Texas CCW Question

[ClangClang]

Armed citizen intervenes in a purse snatching, draws pistol

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/04/134172-armed-good-samaritan-stops-purse-snatching-next-even-better/

Has anyone else seen this story yet? Luckily everything ended well, but based on the video footage and pictures of the incident, it seems like it was a terrible idea from start to finish.

My initial reaction to the article and video:

• Draw your weapon only in the face of imminent severe bodily harm or death. A purse snatching constitutes neither. (Although, the victim was being seemingly "dragged" across the lot - perhaps this may qualify? Only a jury can decide).
• Bystander was standing WAY too close to the perpetrators, with no backup of any sort. If he was distracted for even a moment, both perps could have up and rushed him before he knew what was happening.
• Holding them at gunpoint could be construed as kidnapping or other felony, depending on the State

Anything else?

 

[Schwing]

I know some will disagree with this but I would not have done that. Personally, I don't think I would draw in any situation where my life or life of a family member was not in danger. To me, my wallet isn't worth possible bloodshed.

 

[Telekinesis]

Yep, I'd say it's a bad idea to draw in a situation like that unless you have reason to believe that you or someone else is in grave danger.

Holding them at gunpoint could be construed as kidnapping or other felony, depending on the State

Some (many?) states have provisions for a "citizens arrest" in cases of felonies, so it may not have been completely unlawful. However there are a host of problems in executing a citizens arrest, one of which is that unlike the police, a private individual does not have qualified immunity, which means you are liable criminally and civily for anything you do wrong. So in short unless it's some extrordinary circumstance, it's best to just let them go.

 

[private snowball]

Watched this video today and I am struggling to understand the legality of what the Good Samaritan did. It looks like a purse snatching occurred, the victim tried stopping the perps and then an armed citizen intervened.

I am having a hard time seeing how this rises to the burden of imminent death or grave bodily injury required to produce a firearm. I have a Florida CCW and this is the exact thing you are told NOT to do. If she were in the process or being robbed (or beaten, raped etc) you can draw a weapon and intervene. I am under the impression that you can't, after the fact, draw a firearm and take someone into custody like in this news report.

In Florida I think you would get three years for brandishing. What do you guys think?

http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/crime/2014/04/30/armed-good-samaritan-purse-snatching-rescue/8504357/

 

[tarosean]

TX Law allows for the use of force to protect 3rd persons property.

 

[Field Tester]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=751092

I think this is already being discussed here.

 

[private snowball]

Thanks Field Tester. If a mod wants to lock this thread feel free. I am looking forward to more opinions from the board.

 

[private snowball]

Schwing- I agree 99%. The only thing I differ on is changing "family member" to "any innocent human life".

 

[gym]

My opinion without re reading the Fl laws is that now, Brandishing has been more or less diminished as a crime, unless you are threatening a person during an argument or referring to the fact that you are armed to bully your way through a situation, but the old "I see a gun" thing has been set aside in recent bills that were recently voted on, many of which I posted. If someone sees a gun on you because the wind blew your shirt it's no longer a big deal. Also you have the right to step in if a loved one or total stranger is being threatened with deadly physical harm.
I don't know if this qualifies, but If he thought she was in mortal danger, he's probably ok.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Draw your weapon only in the face of imminent severe bodily harm or death. A purse snatching constitutes neither. (Although, the victim was being seemingly "dragged" across the lot - perhaps this may qualify? Only a jury can decide).

I would have not drawn either, but he was legally in the right to do so. No need for a jury to decide. There was imminent danger. A purse snatching certainly counts when the intended victim is still fighting with the purse snatcher.

Bystander was standing WAY too close to the perpetrators, with no backup of any sort. If he was distracted for even a moment, both perps could have up and rushed him before he knew what was happening.

The good sam wasn't a bystander. Bystanders are people who stand by and watch what is going on. He was a participant or player in the event. Too close? Maybe, maybe not. Given how the guys on the ground were splayed, they weren't getting up too fast and he did a good job of watching them and keeping situational awareness.

Holding them at gunpoint could be construed as kidnapping or other felony, depending on the State

Nope, no more so than if a cop does it. Notice the good sam wasn't arrested.

 

[private snowball]

I just have watched the video a few times and don't see the mortal danger. It actually looks like she is holding on to her bag refusing to let go as opposed to being dragged. Either way by the time the Good Samaritan approaches she is a few feet away from the car just standing there. Had she really felt like she was in danger she would have been fleeing.

Sort of hard to claim imminent threat when a few people are just standing around the car not making any attempt to flee. I wasn't there so I can speak with authority on the topic.

 

[burrhead]

private snowball, maybe you should read tarosean's post again. There doesn't have to be an imminent threat under Texas law. This didn't happen in Florida.

 

[private snowball]

There was imminent danger. A purse snatching certainly counts when the intended victim is still fighting with the purse snatcher.

I am not seeing that video the same way. When the GS shows up with a firearm the victim is standing there with what appears to be 3 other people making no attempt to flee. Had there been imminent danger one would think they would have tried to flee. The GS runs up with a pistol drawn and points it through the window at the passenger. Go to the 50 second mark on the video link above.

I was not there and I am a CCW myself. I just don't, based on the video, believe he should have drawn a weapon and escalated the situation.

 

[private snowball]

I do appreciate the fact that it happened in Texas. At the point the GS produces a firearm he is no longer protecting anyone's property. The property has already (albeit illegally) transferred possession. I am fairly certain you cannot use a firearm to retrieve someone else's property which is what actually occurred. They already had the purse so it was no longer about protecting anything.

 

[JRH6856]

When it comes to property crimes, and felonies in progress, Texas law differs from the other 49 states & DC regarding both the threat and use of deadly force. Critical to this incident is the fact that the weapon was not discharged. Therefore, there was no use of deadly forced involved under Texas law. Also, under Texas law, threat of deadly force is not considered a use of deadly force, it is categorized as use of force. And force may be used to stop a theft or felony in progess and prevent the escape of the perps.

In any other state, he may have gone to jail. In Texas, he gets a pat on the back because he did nothing illegal.

 

[gym]

It still goes to and always does, "state of mind", if he still felt threatened or felt she was in mortal danger, he's not going to be prosecuted, IMO

 

[9mmepiphany]

My initial reaction to the article and video:

[*]Draw your weapon only in the face of imminent severe bodily harm or death. A purse snatching constitutes neither. (Although, the victim was being seemingly "dragged" across the lot - perhaps this may qualify? Only a jury can decide).

While I'm sure TX laws differ a bit from that in CA.
1. Purse snatching is a felony here (Robbery) and dragging someone with a vehicle is considered "imminent severe bodily harm"

[*]Bystander was standing WAY too close to the perpetrators, with no backup of any sort. If he was distracted for even a moment, both perps could have up and rushed him before he knew what was happening.

I'm pretty sure it's something he learned from TV (makes framing the shot easier; as demonstrated by the video being shot).

However, I would point out that it is more likely, and faster, to run away than to turn on the gunman.

Holding someone at gunpoint is inherently dangerous

[*]Holding them at gunpoint could be construed as kidnapping or other felony, depending on the State

Part of the definition of kidnapping is usually the inclusion of the word "illegally". So it would depend on if this was a legal detention.

Surprisingly, a more important point might be having them out in the sun on hot blacktop

 

[9mmepiphany]

Rather than retype and have divided answers, I'm going to merge these two threads

 

[private snowball]

From the video I don't believe she was being dragged. I believe, IMHO, that she simply won't let go of the purse and finally relents.

In fact in this news piece (originally posted by ClangClang) the store keeper says "while they are reversing, the lady is holding onto her purse chasing them all the way to the middle."

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Right, PS, she could have let go. That does not mean that she has to let go and relinquish her property. As such, she was being dragged.

The GS acted within accord of Texas law. That is all that is relevant to this situation in terms of legality of his actions.

 

[private snowball]

Right, PS, she could have let go. That does not mean that she has to let go and relinquish her property. As such, she was being dragged.

Just to play devil's advocate, I made a point above above the provision in Texas law about protection of property. He essentially pulled a gun on two people under the guise of requiring a 3rd party's property. No one was in danger and the property had already transferred thus it could not be protected.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Critical to this incident is the fact that the weapon was not discharged. Therefore, there was no use of deadly forced involved under Texas law

Wrong.

And force may be used to stop a theft or felony in progess and prevent the escape of the perps.

Only theft during the night. But that's irrelevant, because this wasn't a theft. A theft in which force is used or threatened is a robbery. And Robbery is on the list of offenses that lethal force can be used to respond to.

The gun owner acted within the bounds of Texas law in employing lethal force to stop the ongoing commission of a Robbery.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

I made a point above above the provision in Texas law about protection of property.

Which it turns out was 100% irrelevant because he was acting in response to an ongoing robbery.

 

[private snowball]

Which it turns out was 100% irrelevant because he was acting in response to an ongoing robbery.

Was there not a less caustic way to express disagreement? Just curious.

Anyway.....One could argue that it was not an ongoing Robbery since they were leaving the scene.

 

[JRH6856]

Originally Posted by JRH6856
And force may be used to stop a theft or felony in progess and prevent the escape of the perps.

Only theft during the night. But that's irrelevant, because this wasn't a theft. A theft in which force is used or threatened is a robbery. And Robbery is on the list of offenses that lethal force can be used to respond to.

Force may be used at any time to stop a felony or theft in progress. Deadly force may only be used at night in certain circumstance. Threat of deadly force is not use of deadly force, it is use of force.