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

[cbr600]

deleted

[A-R]

Again, I think that it boils down to "what would you do" as a tactical decision, not just what is legal.

I agree (caveat being that what I, and I assume most of us, would choose to do has a lot to do with what is legal).

I resisted jumping into this, but I felt the intention/meaning of PC 9.04 (as I understand it, not being a lawyer and all) was being misrepresented.

[HotLeadSolutions]

"...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..

[WildBill]

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..

So do I win or lose?

[speedsix]

...this part of the section says it: "The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter" I read that to say that if the USE of DEADLY FORCE is not justified by Chapter 9, then neither is the THREAT of DEADLY FORCE...any lower level of force which Chapter 9 justifies doesn't kick in 9.04, only DEADLY force being justified...

...a commonsense example...Chapter 9:31 and 32 deal with when force is justified...clearly defining crimes in which deadly force is justifiable...then we read 9:04 and think that it means ANY level of force authorized by law gives us the right to threaten with a gun??? Doesn't make sense...we're talking in context of deadly force being legal in several situations when several criteria are met...where do we make the leap that we can pull a gun or hold someone at gunpoint if we couldn't use deadly force to stop the crime in question...in the Op's story...you're going to shoot/kill the purse snatcher? of course not...then since that force is NOT justifiable...why would the threatening of it be allowed???


I'm tired...we're going in circles...sincerely trying to find the truth...I have nothing else to post on this, until someone can clear up that point...does 9.04 apply if ANY LEVEL of force is justified by Chapter 9, or only if DEADLY force is justified by Chapter 9...there's the question...

[speedsix]

...that's great...but why do you feel that you need to announce to those of us involved a lively discussion that this thread is "out of hand" in your opinion? if you're tired of it ...why not just move on? I just met you on another thread that had 11 pages and had many tangents also...no complaint when you posted there...THAT'S my point...live and let live...

At the time I posted, that was my opinion. Sometimes threads stagnant and do not move forward with new thoughts. If you have new thoughts or do not agree, please feel free to post additional comments.

...we have reached an impasse, I believe...maybe Charles who IS a lawyer, will find the time to settle it...I think we really need to know what's right...ain't no mosquitoes in this thread...it's been real lively...

Charles can't settle it, he can only argue your version of it...it will be settled by 12 "tried and true" of your peers...at your expense...in your family and in your neighborhood...it probably won't be fun...

...not MY peers...not MY expense...not My family and not MY neighborhood...if you'd read my posts...you'd know I'm the one dead set against DOING it...so it won't be MY problem...fun or not...

[davefrmmrfy]

With WildBill's comment in mind, what is prudent? The discussion of what would you do should also take into concideration "what would the victim do". Decades ago I witnessed a "gentleman" going through a woman's purse in an on campus center. She and her partner were up dancing and she had left her purse sitting in plain view. Stupid, yes, but she did.

I witnessed him lifting her wallet out of that purse and stand up to walk away. Although bigger than me, the crowd made me feel comfortable enough to stand up, grab his arm and announce "We have a purse snatcher here!" I was able to escort him to security and have him taken into custody.

Long story to say the victim decided to not press charges and the crook was set free! Consider what the victim might do before stepping in deeper than you need to. It might bite you in the butt!

[pnctar]

In our CHL class, the instructor talked about "3rd party" involvment, and the consequeces of ... for example ...

If you walk into the local convience store and you see a person in front of the counter holding a gun at the person behind the counter ...

1) Is the person holding the gun guilty?
2) Is the person behind the counter the victim?
3) Have they "scuffled" and swaped places?

'Till they point at me (and that may be to late), I'm not going to make a judgement call ... just going to be a "good witness" and help where I can.

EDIT: Guess I missed the OP's point ... think he actually saw what happened ...

[ddurkof]

I long for the days when we could have just caught him, given him a few bruises to remember us by, (I say "us" because 1/2 the town and store would have been chasing him down.) and let the local constabulary take his butt off to the local GrayBar Hotel, but alas we are too worried about the local barrister with a liberal attitude who would represent the miscreant and try to take things away from you and me.

In this tactical situation I believe I would just run him down with my car, I have good insurance and the car is paid for, saying that he ran out from between two cars in a careless and reckless manor causing me great mental anguish, so much so in fact I would need months of therapy. I would then file against him, his estate and any surviving relatives for whatever the worthless beast was worth. Yes, I would take his dog from him if that is all he had left in his life.

If he survived I could only hope that he would be remanded to a wheel chair, manual, not motorized, for the rest of his days.

My logic being is that being a fleeing felon has few defenses for their reckless behavior.

We need as a society to stop the madness of letting these predators to continue to make the rules of the game. Let them know it will be a painful existence for them when caught.

But I am pretty liberal in my corrections methodology.

[Raider4Life]

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.

[HotLeadSolutions]

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....

[gigag04]

Theft from a person is a felony. Purse snatching is theft from a person. If the purse is ripped from her,it could very well be a robbery (theft + assault).

I think the threat deadly force is allowed here, and I doubt the CHL holder would be arrested, much less indicted. However, I think it is tactically disadvantageous in most episodes of this scenario I imagine.

[speedsix]

...the purse was grabbed out of a shopping cart while she was loading groceries into the car...I can see it being theft from person if she was pushing the cart...could a good lawyer beat the state jail felony??? you gotta KNOW if she'd just bought groceries the money left in her purse isn't likely to be felony amount...

[WildBill]

...the purse was grabbed out of a shopping cart while she was loading groceries into the car...I can see it being theft from person if she was pushing the cart...

I don't want to be a wise guy, but a person owned the purse, not the shopping cart.

[speedsix]

...true...but I'm asking if the theft has to be from the person's person to be a state jail felony, or does theft from their desk, shopping cart, yard, or car count...none of which own the property ...I can't find a definition of "theft from a person"...so far...

"3. General theft – Taking an item that belongs to someone else by any means when you do not have permission. Examples of this include taking a woman’s purse from her shopping cart when her back is turned, stealing copper from a construction site, or taking $20 from the cash register at work."



...found this on a lawyer's website...but is it true??? oughta be explained in the text of the law ...what is "from a person" and what is what this lawyer calls "general theft"...with the example of snatching a purse from a shopping cart as opposed to off her shoulder...