(NC) Bystander shoots purse snatcher in legs

[Shootcraps]

I think all of us know that this is not a legally justifed shooting,

It really depends on the state. I was looking over the Texas statutes and it is apparently legal to shoot an unarmed, fleeing robber. Hard to believe, but there it is. But this incident happend in NC, so we'll have to look at their statues. I wanna check Virginia's as well.

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).

Amen to that.

I would not, personally, like to see the gunman fry for this. How do you feel about that?

I wouldn't either. But, we take the responsibility of life and death when we strap on our gun. Part of that is knowing when it's appropriate to use it according to the laws of our state. If it's deemed a bad shoot and he fries, I'd feel bad about it but he should have been prepared.

 

[Jeff White]

Stand_Watie said;

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.

And what does Texas law say about using deadly force to recover another's private property as was the situation in the case being discussed? Wouldn't the person then be attempting to make a citizen's arrest and be bound by the same restrictions on the use of force that a peace officer had? Every citizen's arrest statute I've ever seen from any state only empowers the citizen to use the same force that a peace officer would be permitted.

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.

I never said that Garner v Tennesee prohibited deadly force. But I doubt that what could be a misdemeanor theft can be stretched into a forcible felony. We don't know if there was a struggle for the purse or not. Current Tennessee law is irrelevant to this discussion. Garner v Tennessee has reshaped the use if force laws nationwide. All of them should now meet the standards the Supreme Court set out.

Didorian said;

And Jeff; Don't be like the antis.

The antis will be much harder on you. They will make you out to be an uncivilized, uneducated hick, who has issues with his gender idenity and an example of the typical American gunowner. Proof positive that people don't need guns in our society. Just look at how we are portrayed in the media now. When we seriously suggest that shooting at a fleeing purse snatcher should be applauded and condoned, then we play right into their stereotype.

The shooter should have stood by and turned himself in and then taken the chance that the states attorney would have declined to prosecute to send a message (that exact thing happened here a couple years back when the owner of a trucking company shot two people fleeing his storage yard after stealing anhydrous ammonia, very similar situation, both suspects were injured and the states attorney simply ignored the fact the owner shot them to send a message to the meth cookers) or a grand jury would have no billed him.

When we promote and cheer an illegal use of force, then we play right into the hands of the antis. We're putting on our overalls, filling our moouths with chaw, marrying our first cousins and serving up hillbilly justice in their eyes and all those unflattering anti NRA cartoons look like the truth to those people for who the gun issue is off the radar.

The battle for concealed carry isn't over yet. In my state and a few others we still have a long way to go. And cheering an obvious illegal use of a firearm, isn't going to help us win that battle.

Jeff



Jeff

 

[loose cannon]

to this i say he got what he had coming,to harsh a punishment you say?say it after some purse snatching scum hurls your elderly aunt to the ground breaking several of her bones and shortening her lifespan by a unknown amount.

may this so called vigilantism happen alot more times.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

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...

Personally, I wouldn't shoot anyone unless a life was at steak. Only exception might be if someone broke into my house, but then I'd consider my life to be in jeapardy just by that very fact. I still don't feel sorry for the guy.

 

[Stand_Watie]

Stand_Watie said;



And what does Texas law say about using deadly force to recover another's private property as was the situation in the case being discussed? Wouldn't the person then be attempting to make a citizen's arrest and be bound by the same restrictions on the use of force that a peace officer had? Every citizen's arrest statute I've ever seen from any state only empowers the citizen to use the same force that a peace officer would be permitted.

§ 9.43. covers that. There is a requirement that a 'reasonable person' believe the third party requested help or was a member of a list of relations/live in/under care of etc.

I never said that Garner v Tennesee prohibited deadly force. But I doubt that what could be a misdemeanor theft can be stretched into a forcible felony.

It could be a misdemeanor theft in Illinois or it could be a forcible felony. NC defines larceny as a class h felony.

We don't know if there was a struggle for the purse or not. Current Tennessee law is irrelevant to this discussion. Garner v Tennessee has reshaped the use if force laws nationwide. All of them should now meet the standards the Supreme Court set out.

No we don't. And a struggle isn't nec. to meet the legal obligations of "force". Garner vs. Tennessee has reshaped use of force laws for people acting under the authority of the state nationwide- it is a restriction on search and seizure imposed by the 4th amendment as interpeted by Tennessee Garner decision, not a law in and of itself as to what private parties may or may not do.

 

[Shootcraps]

Ok, I'm dizzy from looking it up in the Virginia Code. It's not very well laid out nor is it easy to search.

If the object stolen from another person is worth less than $5, then it's petty larceny. Class 1 misdemeanor. Up to a year in jail and/or $2500 fine.

If it's worth more than $5, then it's grand larceny. And this one is more complicated:

"shall be guilty of grand larceny, punishable by imprisonment in a state correctional facility for not less than one nor more than twenty years or, in the discretion of the jury or court trying the case without a jury, be confined in jail for a period not exceeding twelve months or fined not more than $2,500, either or both. "

the latter punishment is for a Class 1 misdemeanor. The former is for of course a felony.

Still haven't found our definition of self-defense and when it's ok to use deadly force.

 

[Stand_Watie]

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

True, Texas definition of robbery is fairly narrow (although it still would have fallen under the theft/nightime statute) although if the woman reasonably feared death or injury until the completion of the immediate ecape it would have been.

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

While I think it unlikely that she didn't have at least one credit card or a state ID or the value of the items in the purse weren't greater than 50.00, I suppose it's entirely possible. And while it's true that most traffic offenses in Texas are class c misdemeanors, I suspect that very few Texas citizens including sentencing judges and juries would equate theft from a person as such. In fact I've seen a number of forms in Texas that specifically exclude traffic offenses when asking about criminal history.

 

[jsalcedo]

I wanted to make sure I wasn't too gung ho about the whole situation so I asked my wife to read the news blurb and she responded with "shoot the bastard".

Either we are both reasonable in our thinking or bloodthirsty misanthropes.

 

[1911Tuner]

Blurbs

I wanted to make sure I wasn't too gung ho about the whole situation so I asked my wife to read the news blurb and she responded with "shoot the bastard".

Either we are both reasonable in our thinking or bloodthirsty misanthropes.

Nah...You'll find that...as the Wehrmacht did when they tried to march into Stailigrad...the female is the deadlier if the species. Women will flat kill ya over their kids or their purses.

 

[Zonamo]

Arizona law in the case of the misdemeanor purse snatcher

Under Arizona law, a private person is justified in arresting someone who commits a misdemeanor purse snatching in their presence.

ARS § 13-3884 Arrest by private person

A private person may make an arrest:

1. When the person to be arrested has in his presence committed a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace, or a felony.

However, if you do choose to make an arrest, you are held to the same responsibilities in making the arrest as an officer of the law.

ARS § 13-3881. Arrest; how made; force and restraint

A. An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested, or by his submission to the custody of the person making the arrest.

B. No unnecessary or unreasonable force shall be used in making an arrest, and the person arrested shall not be subjected to any greater restraint than necessary for his detention.

You must also comply with additional obligations that apply specifically to a private person making an arrest

ARS § 13-3889. Method of arrest by private person

A private person when making an arrest shall inform the person to be arrested of the intention to arrest him and the cause of the arrest, unless he is then engaged in the commission of an offense, or is pursued immediately after its commission or after an escape, or flees or forcibly resists before the person making the arrest has opportunity so to inform him, or when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest.


The criminal has no right to self-defense only if your actions in attempting an arrest are lawfully performed.

ARS § 13-404. Justification; self-defense

A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.

And the use of deadly force is completely unjustified unless the criminal resists the lawful attempt at arrest with deadly force

ARS § 13-405. Justification; use of deadly physical force

A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another:

2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.

Using deadly force without justification is at a minimum attempted manslaughter, and potentially attempted second-degree murder:

ARS § 13-1103. Manslaughter; classification

A. A person commits manslaughter by:

1. Recklessly causing the death of another person;

ARS § 13-1104. Second degree murder; classification

A. A person commits second degree murder if without premeditation:

2. Knowing that his conduct will cause death or serious physical injury, such person causes the death of another person

All bravado aside, if you shoot a person who just committed a misdemeanor purse snatching, you better be facing resistance with deadly force to a lawfully performed attempted arrest, or you will be facing an empty bank account and a very long stint in striped pajamas.

 

[Shootcraps]

All bravado aside, if you shoot a person who just committed a misdemeanor purse snatching, you better be facing resistance with deadly force to a lawfully performed attempted arrest, or you will be facing an empty bank account and a very long stint in striped pajamas.

Xactly the point I was making. The force you use must be comparable to the threat of the attacker. I bet most states laws are similar to this, and not to Texas where you can shoot an unarmed, fleeing robber.

Thanks for the great research.

 

[LawDog]

misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace

Are you sure that theft is a breach of the peace? Around here, breach of the peace involves rioting; fighting; abusive, indecent or profane language in a public place; making an offensive gesture or display in a public place; lewd and indecent acts in a public place, or public threats.

Theft doesn't come under breach of the peace in Texas.

LawDog

 

[Zonamo]

Are you sure that theft is a breach of the peace?

No I am not sure. Here is what I found Googling:

In State v. Gortarez, 103 Ariz. 395 (1968), the Arizona Supreme Court stated: [Breach of the peace] occurs where a person maliciously and wilfully disturbs the peace or quiet of a neighborhood, family or person by loud or unusual noise; tumultuous or offensive conduct; threatening, traducing, quarreling, challenging to fight or fighting; or applying any violent, abusive or obscene epithets to another.

I personally find purse snatching "tumultuous and "offensive conduct." Don't you?

In any case, it appears that purse snatching is a class 6 felony under Arizona law, regardless of value:

ARS § 13-1802. Theft; classification

Theft of any property or services valued at less than two hundred fifty dollars is a class 1 misdemeanor, unless such property is taken from the person of another or is a firearm or is a dog taken for the purpose of dog fighting in violation of section 13-2910.01, in which case the theft is a class 6 felony.

So to revise my previous conclusion:

All bravado aside, if you shoot a person who just committed a class 6 felony purse snatching, you better be facing resistance with deadly force to a lawfully performed attempted arrest, or you will be facing an empty bank account and a very long stint in striped pajamas.

 

[NineseveN]

Wow, this is, after 6 pages, an amazing thread.

I honestly don't know what I'd do, part of me says "shoot", part of me says avoid the legal hassel. On the question of morals, if the only reason I would not shoot is to avoid the legal aspect, then I'm not so sure that's the moral choice...

 

[1911Tuner]

Conclusion

Good work Zonamo.

All of us would probably want to shoot a coward who preys mainly on unsuspecting women...and usually elderly women...just for being a cowardly jerk. Problem is, that being a coward and a jerk aren't capital offenses.
Not much chance that he'd draw the death penalty if he was caught and convicted...and just because the shooter took a deliberate leg shot to
try to avoid killing the guy...the femoral artery would pretty much nullify that attempt...in about 3 minutes. Manslaughter..... anyone?

 

[BluesBear]

The moment the firing pin moved toward the primer Deadly Force was being used.
Technically the moment the brain told the finger to pull the trigger. Deadly Force was being used.

And I don't recall reading anything about the shot being intentionally or deliberately directed towards any of the extremities.

He shot AT the fleeing purse snatcher.
That's Deady Force.
Period.

 

[jsalcedo]

I'm wondering if shooting looters during a natural disaster would fall under the catagory of shooting a fleeing person who is not a threat?

I've not heard anyone make that comparison.

 

[hso]

Bad shoot.

No immediate threat to life or limb.
Public place.
Running target on a street.

 

[Byron Quick]

Purse snatching just doesn't make the cut for that classification though.

Ever noticed the extremely thin and easily bruised skin on the arms of an elderly woman? Or someone who has to take steroids on a regular basis?


In the ED, I've cared for a lady who was the victim of a purse snatching. She had the strap of her purse over her shoulder. She was wearing a thin blouse. The force of the strap being snatched pulled skin off her shoulder over one half of her arm to the elbow. From the elbow down, it pulled all of the skin of her arm off to the wrist. She underwent multiple surgeries.


We've got felonies on the books that shouldn't even be crimes. We have misdemeanors that should be felonies. Don't shoot petty criminals? Nits make lice.

The public street deal is pertinent. However, for all we know, the thief was running down the sidewalk with a concrete wall directly in front of him. I can go out in the public street in front of my house. There's 240 degrees where I could not take a shot and know what was behind my target. On the other hand, there is a 120 degrees where I could identify my target and have an adequate backstop beyond it. If I shot a fleeing thief running in that 120 degrees, you couldn't tell that I had an adequate sight line nor an adequate backstop from a print article.

Bottom line: what do you think is going to run through purse snatcher's mind the next time he sees a target of opportunity? Do you think that he might just say,"Nah, I got shot the last time. This time I might just get hit in the head." Or,"Gee, I'd loved to rip that old ladies arm off while snatching her purse but I don't run so good any more after that idiot shot me for just trying to make a living."

Either is a good thing, in my view.

I'm not saying that I won't follow the law pertaining to so-called petty criminals. I am saying that the law is wrong and should be changed. I believe that theft, burglary, unprovoked assault, and such should be a damned dangerous business to engage in. It should be well known that you're risking your life each and every time. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Our society has tried various cures. They haven't really worked that well.

Personally, I think that businesses should have pedestals with spikes out front. After the would be robbers are killed...put their heads up on the pedestals as a warning for their compatriots. Have a cast made of the head to make a rubber replica to replace it after it begins to stink.

 

[BluesBear]

I salute you Mr Quick!

 

[Michael Courtney]

Furthermore, this'll be a BAD notch in the belts of every CCW permit-holder in NC and anywhere else this makes headlines:banghead: .

It has not yet been determined whether the shooter was a CCW permit holder.

Michael Courtney

 

[Michael Courtney]

One hero with a firearm, opens fire on a public street at a man fleeing from a misdemeanor theft isn't going to look good for our side. :banghead:

It's not obvious at all that this was not a felony theft. I don't know what constitutes felony theft in NC, but here in Ohio, any number of factors would constitute felony theft:

1) A blank check or credit card in the purse makes the theft a FELONY.
2) A pocket knife or other weapon in the purse makes the theft a FELONY.
3) Any prescription drug in the purse makes the theft a FELONY.
4) Any negotiable instrument (uncashed paycheck) makes the theft a FELONY.
5) Any injury or threat of injury to the owner makes the theft a FELONY.
6) Possession of any weapon during the theft makes the theft a FELONY.
7) The total value of the purse and items it contains exceeding $500 makes the theft a FELONY.

Most purse snatchings are going to have an element that constitutes a FELONY.

Michael Courtney

 

[1911Tuner]

Felons and other Crooks

I salute you Mr Quick!

Me too...but I still wouldn't shoot at a running purse snatcher on a public street.

Michael,

Several years ago, I got a notice from the public library in Winston-Salem, NC.
Seems that a book was WAY past due. The notice told me that I had 30 days to either return the book..buy the book...or face a Class H..IIRC... felony charge. Since I didn't have a clue where the book was, I cut'em a check. Better'n gettin' shot or doin' time at Club Fed I guess.

 

[NineseveN]

1911Tuner: Did you use force to check out the library book? If not, I doubt you'd have trouble from the pro-shooter crowd here, seems we're getting a little off-base.

 

[1911Tuner]

Felons

Maybe NineSeven...but I was tryin' to illustrate that the tag "Felony" doesn't automatically justify lethal force.