Bad Day at Wal-Mart

[buffalo_speedway_tx]

No.....meaning he is getting ready to bash you.

[marksiwel]

No.....meaning he is getting ready to bash you.

NO, I mean can you put him under Citizens arrest? Other than the obvious civil ramification, would you be able legally to draw down on him?

[CrimsonSoul]

No.....meaning he is getting ready to bash you.

NO, I mean can you put him under Citizens arrest? Other than the obvious civil ramification, would you be able legally to draw down on him?

It's my understanding you can only do a citizens arrest if the person has committed a felony

[chabouk]

No.....meaning he is getting ready to bash you.

NO, I mean can you put him under Citizens arrest? Other than the obvious civil ramification, would you be able legally to draw down on him?

It's my understanding you can only do a citizens arrest if the person has committed a felony

I'm not sure of the dollar value required for a felony, but there's no doubt by the time he had smashed the fourth flat-screen, he qualified.

[KD5NRH]

It's my understanding you can only do a citizens arrest if the person has committed a felony

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Art. 14.01. 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.

What's an "offense against the public peace?" Well, there are a few ways you could interpret that. I would note that, in the official DPS training materials for security officers, criminal mischief is listed as such an offense. (As is "use of indecent, abusive, profane, or vulgar language or gesture in a public place to incite an immediate breach of the peace," which, while it doesn't specify "going bonkers in a store while waving a deadly weapon" as such a gesture, is somewhat open to that interpretation.)

As for using force against the guy, he committed criminal mischief, so what time of day was it?

Texas Penal Code Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

Note that it's (1) or (2), so as long as the requirement in (1) is met, (2) is not necessary. The back references to 9.41 and 9.42 would be met by using the force to "terminate the other's...unlawful interference with the property" and "to prevent the other's imminent commission of...criminal mischief during the nighttime." (Assuming, of course, that it happens during the night.)

More productive would be the argument that there's an armed, obviously irrational guy swinging a bat in a crowded store. Waiting until he actually hits a person before taking action would be an unnecessary and substantial risk to the safety of those in the area.

I'm not a lawyer, though, so check with yours before you pull the gun.

As for myself, I'd probably try pepper spray first.

[casingpoint]

Keep it simple, stupid. Ban bats.

[J Wilson]

Why would anybody want to confront someone that was smashing Wal-Mart's TV sets.As long as he wasn't attacking someone or you, why would someone want to jump in the middle of that fiasco.
Instead of going for your gun,go for your cell phone.That is what 911 is for.

[KD5NRH]

Why would anybody want to confront someone that was smashing Wal-Mart's TV sets.As long as he wasn't attacking someone or you, why would someone want to jump in the middle of that fiasco.

How do you know he's going to stick to the TVs? That's often one of the more crowded parts of WalMart, and not everybody can run away very quickly.

[Oldgringo]

Why would anybody want to confront someone that was smashing Wal-Mart's TV sets.As long as he wasn't attacking someone or you, why would someone want to jump in the middle of that fiasco.

How do you know he's going to stick to the TVs? That's often one of the more crowded parts of WalMart, and not everybody can run away very quickly.

Once again, in the immortal words of 03lightningrocks, "...a CHL is not a Batman license".

[J Wilson]

[quote="J Wilson"].As long as he wasn't attacking someone or you

[buffalo_speedway_tx]

My point exactly.

[surprise_i'm_armed]

IMHO, I wouldn't draw down on someone breaking
Wal-Mart's TV's. It's only property, and it's not MY property.
No good deed goes unpunished. Wal-Mart probably would not
even give you a "thank you", let alone pay for your legal bills,
should such ensue.

On a different note, though: There was an incident at another
Wal-Mart a few years back, which also involved a baseball bat.

A man walked into a Wal-Mart. It's unclear if he was stalking his
ex-girlfriend (or wife), or if he just happened to be there at the
same time. But he saw his ex with her new man. He did not
immediately confront them. They didn't know they were being
watched.

He went to the sporting goods department, selected an aluminum
baseball bat, then ran up on the new couple and started going nuts
on them with the bat, beating them severely.

In such a case as that, it would appear legal under Texas statutes
to draw on the guy, and shoot him if he continued to rain blows on
the unarmed people with the bat.

Anyone's thoughts on such a scenario?

SIA

[MoJo]

IMHO, I wouldn't draw down on someone breaking
Wal-Mart's TV's. It's only property, and it's not MY property.
No good deed goes unpunished. Wal-Mart probably would not
even give you a "thank you", let alone pay for your legal bills,
should such ensue.

On a different note, though: There was an incident at another
Wal-Mart a few years back, which also involved a baseball bat.

A man walked into a Wal-Mart. It's unclear if he was stalking his
ex-girlfriend (or wife), or if he just happened to be there at the
same time. But he saw his ex with her new man. He did not
immediately confront them. They didn't know they were being
watched.

He went to the sporting goods department, selected an aluminum
baseball bat, then ran up on the new couple and started going nuts
on them with the bat, beating them severely.

In such a case as that, it would appear legal under Texas statutes
to draw on the guy, and shoot him if he continued to rain blows on
the unarmed people with the bat.

Anyone's thoughts on such a scenario?

SIA

IANAL, INALEO, But under the circumstances given I think Texas law would allow you to draw and shoot the perp. Be ready for mega legal troubles and possibly a night in the slammer. Not to mention a lifetime of grief and agony over taking a human life.

You have to do what you think is right under the circumatances at the time. "What if" scenarios don't take into consideration both sides of the story. Maybe the guy's ex and her new boy friend deserved the beating.

[surprise_i'm_armed]

MoJo:

"Maybe they deserved the beating"?

I don't think relationship problems of any sort are an
excuse for a potentially lethal attack with a bat,
unprovoked.

The man with the bat would be the one who needs shooting.
If he knew his ex was armed, he'd be less likely to have done this.

IMHO. YMMV.

SIA

[Bart]

Every lawyer comes with a bullet attached.

IANAL, INALEO, But under the circumstances given I think Texas law would allow you to draw and shoot the perp. Be ready for mega legal troubles and possibly a night in the slammer. Not to mention a lifetime of grief and agony over taking a human life.