Good shoot - bad shoot? Woman dragged down street by purse-snatcher

[230RN]

OK, so there's an item in the Denver news TV channels today where some lowlife runs up behind a woman, knocks her down, grabs her purse, and tries to run away with it.

Much of this is captured on security cams. I'm pretty sure this is going to be on national TV, so watch for it --it's a pretty dramatic scene.

She hangs on to the purse and the bxxxxxd drags her down the street with it.

I know the authorities might say "give him what he wants," meaning she should have let go of the purse, but for all we know, she may have had her life savings in it.

QUESTION:

If she had hauled out a gun and shot the bxxxxxd while he was dragging her down the street, that is, trying to escape, would it have been a good shoot? (He did haul out a knife to try to cut the purse loose.)

In haste,

--Terry

 

[JWarren]

Terry,

Whether the scenerio you described would be a good shoot or bad shoot depends HUGELY on what state you are in.

Here, it would be a good shoot.


-- John

 

[ZeSpectre]

I think the basic question is "would a reasonable person presume that the woman's life might be in danger"?

In my opinion any crime that involves a direct physical assault is automatically placed in that category, others may disagree.

Then we must consider the associated principle of "MMO"
Means - The suspect was obviously able to overpower the victim. He also produced a knife.
Motive - Theft or personal gain.
Opportunity - the suspect was physically present and actively assaulted the victim.

 

[buzz_knox]

(He did haul out a knife to try to cut the purse loose.)

To cut the purse loose or to cut her off of it?

I think she could have reasonably believed the latter, and that would have justified using deadly force herself.

 

[M2 Carbine]

If she had hauled out a gun and shot the bxxxxxd while he was dragging her down the street, that is, trying to escape, would it have been a good shoot? (He did haul out a knife to try to cut the purse loose.)

In TX it would definitely be a good shoot.

If for no other reason it's legal in TX to protect or recover property (purse).

 

[JWarren]

I think the basic question is "would a reasonable person presume that the woman's life might be in danger"?

We must remember that many states have provisions for the defense of property.


Hence my statement that this largely depends on what state you are in.


-- John

 

[ZeSpectre]

We must remember that many states have provisions for the defense of property.

I wonder how many times I'm going to have to make this point before folks start to get it.

If someone breaks into your house/car/etc. when you are not present, and walks out the door with your stuff, that is theft. You were never in any danger, there was never any confrontation.

If someone assaults you in the course of a theft it is no longer simple theft, it is an attack (use of violence/force) upon a person. The point isn't that the criminal grabbed your purse, the point is that the criminal ASSAULTED THE VICTIM to get the purse. From that point forward it is no longer about the theft, it is about the attack.

 

[Missashot]

My guess would be that since he brandished a knife first, then he just brought a knife to a gun fight.

 

[Standing Wolf]

If she had hauled out a gun and shot the bxxxxxd while he was dragging her down the street, that is, trying to escape, would it have been a good shoot? (He did haul out a knife to try to cut the purse loose.)

If I were the district attorney, I wouldn't go within ten miles of trying to prosecute the woman if there was a knife involved.

That said™, if we're talking about Denver, the town that wants to be the San Francisco of the Rocky Mountains, all bets are off. Commoners' lives aren't worth much there.

 

[JWarren]

ZeSpectre,

My friend. I get it, I assure you. The point I was attempting to highlight is that it is not necessary in many states to have "assault" or "personal endangerment" present in order to determine a good shoot.

NO ONE is suggesting that this wasn't assault-- in this case. But assault is NOT a necessary critieria to be present in many states.

So, yeah. I get it. I used your quote to highlight that point only.


But I should point this out:

I think the basic question is "would a reasonable person presume that the woman's life might be in danger"?

IS NOT the basic question depending on what jurisdiction you are in. That statement is not accurate.

-- John

 

[Organdonor]

Up here in the northeast, it probably wouldn't have been considered a good shoot by the government. They would point out that she had the ability to remove herself from the situation by letting go of the purse, and letting him escape.

Here's where it gets fun... what if her gun was in her purse?!?

 

[EOTechRulesAll]

I believe in lethal force to defend property, not to mention that the man might very well turn around and shoot her once he has totally taken control of the purse (no witnesses wanted), and what if she was stuck/tangled by the purse and he was going to drag her along until she hit her head and fell off dead?

There have been cases where carjackers push people out of the passenger seat and they remain tangled in the seat-belt, and get dragged to death as the perp floors the gas and tries to get away.

 

[CNYCacher]

NYS law would call it a good shoot.

4. A private person acting on his own account may use physical force,
other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the
extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to effect an
arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person whom he
reasonably believes to have committed an offense and who in fact has
committed such offense; and he may use deadly physical force for such
purpose when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to:
(a) Defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes
to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force; or
(b) Effect the arrest of a person who has committed murder,
manslaughter in the first degree, robbery, forcible rape or forcible
sodomy and who is in immediate flight therefrom.

emphasis mine

 

[EOTechRulesAll]

When a crook pulls a knife, don't give them a chance to take what they want and run, seize the initiative by going on the offensive. If you can draw your weapon and down them without getting a knife stuck in your gut, then do so... However, typically when somebody is within 20 feet of you, if you don't have the pistol already out, ideally even aimed at them, then you are in trouble. There are disarming techniques for hand to knife combat, but I doubt the average joe/jane on the street would know these techniques.

The bottom-line... Situational awareness... If you have this, you have a solid foundation for being able to spot and avoid or spot and prepare, when possibly threatening situations are emerging.

If you carry in a shoulder rig and see somebody coming up towards you, you can put your hand in your coat, make it seem you are holding your stomach, maybe because it is upset, and if they demand your wallet as they take out their knife, your hand comes out of the coat, gun firmly grasped in it, and you're putting a round or two or three into them.

If you aimlessly wander through life, oblivious to your surroundings, aside from running the risk of falling into an open manhole, you make yourself a much more attractive target for criminals and thugs in general.

 

[230RN]

Here's where it gets fun... what if her gun was in her purse?!?

I wasn't going to bring that up right away... I also wanted to know about the tactical implications of purse carry when it came up.

For right now, I just wondered about the "good shoot" aspects of it. He did not pull out the knife until after he'd dragged her ten or fifteen feet.

There are two camera angles that were used initially. The first one shows him dragging her toward the camera, and another one shows her being dragged away from that camera.

The next thing I was going to ask about was the behavior of the "witness" seen in the "dragging away" video.

But for now, assuming she shot him before he pulled outt he knife, would it have been a good shoot?

 

[JWarren]

But for now, assuming she shot him before he pulled outt he knife, would it have been a good shoot?

Again, it depends on your state.

In states where defense of property is allowed, whether or not he pulled anything is a moot point. It is allowed. Period.

I think you are trying to get to the question of whether the shot would be justified with no apparent weapon visible.

Well, anything CAN be argued in a court of law. It may work, and may not. Either way, you'll pay out the nose.

My personal view is that if you live in a state where defense of property is NOT allowed, your chances of lengthy, costly, and possibly life-altering legal proceedings is much higher. I'd probably say that it would NOT be a good shoot in those locations.

That's about as simple as you can get it.

It would probably be a good idea to qualify such threads like this to include terms such as "in a defense of property state," or in a "Duty to Retreat state," etc. etc. etc.

You simply CAN'T get a consensus when there is such variance in laws. People tend to have difficulty thinking outside of the parameters of their own existence.


-- John

 

[AirForceShooter]

here in Florida with the "stand your ground law" and plain common sense a good shoot. A bystander could shoot as well.

AFS

 

[Sistema1927]

IANAL, but I believe that it would be a good shoot in New Mexico, even though protection of property is not grounds for use of deadly force.

This looks like a clear-cut case of self-defense, at least to me, and probably to the local DA and any potential jurors.

 

[230RN]

CNYCacher quoted New York State Law:

...and he may use deadly physical force for such
purpose when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to:


(b) Effect the arrest of a person who has committed murder,
manslaughter in the first degree, robbery, forcible rape or forcible sodomy and who is in immediate flight therefrom.

Now, that's interesting, coming from NYS. I somehow thought that was only true in Texas.

EOTechRulesAll noted:

The bottom-line... Situational awareness... If you have this, you have a solid foundation for being able to spot and avoid or spot and prepare, when possibly threatening situations are emerging.

The tactic the bxxxxxd used was to run up from behind the victim and knock her down. I had heard of this "new" technique the bxxxxxds were using, and discovered that car and building windows, shadows, etc are your friends. Sometimes I can see someone behind me from the refection in my sunglasses.

Are we getting to the stage where you have to be in condition yellow all the time nowadays?

As noted above, I thought Texas was the only state which allowed deadly force in defense of property. I was more interested in the aspect of using deadly force while the jerk was hauling her along the ground, which is an assault, to my mind (besides being kidnaping, I suppose), but while he was attempting to "escape." (Assuming she had an accessible weapon at that point.)

 

[BruceRDucer]

In Colorado

In Colorado, the Make My Day Law applies, but only when you are in your own home. In her home, an assailant with a weapon intent to to BODILY harm can be shot. Property that is endangered is not specifically a justification.

Out on public property, I don't think you can simply draw and shoot.

If she had a CCW permit would that change somewhat?

She was assaulted, but lots of laws seem to protect the criminal from harm. go figure that out.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

Of course it would be a "good shoot." It would be one thing if he snatched the purse and ran off with it. It is quite another to use a deadly weapon and drag her down the street by the strap. Great bodily harm is already covered. It is only a small step from there to killing.

BTW, I think purses ought to have breakaway straps. The strap is too easily used to drag, throw to the ground or even as a garotte.

 

[offthepaper]

I think JWarren makes a valid point, what is a good shoot in Texas may not be a good shoot in Maryland. Sad, but true.

That being said, once he displays the knife, all bets are off. With a weapon displayed, the shoot becomes a lot more acceptable. Maybe not completely legal, but a lot easier to explain to the authorities.

 

[Hook686]

I think it depends upon the collective opinion of a jury, the intructions given the jury by the judge, whether the men on the jury got laid the night before, whether the lady on the jury that went shopping at lunch time got a new purse on sale, whether or not the mom on the jury has sick kids at home, or not, the price of gasoline that week in town and how far it is to communte to the courthouse ....

Tough question to answer ? Not really, if one believes their life is in immediate danger I do not think that is the time to analyze. It is time to act. The jury can decide later.

 

[yhtomit]

EotechRulesAll:

There have been cases where carjackers push people out of the passenger seat and they remain tangled in the seat-belt, and get dragged to death as the perp floors the gas and tries to get away.

You may be thinking specifically of the Pam Basu carjacking (mentioned briefly on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carjacking). That took place in the county in Maryland where I used to live, and I played hookie from high school one day, ended up seeing part of the trial. I wish she'd been armed at the time ... this being Maryland, and that now more than 15 years ago, my wish is worth precisely what you paid for it.

timothy

 

[MiddleAgedKen]

Whether the scenerio you described would be a good shoot or bad shoot depends HUGELY on what state you are in.

Think about what that says about what we have permitted to be done to us in some states.