Trouble in the Big D

[Beaux Nehr]

I think you did great, 95XL883. $30 is nothing compared to tragedy or legal fees.

I agree with the "be mean, look mean" advice you've been given here. I don't know how, but there's a switch in my head that I can flip that seems to make me go from friendly, life of the party guy to stinky, mean, large dangerous brown man. How you feel dictates how you're perceived.
There's a song by Tomahawk, "Aktion 13F14" with the lyric, "7) Feel superior to your opponent regardless of the latter size or evidence of strength."
Just thinking "I'm older, slower, weaker" probably has an affect on how dirt-bags perceive you. You've got to make yourself believe that you can take down Ares himself in order to protect your family!

You obviously kept them safe with your cunning, if not bravado, and I commend you for that.



I had something similar happen to me last summer. I'd gone to Dallas with my brother, his wife, his in-laws, and my parents on a mini-vacation.
It was about 9:30, and the plaza was empty.

An Africa-American gentleman in his 30s came out of nowhere and engaged us in conversation. My brother and I were about 10 feet away from the family, taking pictures. We started walking really quickly towards him, in a bit of an intimidating fashion. We're both over six feet tall, and this guy couldn't have been more than 5'7". He noticed, and he started to make his exit.

However, My brother's father in law, being a tourist from Russia, was extremely interested in what the guy had to say. :banghead: So, the guy stayed and explained all kinds of conspiracy theories.
I locked eyes with him the entire time, while my brother scanned the area for threats. The guy noticed what we were doing right away, and I think it kept us out of trouble that night.


My lessons learned?
Don't go anywhere downtown at night.
Be more assertive with stupid in-laws.

So... you paid him because you were afraid of him? He got mad so you tried to appease him with a reward? Doesn't make sense to me. I would have called his bluff. You never saw a weapon?

Well, I can't speak for the OP, but I'm not willing to bet on the safety of my family's life.
I applaud the OP for putting his family before his ego and the desire to look tough online.

 

[Kleanbore]

I think that the standard was met.

Should it have gone into the legal system, both sides would have presented evidence and arguments, and the triers of fact would have had to sort it out.

Everything in Post #77 (barring perhaps the conclusion) is true and accurate. The question is, could the OP have successfully argued that the statement "I have lots of friends" and asking for money had at that time yet raised the interaction to the level of committing a robbery--to where there was a reasonable fear of imminent bodily injury or death.

The fact of having handed over some money doesn't help much in answering that--the operative term is reasonable, and the individual's threshold for trepidation will have little if any influence (though it might in a couple of states).

Vagrants ask for and get money in major cities all over the country--sometimes with veiled threats, and sometimes with stories about sick children and so forth. In most states, drawing a firearm would not be justified absent a reasonable belief that death or serious bodily harm was imminent, but the threshold in Texas is lower.

So I think it is a worthwhile exercise to ponder whether a Dallas policemen, had one been on the scene undetected by the vagrant, could have reasonably charged the vagrant with robbery, or whether any charges would have been for some lesser crime, or whether he or she would have warned him and sent him on his way.

The question to be answered is exactly the same one we would have before us had an argument for justification been required.

I tend to think, from what was reported, that robbery had not yet occurred--that the threat, though serious, had not yet become one of imminent injury, requiring the use of force. But none of us know. Nor does our opinion matter.

The only thing about that that we know is that the OP did not draw.

Another thing we do not know is whether, in that locality, the authorities would have been likely to press the issue had the OP presented a weapon at that time. There is every possibility that they would not.

 

[Kristensdaddy]

No offense intended to the moderator, but how would you define this "transaction" if it wasn't a robbery? It certainly wasn't a consensual encounter. Was no crime committed?

 

[Beaux Nehr]

I don't really know how it can be articulated differently.
Each party made the choice (i.e. consented) to use their wits in order to achieve a desired outcome.

Did the OP desire to be elsewhere?
Sure. Yes. Undoubtedly.

Was he forced to remain with the scammer/ would be robber?
No. Absolutely not.

 

[Kleanbore]

posted by Kristensdaddy: No offense intended to the moderator, but how would you define this "transaction" if it wasn't a robbery? It certainly wasn't a consensual encounter. Was no crime committed?

Have you considered extortion?

The thing is, a robbery in Texas must involve a threat of imminent injury--immediate fear of physical danger. Extortion can involve threats that are less immediate.

 

[Kristensdaddy]

Extortion - Usually involves a threat for failure to comply. What would the bad guy have done, released compromising photos of the OP? In this case, what was the penalty for non-compliance? Only thing I can think of was violence.

 

[Kleanbore]

Extortion can involve the threat of violence.

That's not what would distinguish robbery from extortion here. The issue is one of immediacy.

 

[aeriedad]

The thing is, a robbery in Texas must involve a threat of imminent injury--immediate fear of physical danger. Extortion can involve threats that are less immediate.

By that standard, it's still a close call. Bad guy pointing a gun at me, might shoot any second, of course that's imminent danger. Bad guy and his friends suggesting they will harm me in 5 seconds if I don't pay them, well that might be imminent danger too. Wouldn't want to test it on a jury just to prove a point, but I think the OP's account leaves the matter open. That is, it wasn't clearly a robbery, but neither was it clearly not a robbery.

I don't make this point to quibble; there is a ST&T application: Bad things can happen fast. The main thing is to keep yourself and loved ones safe. Armchair quarterbacking will always find mistakes, but the OP paid a small price to survive an encounter that could have gone so much worse. Maybe he could have legally used deadly force, but it turned out to be unnecessary. On another day with a similar victim the bad guy could get violent. Maybe he was headed toward that when offered $30 and decided that was good enough, especially with a not-so-vulnerable victim. We'll never know...

 

[Kristensdaddy]

Just me, but a threat (even implied) of violence against me or more importantly, my family, will be met with a swift counter-measure.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by ariedad: By that standard [(a robbery in Texas must involve a threat of imminent injury--immediate fear of physical danger. Extortion can involve threats that are less immediate)], it's still a close call.

I don't know whether close call or unanswered question is a better way to put it. However, the OP did not react as one might have if it had been clear that a robbery was under way.

Wouldn't want to test it on a jury just to prove a point, but I think the OP's account leaves the matter open.

Well, a jury would have to decide it, and they would not do so without having heard a lot of testimony or without having been given instructions on the law regarding the charges at hand.

That is, it wasn't clearly a robbery, but neither was it clearly not a robbery.

Without seeing a layout and a description of who else was where at the time, I cannot say. Everything depends on indications of immediacy. Imminent means right now, not if someone else shows up in a few minutes.

Posted by Kristensdaddy: Just me, but a threat (even implied) of violence against me or more importantly, my family, will be met with a swift counter-measure.

Let's consider a different scenario. Someone threatens you over something in a parking lot. He raises his shirt and angrily exposes a firearm. It just might be appropriate to draw and fire immediately--the triers of fact would have to decide.

But suppose the angry man tells you that he's going to retrieve his gun from his car and shoot you. Does anyone really think that shooting him would be excusable?

 

[Kristensdaddy]

I should have added that "it appears he is immediately capable of carrying out the threat."

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Kristensdaddy: I should have added that "it appears he is immediately capable of carrying out the threat."

Well, that would take care of the issue of ability, but your words "even implied" would seem to put some doubt in the assessment of jeopardy.

 

[Kristensdaddy]

There's always my favorite response as taught by the police when I lived in NJ (and cant carry a gun), stick your finger down your throat and puke on his shoes. Seriously, that was their advice.

 

[Pistol Ranch]

The problem I see with the scenario presented by the OP was a threat was implied and HE GAVE THE PERP SOME CASH TO MAKE THE THREAT GO AWAY.
As I see it, by giving up his cash he ENCOURAGED the perp to "do it again".
IMO, the reason for obtaining a CCW is that you have made a decision to protect yourself and others.
The OP had the ability to make his problem go away, instead he opted to assuage the bad guy by rewarding bad behavior.
Rewarding bad behavior doesn't work on children and certainly has the same effect on bad grown-ups..

 

[Beaux Nehr]

The problem I see with the scenario presented by the OP was a threat was implied and HE GAVE THE PERP SOME CASH TO MAKE THE THREAT GO AWAY.
As I see it, by giving up his cash he ENCOURAGED the perp to "do it again".
IMO, the reason for obtaining a CCW is that you have made a decision to protect yourself and others.
The OP had the ability to make his problem go away, instead he opted to assuage the bad guy by rewarding bad behavior.
Rewarding bad behavior doesn't work on children and certainly has the same effect on bad grown-ups..

You're right.
He should've flashed his official "Bad Dude" badge, said, "Allow me to introduce you to the Grassy NOOO", and then pulled out his .600 nitro revolver to teach those bad guys that stealing is wrong.

 

[JohnKSa]

The question is, could the OP have successfully argued that the statement "I have lots of friends" and asking for money had at that time yet raised the interaction to the level of committing a robbery--to where there was a reasonable fear of imminent bodily injury or death.

After some thought, I wonder if it might have been wise for the OP to respond to the veiled threats by directly asking : "Are you threatening me?"

In a sitiuation like this one where the "nuisance" was apparently being at least somewhat careful about what he did and said, a direct question like that might turn the tide and put him on the defensive. At that point, I believe disengaging would likely be easier.

As far as whether the OP could have successfully argued the case as it stood, I think an elderly couple testifying that they were frightened that they were going to be attacked would be very compelling to a TX jury. I don't think that the outcome would be in question, but it would be expensive and time-consuming getting to that point.

As I see it, by giving up his cash he ENCOURAGED the perp to "do it again".

I don't care for that, in principle, either. However, I also understand that practical considerations sometimes outweigh principle. Resisting purely on principle and possibly ending up in a deadly force encounter that could have been prevented makes for an exciting movie plot, but in real life it's just likely to cause a lot of regret, legal problems and expense. To say nothing of the realization that not all deadly force encounters result in a win for the good guys.

 

[Kleanbore]

After some thought, I wonder if it might have been wise for the OP to respond to the veiled threats by directly asking : "Are you threatening me?"

Excellent suggestion.

Somenting to keep in mind.

 

[conw]

I'm not so sure that's really all that workable. MAYBE "stop threatening me."

Does it further your aims in assessing the situation or allow you to generate tangible justification for what you "know" to be true, if the unknown simply replies "no" when you ask if he is threatening you?

What's the follow up? You just spent valuable time, cognition, and effort. He didn't lose any momentum if he said "no." You didn't necessarily disrupt his thought process or change his mind. So... what is the follow up to asking that if he says "no" and does it justify incorporating that phrase into your strategy?

Is there really not a better generally-appropriate action or utterance that you could have utilized instead? (That's a rhetorical question really.)

I would go so far as to say short of intentionally disruptive strategies (which are too broad a topic for this thread) I can't think of a single non-rhetorical question that would be appropriate for attempting to discourage an unknown person from harassing or assaulting you.

 

[checkmyswag]

Its a really tricky issue. Someone threatens you? You supposed to wait to see if they mean it?

 

[Jimfern]

I'm sorry that Dallas was unkind to you. I think given the circumstances, it could have gone much worse than the loss of $30 and you shouldn't beat yourself up over it.

I hope your next trip to Texas is unblemished.

 

[Fremmer]

by asking that question, you are implicitly admitting that you were not sure if you were really being threatened. which isnt good if it goes from bad to worse.

 

[Byrd666]

Funny how this arises in any town of any historical value.

Glad ya'll are okay. Have been a resident of Dallas and surrounding for over thirty years, and have , unfortunately seen it fall from it's better days.

 

[JohnKSa]

I don't do a lot of sight-seeing in Dallas because I live nearby and have seen most of it in the normal course of my life. I've been in the DFW area for 30+ years.

Like any big city, there are parts that are safe and parts that are more questionable. I've been to Dealey Plaza a few times, and I didn't ever feel unsafe there, but I did notice that there is a concentration of "special" people that hang around that area. Of the various "touristy" parts of Dallas I've been too, if I made a list of the places you're likely to find yourself interacting with someone who's "not quite right", Dealey Plaza would be #1 or #2.

 

[conw]

by asking that question, you are implicitly admitting that you were not sure if you were really being threatened. which isnt good if it goes from bad to worse.

Yup. A better question to occupy dude's decision making would be to loudly ask...

"WHY are you threatening us?!"

Now he may:
Scan for witnesses
Pause to think to answer (allowing for movement or other action)
Deny he is threatening you in which case you can repeat yourself to further rob him of initiative (preferably while continuing to move)

More art than science.

 

[tipoc]

This seems an odd thread. 5 pages on an "incident" where nothing happened. According to the ops post, nothing happened. Well except that the op was hustled. He gave a stranger $30. for no apparent reason other than that he was scared of him and wanted the stranger to go away. The fear was mostly in his, the ops, mind. In other words the op was hustled. The stranger earned $30. for a few minutes work.

I grew up in a city where you learn to avoid this sort of thing before you reach puberty and where watching it is entertainment.

The op could think of no other way to avoid this dilemma than to look for his gun...unfortunate. 99.9% of the time when carrying a piece you will act as if you had no weapon on you at all, do that and you'll be allright.

tipoc