(NC) Bystander shoots purse snatcher in legs

[Shootcraps]

....this massive movement of nonviolence towards criminals.

Holy Mother of Pearl. You fellas have extrapolated this debate way beyond sensibility. Nobody is saying you must be nonviolent towards criminals. The basic laws of self defense (and this may vary a little from state to state) are that you can use reasonable force to defend yourself. If someone comes at you with a baseball bat or tire iron and says they're going to crush your skull, and you order them to stop and they keep coming, then you can reasonably assume they are going to kill you or cause you great bodily harm. Then you can use deadly force to stop their attack.

And how do we respond to that? We shoot to stop. We don't shoot to kill or to wound. We shoot until their attack is stopped. Then we are safe.

If they are then lying on the ground in a pool of their own blood gasping for air and we then stand over them (just like Bernie Goetz did) and put a bullet in their head for good measure and instantly kill them, then we just became the attacker. That's why he went to jail.

If someone takes your purse and runs away with it, you cannot reasonably assume they are going to kill you or cause you great bodily harm because they're gone. You can't use deadly force if there is no threat.

You may think that a criminal is scum of the earth and deserves whatever happens to them, but the law don't see it that way. If a criminal breaks into your house and slips on your son's Tonka trunk and breaks his back, making him a paraplegic, he can sue you and your liability insurance is gonna pay for his medical bills for the rest of his life. Is that fair? I don't think so. But that's the way it is.

 

[Stand_Watie]

..If they are then lying on the ground in a pool of their own blood gasping for air and we then stand over them (just like Bernie Goetz did) and put a bullet in their head for good measure and instantly kill them, then we just became the attacker. That's why he went to jail...

I don't mean to be pedantic but

a) Goetz didn't kill any of them and the one he paralyzed is the only one that didn't go on with their violent careers. *Ramseur's victim in particular really wishes Goetz had killed him.

b) Goetz went to jail for violating NY's weapons statutes, not for the shootings.

I don't commend Bernie Goetz but I'd definitely rather share the subway with him than with his attackers.


*He's currently on NYS "most wanted" for parole violation and is considered armed/dangerous. If you run into him you might want to do a more through job of defending yourself than Goetz did

http://parole.state.ny.us/mostwanteddet.asp?id=288

N.Y.S. Parole's Most Wanted

Name: Ramseur, James
Alias: James Boyed, David Boyed, James Rawseur, James Smith
DIN: 86B1003
Sex: M
DOB: 8/16/1966
Height: 5' 11"
Weight: 160 lbs.
Hair: Black
Eyes: Brown
Race: Black
Complexion: Medium
Scars, Marks, Tattoos: Scars: back, left shoulder, upper left arm, abdomen; Tattoos: none known
Crime of Conviction: Rape 1, Sodomy 1, Robbery 1
Wanted For: Parole Violation
Wanted By: N.Y.S. Division of Parole
Remarks: Current offense involved subject and an accomplice accosting a female victim, assaulting, robbing, raping, and sodomizing her at gunpoint.

If you have information about this individual, contact N.Y.S. Division of Parole at 212-239-6159. This individual is considered armed and dangerous. Do not attempt to apprehend or detain this individual yourself.

(Return to Most Wanted)

 

[Jeff White]

R.H. Lee said;

Jeff- to extrapolate this one instance and project it onto any and all CCW holders is unrealistic at best and hysterical at worst. Think about it.

Based on the responses in this thread, I would have to say that the majority of the members who posted on it feel that is morally right and should be legal to shoot at a person fleeing the scene of a misdemeanor theft. Like it or not that is how you will be perceived when you take that stand. Our society has already established through passing laws and through court decisions that you don't shoot at people who are fleeing unless you are able to articulate that not to use deadly force would result in the immdeiate danger of death or great bodily harm to yourself or another. The facts as presented in this case, don't bring it up to that standard. If you think this is hysterical at worse, wait until an anti gets ahold of it. And the worst part is that it's one case we won't be able to refute...because it's true.

By applying the standard that every theif deserves to be shot to foil his/her escape, then you have to accept farmer Miller killing the kids in his apple orchard and why don't I see any of you in this thread wanting to write up the Park Ranger for officer of the year?
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=163526
After all there is no debate on the fact that the guy stole $14.00 in services and was walking away. If you accept that it's ok to shoot a purse snatcher, then it's ok for the Ranger to shoot this guy. After all, criminals should get what they deseve right?

Didorian said;

Well I'm no one's victim, I'm nobody's meat. I will not become one of the sheep. And if that leaves me considered as a wolf, then so be it. But my pride will not let me be a victim.

If you act outside the law to make certain you become no one's victim then yes, you are a wolf and I shall happily hunt you down and make certain you face the judgement of the society you could no longer live with. I wonder how your pride will hold up in prison?

Jeff

 

[jsalcedo]

Our society has already established through passing laws and through court decisions that you don't shoot at people who are fleeing

As was stated before this is a fairly recent culmination of laws and decisions
that has shown in my eyes to include onerous gun control and the coddling of criminals.

As these laws and court decisions (many less than 40 years old) tied the hands of citizens there has been a massive increase in crime.

So this result of people unwilling or unable to defend their own property
leaves a void in our society that becomes filled with purse snatchers, car jackers, muggers etc...

If this were 1955 I doubt the shooting of this purse snatcher would even be a blip on the radar.

Have we become too civilized or has the definition of civilized changed to the point where we must bend over and submit ourselves to petty crime because it is "wrong" to shoot a fleeing purse snatcher?

And yes I was shot at as a kid for being on a farmers land. I wasn't stealing
apples or anything else but it scared the living crap out of me and made me respect property lines and posted signs.

 

[Jeff White]

jsalcedo said;

As these laws and court decisions (many less than 40 years old) tied the hands of citizens there has been a massive increase in crime.

Proof please? Don't forget to adjust for the difference in population between now and then.

If this were 1955 I doubt the shooting of this purse snatcher would even be a blip on the radar.

I think you'll probably have to go back to the 1920s to find a time when private citizens routinely shot it out with criminals in the street. Even back then, it was more likely to happen in a rural area then in the city, just like today.

Have we become too civilized or has the definition of civilized changed to the point where we must bend over and submit ourselves to petty crime because it is "wrong" to shoot a fleeing purse snatcher?

Yes, we have. We have those laws and court decisions you mentioned earlier. Although if you look past Hollywood's portrayal of the old west, you'll find that we didn't often shoot people for petty crimes back then either.

And yes I was shot at as a kid for being on a farmers land. I wasn't stealing apples or anything else but it scared the living crap out of me and made me respect property lines and posted signs.

And teaching you that lesson would have been worth your life to your family? How many young boys are you willing to sacrifice so that they all learn the lesson?

Jeff

 

[Stand_Watie]

R.H. Lee said;


Based on the responses in this thread, I would have to say that the majority of the members who posted on it feel that is morally right and should be legal to shoot at a person fleeing the scene of a misdemeanor theft...

I haven't looked at counted out the posts but I don't believe that's correct. The majority may believe it should be legal to shoot fleeing purse snatchers, but robbery is a felony in every state that I know of, including NC where it is a class g felony, unless the robber has in their posession a weapon, in which case it is a class d felony. Some states have specific statutes defining "purse snatching" as a felony, but it's a rare purse snatching that doesn't meet the common law definition of strongarm robbery.

 

[bachman1961]

what would you do ??

That was poor judgement as a no-brainer for shooting that snatcher IF the story goes as is. I'd hate to be the ONE person that could ID the shooter and be faced with the decision of turning him in BUT... anyone who has met the standards (and deserves) attaining a Carry Permit was schooled in the Federal, State and Local Laws regarding use of force situations. If that person met those standards, why did they act otherwise? Under duress of seeing a man flee with a purse ?? Yeah, that's gonna fly.. .. and he knows it.
To condone or defend what happened as justified, you'd have to shoot a thief in the back as he/she went out your front door with a tv set, not posing any lethal threat. I reside in town where I have to retreat from a threat if a plausible safe exit exists. If I didn't know that and act accordingly, I could be in deep trouble myself. I get in plenty of trouble with my wife,, I won't be making a mistake that costs me my career, gun permit and thousands of dollars.. but that's me.

 

[Stand_Watie]

..If you act outside the law to make certain you become no one's victim then yes, you are a wolf and I shall happily hunt you down and make certain you face the judgement of the society you could no longer live with. I wonder how your pride will hold up in prison?
Jeff

Who's law? If Salcedo is stupid enough to take his gun (and his money) to your state, then he maybe he deserves incarceration. My family (and my money) normally goes out of our way around your state to avoid your stupid gun laws when we go up north.

Meanwhile, if you want to become a Peace officer in Texas you might want to get used to different laws Shooting a fleeing robber is legal here.

 

[jsalcedo]

As these laws and court decisions (many less than 40 years old) tied the hands of citizens there has been a massive increase in crime.


Proof please? Don't forget to adjust for the difference in population between now and then.

Lets take a fairly homogenous state like Wisconsin.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/wicrime.htm

1960
Pop 3.9 mil

Larceny theft 32,035 Property 44,009

1968

Pop 4.2 mil

Larceny theft 67,312 Property 97,134


Population went up 300,000 and crime basically doubled in 8 years.

I think you'll probably have to go back to the 1920s to find a time when private citizens routinely shot it out with criminals in the street.

I'm not sure shooting it out in the streets was ever really routine but maybe more accepted under certain circumstances than it is now.

We have those laws and court decisions you mentioned earlier. Although if you look past Hollywood's portrayal of the old west, you'll find that we didn't often shoot people for petty crimes back then either.

Not sure how many purse snatchings they had back then but I suspect petty
criminals were not allowed to run off if there were witnesses or someone there with the means to act.


Regarding being shot at for trespass:

And teaching you that lesson would have been worth your life to your family? How many young boys are you willing to sacrifice so that they all learn the lesson?

Personally I'm not one to shoot at trespassers but would hold them for the police to pick up..If they ran I wouldn't shoot em in the back even if it was legal...which it is in some places.

I don't really have a moral judgement call on me being shot at. It is what it is and thankfully I lived to not repeat the same mistake.

 

[Jeff White]

It's theft in Illinois unless force or the threat of force is used. If under $300 it's a class 3 felony. Robbery is a class 2 felony.

Who's law? If Salcedo is stupid enough to take his gun (and his money) to your state, then he maybe he deserves incarceration. My family (and my money) normally goes out of our way around your state to avoid your stupid gun laws when we go up north.

And just what does that have to do with this debate?

Meanwhile, if you want to become a Peace officer in Texas you might want to get used to different laws Shooting a fleeing robber is legal here.

Really??? Garner v Tennesee doesn't apply in Texas? And here for all these years I though USSC decisions were valid throught the land, now I find out that they don't have any legal weight in Texas..

Jeff

 

[KC&97TA]

Who's law? If Salcedo is stupid enough to take his gun (and his money) to your state, then he maybe he deserves incarceration. My family (and my money) normally goes out of our way around your state to avoid your stupid gun laws when we go up north.

Meanwhile, if you want to become a Peace officer in Texas you might want to get used to different laws Shooting a fleeing robber is legal here.

I seem to remember the words of a Great Marine Corps General, still on active duty "bad men must die, you won't shoot into crowds of women and children, you'll use your 3 mile PFT to chase them down and shoot them in the back"

maybe if more criminals were scared of being shot they would become upstanding citizens.

 

[Stand_Watie]

It's theft in Illinois unless force or the threat of force is used. If under $300 it's a class 3 felony. Robbery is a class 2 felony.
Jeff

I would define purse snatching as using force or threat of force. Its pretty difficult to get a purse out ofsomeones hands without using force. If this had been a simple theft of a purse it might have been just a misdemeanor depending on the value of the contents.

And just what does that have to do with this debate?

You said you were going to hunt Salcedo down if [yada yada]....I was pointing out to you that he lives in Texas and you're a peace officer in Illinois. The law is different from state to state.

Really??? Garner v Tennesee doesn't apply in Texas? And here for all these years I though USSC decisions were valid throught the land, now I find out that they don't have any legal weight in Texas.. :confused

a) No, Garner vs Tennessee doesn't apply to private individuals acting as such in Texas (or any other state). It is a 4th amendment restriction that specifically applies to state (in this case police officer's) actions.Texas law still allows private party deadly force to recover private property in instances of robbery.

b) Garner vs Tennessee doesn't carte blanche prohibit deadly force (by the state) to aprehend fugitives, it just more narrowly defines it. You might want to look up Tennessee's current statutes to clarify.

 

[CentralTexas]

A few years ago here in Austin

a fellow and his girlfriend returned to his car downtown where a guy was going through the vehicle. Car owner said stop , followed him a distance(was legally licensed to carry) and as the guy was leaving he said I have your info and I will get my homies and get you. Car owner shot this unarmed fellow to death and I believe in the back.
RONNIE EARL (yes the same one as in the DeLay case) shopped THREE Grand Juries who all "no billed" this guy.
Upside- he walked
Downside- it cost him a fortune, employment and he about lost his mind over the time it took to resolve
CT

 

[Didorian]

Holy Mother of Pearl. You fellas have extrapolated this debate way beyond sensibility. Nobody is saying you must be nonviolent towards criminals. The basic laws of self defense (and this may vary a little from state to state) are that you can use reasonable force to defend yourself. QUOTE]

Yes you are saying that we must be non violent towards criminals. Because if he was stealing a purse, or any other theft, he is still breaking that oh so precious LAW and he is a criminal. And If I happen to hurt him in the process of keeping him from fleeing the scene of his crime then it is far more likley that I will go to jail than the theif.... and THAT IS WRONG.

And Jeff; Don't be like the antis. Don't use just a piece of what I say to make me look like a bad guy. Stop and think of ALL of what was in the post, not just the last statement. And if I AM so wrong... Not by the LAW but really wrong morally. Then how do you propose to hold any dignity or pride while you allow a crime, violent or not happen to you or some one close to you and not do everything that you can to stop it?? I can't see a way to do it. And yea... My pride may eventually get me into prison. But for that, I do believe that it would be worth it. If you don't stand for ANYTHING then you stand for NOTHING. And that in the end IS taking the HIGHROAD. To do what is RIGHT, even when the rest of POLITE SOCIETY is telling you that it is wrong.

 

[Didorian]

a fellow and his girlfriend returned to his car downtown where a guy was going through the vehicle. Car owner said stop , followed him a distance(was legally licensed to carry) and as the guy was leaving he said I have your info and I will get my homies and get you. Car owner shot this unarmed fellow to death and I believe in the back.CT

Sounded like a reason to shoot him to me. The man threatened to get back up and come back for him. Better to go to jail than live in fear from some jerk and his buddies.

 

[TallPine]

Do not attempt to apprehend or detain this individual yourself.

Can we just shoot him then ...?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Well I'm no one's victim, I'm nobody's meat. I will not become one of the sheep. And if that leaves me considered as a wolf, then so be it. But my pride will not let me be a victim.

"Pride goeth before a fall."

The right to carry a firearm for self-defense carries with it a duty to sometimes swallow our pride and walk away from a situation rather than engage and escalate to a level that assures that the use of the firearm will become necessary.

I would define purse snatching as using force or threat of force. Its pretty difficult to get a purse out ofsomeones hands without using force. If this had been a simple theft of a purse it might have been just a misdemeanor depending on the value of the contents.

I'm going to disagree. AFAIK most purse snatchings are perpetrated by the crook approaching the victim from behind, grabbing the purse and giving a yank to break the shoulder strap, and then putting the Nikes in afterburner to exit stage left. Once in a great while I read about a victim being able to retain a hold on the purse. Usually a "purse snatcher" will abandon the attempt at that point and get gone. If the resistence is met with a struggle, and the thief strikes the victim, it is now not a "purse snatching," it is now a "mugging" ... the use of force more or less demands that it be classified differently.

 

[bubbygator]

Well, I now have a higher understanding of The HIGHROAD.



Bye bye.

 

[Shootcraps]

Yes you are saying that we must be non violent towards criminals. Because if he was stealing a purse, or any other theft, he is still breaking that oh so precious LAW and he is a criminal. And If I happen to hurt him in the process of keeping him from fleeing the scene of his crime then it is far more likley that I will go to jail than the theif.... and THAT IS WRONG.

You have a few things messed up here. I was not relaying my beliefs, I was simply stating what the law allows us to do.

IMHO, if a criminal gets hurt in the commission of a crime - too bad, so sad, nobody cares. But the law allows for him to get compensation.

Yes, he's breaking the law and is a criminal. But the way you're speaking he should get the death penalty for snatching a purse. Is that one of the punishments for purse snatching? Not according to the law.

In this case, if you were to run him down, beat the crap out of him and sit on him till Popo got there then I think you deserve a medal.

But you can't shoot an unarmed, fleeing purse snatcher (except maybe in Texas).

 

[richh56]

the good and the bad

I don't know about NC but as a ohio person with a permit to carrie like me I can't see him being over looked by law enforcment. I also can't see a jury of 12 convicting him for this either as some one is going to say "good job" but it would cost him his permit to carrie i am sure.

I personal have issues with both sides as the law is writen. First he was not under attact for his life or the life of a family member as ohio law points out. How ever he did not use deadly force as the scum back was only shot in the legs and did not die.

I think this might make a good case for why do we as Americans need to conceal are hand guns in the first place? If the would be robber would have seen the fire arm on the side of the man I bet he would have reconcidered his actions on robbing her in the first place.

I also feel if atleast 40% of the Americans that died on plans at the hands of cowardly terrist would have been wearing a firearm in plan view that the terrist would have had to reconcider they plans.

I will admit it people, when I have a firearm on me I feel more (in powerd), Don't You?

So do dirt bags. seems to me that if a would be robber walked into a place to rob it and seen that every one had a firearm on them he would have to think to him self. I can't shoot every one before atleast one would get me. thus the crime rate would surely drop.

My opinion.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

There's always a hope for jury nullification. The jury can hear the evidence, and simply refuse to find him guilty of anything with jail time attached to it. This is within the legitimate power of any jury. We just have to hope the judge doesn't try to bully them into saying he's guilty just because his actions fit the statutory definition of the crime he's charged with. We need a law preventing judges from contaminating juries like that. Juries are supposed to be triers (judges), not only of the facts of the case, but also of the law under which the accused was prosecuted. It is just another check on tyrannical government that the Founders fully intended.

 

[Waitone]

deleted

 

[LawDog]

Snatching a purse is not necessarily Robbery in the State of Texas.

§ 29.02. ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if,
in the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with
intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.

Did the purse snatcher cause bodily injury to the woman? None is mentioned in the article.

Did he intentionally or knowingly threaten the victim in order to get the purse? No threats are mentioned in the article.

Did he place the victim in fear of imminent bodily injury or death? No. Apparently she didn't even know he was there until the purse was taken and he was legging it down the street.

If there was less than $50.00 in the purse, this would be a Class 'C' misdemeanor. A traffic ticket. Which is coincidentally about the same penalty, or less, as skipping out on paying a $14 entrance fee to a State Park.

LawDog

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Snatching a purse is not necessarily Robbery in the State of Texas.



Did the purse snatcher cause bodily injury to the woman? None is mentioned in the article.

Did he intentionally or knowingly threaten the victim in order to get the purse? No threats are mentioned in the article.

Did he place the victim in fear of imminent bodily injury or death? No. Apparently she didn't even know he was there until the purse was taken and he was legging it down the street.

If there was less than $50.00 in the purse, this would be a Class 'C' misdemeanor. A traffic ticket. Which is coincidentally about the same penalty, or less, as skipping out on paying a $14 entrance fee to a State Park.

LawDog

I think all of us know that this is not a legally justifed shooting, but some of us don't have any sympathy for a career crook who victimizes ladies for a living, using violence (snatching is violence, as far as I'm concerned). I would not, personally, like to see the gunman fry for this. How do you feel about that?

 

[1911Tuner]

re:

The Quote:


>How ever he did not use deadly force as the scum back was only shot in the legs and...did not die.<
********************

Uh...Better back up on that one a bit. ANY gunshot wound is potentially lethal...even a leg shot. That fits the definition of deadly force. If he had been shot through the lungs and survived...would that have not been deadly force?

I'd better jump offa this one...It's really unbelieveable...but before I do, lemme pose a question to all the folks who seem to be of the mindset that it's okay, and may be in position to shoot a future purse-snatcher or pickpocket one day.

Ever shot anybody? Know how it feels to shoot somebody?

You don't want to know, but if you do, when the guy is layin' on the floor, bleedin' and pukin' and cryin' for his mother...at that instant, you'll wish that you hadn't.

I'm outta here...