the law says about conditions for use of force?

I don't recall ever hearing anything about holding someone at gunpoint being defined as "ordinary" force.

Here:

Sec. 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.

Sorry, let me clarify. I don't consider levelling a weapon at anyone the use of "ordinary force". I consider it deadly. That is why I refrain from it whenever possible.

I wasn't making the remark in a legal context.

[speedsix]

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...

[Keith B]

The threat of deadly force can be deemed the same as use. And, while you may get by with it, I think it could cause you issues if you get an overzealous prosecutor that decides to make an example of you and charges you with Aggravated Assault.

[HotLeadSolutions]

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.

[gemini]

...once again, we have a serious discussion about a serious topic, and someone stoops to belittle and ridicule instead of giving his answer or simply moving on...just because one person's choice is to do nothing, it doesn't make those who feel that they must do something either wrong or stupid...a cheap put-down is just that...and benefits noone...I'm glad to know that there are those who will respond to a call for help...and I respect the opinion of those who feel they shouldn't...their reasons are their own...

I didn't stop to belittle or ridicule anyone. And, just because one person's choice is to do nothing, doesn't make it the right choice for me. In two separate
sentences I was very clear in stating "....was able...". Sorry if your feelings were hurt. That was not my intention as my comments were directed at no one in particular.

[Keith B]

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

That is the $64 question and the big 'Gotcha' on whether to draw your weapon or not.

[Ameer]

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.

If you're bleeding to death on the ground while he escapes, he doesn't have to say anything.

[speedsix]

...once again, we have a serious discussion about a serious topic, and someone stoops to belittle and ridicule instead of giving his answer or simply moving on...just because one person's choice is to do nothing, it doesn't make those who feel that they must do something either wrong or stupid...a cheap put-down is just that...and benefits noone...I'm glad to know that there are those who will respond to a call for help...and I respect the opinion of those who feel they shouldn't...their reasons are their own...

I didn't stop to belittle or ridicule anyone. And, just because one person's choice is to do nothing, doesn't make it the right choice for me. In two separate
sentences I was very clear in stating "....was able...". Sorry if your feelings were hurt. That was not my intention as my comments were directed at no one in particular.

...nothing in your post could be remotely construed as belittling or ridicule...and my post, while following yours in the thread, made absolutely no reference to yours...and has no connection to it at all...