Shootcraps
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,007
jsalcedo said:
Although I don't think I've agreed with anything you have posted so far, this is an interesting point. Need to think about it.
(NC) Bystander shoots purse snatcher in legs
- Thread starter Drizzt
- Start date
- Status
Although I don't think I've agreed with anything you have posted so far, this is an interesting point. Need to think about it.
These types of discussions aren't of any use if everyone agrees.
Hopefully we can keep each other thinking.
I was curious about the fleeing looter thing because I'm sure there are folks who have chimed in on this being a bad shoot but in other instances advocated blowing away someone making off with their T.V set
NineseveN
member
I completely agree, it has to rise to level of violence, strong-arming, threatening or some other such abuse...unless you are in your home and castle doctrine applies. But you know, if I found someone stealing something out of my car and then I drew my gun and told them to hold, if they moved even a slight bit, I might shoot, I don't know, never had to face that issue. How the law is and how we all think things should be are different, but being illegal don't make it wrong necessarily.
Here's a police takedown of a purse snatcher in Texas:
http://www.big-boys.com/articles/igiveup.html
http://www.big-boys.com/articles/igiveup.html
CentralTexas
Member
I'm pretty sure
he is being charged for damage to a police vehicle where his head hit the bumper....
CT
he is being charged for damage to a police vehicle where his head hit the bumper....
CT
OT anyone know that dept.?
Looks like Harris Co constable.
Inline with the topic I would agree with Byron.
In addition if every purse theft ended with a bg getting his due instantly that crime statistic would suddenly disapear.
Looks like Harris Co constable.
Inline with the topic I would agree with Byron.
In addition if every purse theft ended with a bg getting his due instantly that crime statistic would suddenly disapear.
Michael Courtney
Member
1911Tuner said:
You're right, it doesn't, but is a fact that the jury will consider when considering whether the act was "reasonable."
Another poster claimed the purse snatching was a "misdemeanor" in order to make the shooting seem unreasonable. This certainly opens the door to pointing out that it was more likely a felony.
Michael Courtney
Zonamo
Member
I think it has more to do with laws being different in each state. What is lawful in Arizona could very well be criminal in New York, New Jersey, or Massachussets.
Lawdog brought up an excellent point on what Arizona's citizen arrest law really meant. It turned out that he was right about my misreading of the statute, and the Arizona law applied to purse-snatching only because Arizona defined that type of act as a felony.
But I expect there are states where purse-snatching is not only not considered a felony, but no authority is granted to a private person to make arrests whether they witness a misdemeanor or a felony.
I sure am glad I don't live in one of them.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Felony
Or not...I still ain't gonna throw down on a purse-snatcher in a public arena that's runnin' away from me.
Now...If he's runnin' toward me, I'll sure stick a leg out and trip him. Whoops!
Or not...I still ain't gonna throw down on a purse-snatcher in a public arena that's runnin' away from me.
Now...If he's runnin' toward me, I'll sure stick a leg out and trip him. Whoops!
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
I don't know, Tuner. If I had been there when that old lady had all the skin stripped off her forearm, the guy's running, and I have an angle on him so that any misses will hit, say, railroad ties on an embankment...I wouldn't be aiming for his legs.
The principle in the law which states that you can't use lethal force after the crime when the criminal is escaping is erroneous. It ignores the criminal's future victims. Victims who would not be harmed if the criminal's career ended right there.
Now I've been there and done that. I held fire under circumstances where I could have legally fired. With witnesses. That mercy resulted in his next victim being a friend of mine. I've lived with the knowledge that I could have prevented the assault on my friend for twenty-five years.
As far as I'm concerned a crime that involves touching another person without their consent should be considered neither a misdemeanor nor petty.
Now the book thing you mentioned: as I stated earlier, we have felonies that should not even be crimes and misdemeanors that should be felonies.
There a whole lot that I would remove from the penal code altogether. What was left would be dealt with by an iron fist in an iron glove.
The message would be something such as: If you don't want to killed for so-called petty crimes then the solution is simple: don't commit them.
The principle in the law which states that you can't use lethal force after the crime when the criminal is escaping is erroneous. It ignores the criminal's future victims. Victims who would not be harmed if the criminal's career ended right there.
Now I've been there and done that. I held fire under circumstances where I could have legally fired. With witnesses. That mercy resulted in his next victim being a friend of mine. I've lived with the knowledge that I could have prevented the assault on my friend for twenty-five years.
As far as I'm concerned a crime that involves touching another person without their consent should be considered neither a misdemeanor nor petty.
Now the book thing you mentioned: as I stated earlier, we have felonies that should not even be crimes and misdemeanors that should be felonies.
There a whole lot that I would remove from the penal code altogether. What was left would be dealt with by an iron fist in an iron glove.
The message would be something such as: If you don't want to killed for so-called petty crimes then the solution is simple: don't commit them.
NineseveN
member
+1
- Status