Furious! Elderly FW woman attacked at WM

[n5wd]

15 years old and you are beating old ladies up for their purses. Sad and unsettling. Where does a young person go from there? I have little hope a trip though juvi will turn this girl into a law abiding citizen. Local news story reported the victim is thinking about getting a CHL.

Texas hasn't been known for these kind of snatch and grab assaults as much as the larger cities on the East and West coasts, but I think we're going to have more of this kind of behavior in the future.

I've been teaching full-time since 2000 and though some of the kids I work with are some of the greatest in the world and are really very nice people, I've noticed an increase in the number of kids that most would describe as "thugs" or "thug wanna-be's", and there are a lot more just plain mean kids today than when I started.

[VMI77]

Every CHL should have the six enumerated crimes memorized: aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

Can you help us out re the use of the word "aggravated" above please. I don't understand the difference(s).

Also, what you have told us here is that if e.g. we were in a restaurant where an armed robbery is taking place, and which has potential to escalate as some of these incidents involved robbing of all PATRONS as well as the "cash register", that if I could draw and get a bead on the BG w/gun I need only shoot to kill. No warning needed. Headshot.

If yes I do like that a lot better than announcing my presence "DROP YOUR WEAPON!" which in all likelihood results in the BG changing position and giving me now a moving target.

Mmmmm.....be careful about how you word things. This warning is not a criticism, but as others have noted, the internet is forever. You don't ever shoot "to kill" you always shoot to stop whatever criminal act or assault that is taking place. You're using lethal force and it may result in death, but you don't actually intend to kill anyone.

[suthdj]

Sad situation. We have many cowards walking the streets of America doing what they do best. Absolutely nothing. It's shameful that cowards outnumber real men. These cowards are just as bad as the criminal in our Society. Yes. Just as bad and maybe worse. Heartless, mindless, soulless, cowardly beings walking among us pretending to be human.

--------
Why cowards???? Some people just mind their own business and dont want to get involved because they have families at home that they would like to get to. Now if anybody decides to act, their chances of getting back home just dropped. Think of all the legal trouble you can get into. Im no coward, but I have kids to live for.

so when your wife and kids are being assaulted in a Walmart parking lot and nobody helps them how will that make you feel.

[TomsTXCHL]

Every CHL should have the six enumerated crimes memorized: aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

Can you help us out re the use of the word "aggravated" above please. I don't understand the difference(s).

Also, what you have told us here is that if e.g. we were in a restaurant where an armed robbery is taking place, and which has potential to escalate as some of these incidents involved robbing of all PATRONS as well as the "cash register", that if I could draw and get a bead on the BG w/gun I need only shoot to kill. No warning needed. Headshot.

If yes I do like that a lot better than announcing my presence "DROP YOUR WEAPON!" which in all likelihood results in the BG changing position and giving me now a moving target.

Mmmmm.....be careful about how you word things. This warning is not a criticism, but as others have noted, the internet is forever. You don't ever shoot "to kill" you always shoot to stop whatever criminal act or assault that is taking place. You're using lethal force and it may result in death, but you don't actually intend to kill anyone.

Thanks for your post, and I guess I follow your caution, but iirc I was reacting to JF's comment i.e. taking it to the extreme. Should have written in that statement the word "One" instead of "I" perhaps, and was merely presuming that a headshot would stop the BG permanently.

I understand that an opposing lawyer would always argue that a headshot was unnecessary but if you carry a .380 or 9mm isn't that really the best chance at ending the encounter?

[mojo84]

Every CHL should have the six enumerated crimes memorized: aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

Can you help us out re the use of the word "aggravated" above please. I don't understand the difference(s).

Also, what you have told us here is that if e.g. we were in a restaurant where an armed robbery is taking place, and which has potential to escalate as some of these incidents involved robbing of all PATRONS as well as the "cash register", that if I could draw and get a bead on the BG w/gun I need only shoot to kill. No warning needed. Headshot.

If yes I do like that a lot better than announcing my presence "DROP YOUR WEAPON!" which in all likelihood results in the BG changing position and giving me now a moving target.

Mmmmm.....be careful about how you word things. This warning is not a criticism, but as others have noted, the internet is forever. You don't ever shoot "to kill" you always shoot to stop whatever criminal act or assault that is taking place. You're using lethal force and it may result in death, but you don't actually intend to kill anyone.

Thanks for your post, and I guess I follow your caution, but iirc I was reacting to JF's comment i.e. taking it to the extreme. Should have written in that statement the word "One" instead of "I" perhaps, and was merely presuming that a headshot would stop the BG permanently.

I understand that an opposing lawyer would always argue that a headshot was unnecessary but if you carry a .380 or 9mm isn't that really the best chance at ending the encounter?

If you had to use your gun in a self defense shooting and your case was before a grand jury or trial jury, would you want your above statements presented to them? Do you think they would help or hurt your case?

[TomsTXCHL]

IMO we are being disingenuous to critique my exploration of this hypothetical, which again I have raised only in an effort to understand "the rules". And as CHL holders we all know the basic firearm rules, one of which of course is "never point a gun at anything you don't wish to destroy" or however you want to word it.

JF said a CHL was free to shoot at a BG, which the basic rules state clearly enough you should expect could result in death. If you want to argue post-shooting that your intent was different, and use your online postings to demonstrate how careful you are, and pure-of-heart, OK then. Whatever you think will work for you.

But if asked in court to recite the basic rules of firearm handling, I suspect that even if I were nervous and unsettled about my appearance, I would be able to do so. Certainly I would answer Yes if the above rule were posed to me as a question.

[Jumping Frog]

IMO we are being disingenuous to critique my exploration of this hypothetical, which again I have raised only in an effort to understand "the rules".

Don't let yourself get perturbed for people pointing out a subtle language issue that can create legal problems. When a situation arises where use of deadly force is justified, the deadly force is justified to stop the threat. If the threat happens to die, then that is an unfortunate consequence of being placed in a position where a person is forced to use deadly force to protect him/herself.

The death is a byproduct of the intent to stop the threat, one did not use deadly force with only the intent to kill.

This is a subtle moral difference that has legal consequences. I know it sounds like a petty or picayune distinction, but the issue of intent can only be described in words that need to distinguish the intent.

Let me make an analogy from 2000 years of Catholic moral theology. Everyone knows the Catholic Church regards the deliberate killing of an infant in the womb, aka abortion, is wrong. The intention to kill the child is what makes it wrong.

However, if a pregnant woman discovers she has uterine cancer or similar serious medical issue requiring an immediate hysterectomy, the intention is to provide medical treatment even though a secondary consequence is the baby dies. That is considered acceptable in Catholic moral theology because of the distinction in intent.

[nightmare]

so when your wife and kids are being assaulted in a Walmart parking lot and nobody helps them how will that make you feel.

If they're attacked by an old lady I will be very happy if some mall ninja doesn't assume they're the bad guys and shoot them.

Hey. The answer made as much sense as the question.

[mojo84]

so when your wife and kids are being assaulted in a Walmart parking lot and nobody helps them how will that make you feel.

If they're attacked by an old lady I will be very happy if some mall ninja doesn't assume they're the bad guys and shoot them.

Hey. The answer made as much sense as the question.

No, it didn't.

[TomsTXCHL]

IMO we are being disingenuous to critique my exploration of this hypothetical, which again I have raised only in an effort to understand "the rules".

Don't let yourself get perturbed for people pointing out a subtle language issue that can create legal problems. When a situation arises where use of deadly force is justified, the deadly force is justified to stop the threat. If the threat happens to die, then that is an unfortunate consequence of being placed in a position where a person is forced to use deadly force to protect him/herself.

The death is a byproduct of the intent to stop the threat, one did not use deadly force with only the intent to kill.

This is a subtle moral difference that has legal consequences. I know it sounds like a petty or picayune distinction, but the issue of intent can only be described in words that need to distinguish the intent.

Let me make an analogy from 2000 years of Catholic moral theology. Everyone knows the Catholic Church regards the deliberate killing of an infant in the womb, aka abortion, is wrong. The intention to kill the child is what makes it wrong.

However, if a pregnant woman discovers she has uterine cancer or similar serious medical issue requiring an immediate hysterectomy, the intention is to provide medical treatment even though a secondary consequence is the baby dies. That is considered acceptable in Catholic moral theology because of the distinction in intent.

Thank you very much JF for your careful and thoughtful reply--it helps me to understand and is greatly appreciated. I did bold the issue I've questioned here--and note again my original hypothetical of an attacker with a gun and my family in jeopardy (and not the subject purse-snatch of course).

As for the potential for legal problems down-the-road, I will add this "subtle language issue" I've created to my already-long list of things I worry about, placing no doubt somewhere below "Die in a fiery car crash on the way to cashing my winning Powerball ticket" though possibly above "Fall to my death from the transport beam in a failed abduction attempt by aliens".

[mojo84]

The odds are very slim you'll ever need a gun so why carry one? Take the chl and gun money and go buy lottery tickets.

[TNacp99]

I came across this article that reveals the potential perils of intervening as a bystander. It is not meant to justify any proposed action or inaction mentioned with the purse-snatch incident. However, it does shed light on the fog of war. I think everyone has been very thoughtful on their responses to the purse snatching event.

http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/a ... t-carriers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[TVGuy]

so when your wife and kids are being assaulted in a Walmart parking lot and nobody helps them how will that make you feel.

If they're attacked by an old lady I will be very happy if some mall ninja doesn't assume they're the bad guys and shoot them.

Hey. The answer made as much sense as the question.

He would probably be wearing a CHL badge.

[n5wd]

I came across this article that reveals the potential perils of intervening as a bystander. It is not meant to justify any proposed action or inaction mentioned with the purse-snatch incident. However, it does shed light on the fog of war. I think everyone has been very thoughtful on their responses to the purse snatching event.

http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/a ... t-carriers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's an extremely good discussion of what "could have" happened. Thanks for posting it, and I'd recommend everyone read it and at least consider some of the lessons in the article!. (I'll be printing that out to give to my CHL students, as well.)

[mojo84]

A person can intervene and help stop the ongoing assault without automatically starting to shoot. You can "what if" any situation you want. The goal should be to stop the assault and let the cops sort things out and determine who's who.

Common sense and judicious use of force and deadly force is recommended.