TexasCHLforum.com

Jumping Frog wrote:However, if that lady had $20 in her purse, I don't think ordinary civilians have the right to use force to detain someone for a misdemeanor. Can anyone chime in with what the law says about conditions for use of force?

It says for a third person's property, you have to meet all the requirements for your own property

PLUS
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

Here's the law, the whole law, and nothing but the law. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... 9.htm#9.43" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Barbi Q wrote:

HotLeadSolutions wrote:2. Having criminal charges filed against you for excessive use of force. Again...Really? Justified use of force is spelled out pretty clearly in TX

You're right but Mr.ViperBoa didn't say what time of day the theft happened.

I don't think that would matter. I believe purse snatching is robbery. There is no "nighttime" restriction on robbery.

Pawpaw wrote:

Barbi Q wrote:

HotLeadSolutions wrote:2. Having criminal charges filed against you for excessive use of force. Again...Really? Justified use of force is spelled out pretty clearly in TX

You're right but Mr.ViperBoa didn't say what time of day the theft happened.

I don't think that would matter. I believe purse snatching is robbery. There is no "nighttime" restriction on robbery.

I believe that you are correct.

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

Yall are focusing on details of theft vs. robbery and missing the more important point that the crime had ALREADY happened. There was no longer imminent danger to OP or the purse snatch victim and using deadly force to recover property on behalf of third person in this case is a very slippery slope.

Think of the situation like this: would you intervene if you were NOT carrying? Because unless the criminal commits additional crimes (I.e. you block the purse thief's exit and he escalates, pulling a knife on you) then you're most likely not justified to draw your weapon on him in this case.

austinrealtor wrote:Yall are focusing on details of theft vs. robbery and missing the more important point that the crime had ALREADY happened. There was no longer imminent danger to OP or the purse snatch victim and using deadly force to recover property on behalf of third person in this case is a very slippery slope.

Think of the situation like this: would you intervene if you were NOT carrying? Because unless the criminal commits additional crimes (I.e. you block the purse thief's exit and he escalates, pulling a knife on you) then you're most likely not justified to draw your weapon on him in this case.

Like AR said, you are focusing on the wrong issue. I did not say I would immediately draw down on the guy. I said I would pursue and try to help. As far as having the "Right to Pursue" you do not have to be a LEO to pursue and help, the law says:


Texas Code of Criminal Procedure
Art. 14.01. [212] [259] [247] OFFENSE WITHIN VIEW.
(a) A peace officer or any other person, may, without a warrant,
arrest an offender when the offense is committed in his presence
or within his view, if the offense is one classed as a felony or as an offense against the public peace.

That law seems pretty broad. I would say that purse snatching would fall under that category (offense against the public peace) or even a felony if the purse was one of the $600.00 to $1000.00 varieties. Not real sure I would even want to make a citizens arrest, I would be happy to just beat the snot out of the guy, roll the dice and see what happens legally. What is he going to say? "Hi, 911?? I stole a ladies purse, and this guy chased me down...beat my butt and now I need the police..." I don't see that call going well.

We all have to make our own decisions. I am aware of the consequences I may face. Today he is snatching purses, tomorrow he will be holding up people at gun point in some parking lot somewhere. I would rather stop it now before the next victim is my wife. I just can't sit by and watch things like that happen. It is not in my wiring. The only thing that has to happen for evil to prosper, is for good people to do nothing.

I think that I would have donned my CHL Cape and pursued the evildoer. When close enough to avoid collateral damage, I would have shot him in the back of the head seven times with my eargesplitten loudenboomer .45 acp.

[quote="HotLeadSolutions

We all have to make our own decisions. I am aware of the consequences I may face. Today he is snatching purses, tomorrow he will be holding up people at gun point in some parking lot somewhere. I would rather stop it now before the next victim is my wife. I just can't sit by and watch things like that happen. It is not in my wiring. The only thing that has to happen for evil to prosper, is for good people to do nothing.[/quote]

I agree. I probably would not chase somebody over 50 yd.(under the purse snatching scenario described),
BUT if I were close, and was able to stop a thief in his tracks. I would.
I wouldn't have to consult the Penal Code, don a hero cape of any kind, automatically stick my CHL on my forehead while simultaneously
drawing my firearm as a first response etc etc etc. Just give assistance to a woman in need. Maybe your wife, mother, daughter, sister.
Good grief. If I ever duck and cover, and I was able to assist..... I'd move up north (and that thought makes me sick).

...once again, we have a serious discussion about a serious topic, and someone stoops to belittle and ridicule instead of giving his answer or simply moving on...just because one person's choice is to do nothing, it doesn't make those who feel that they must do something either wrong or stupid...a cheap put-down is just that...and benefits noone...I'm glad to know that there are those who will respond to a call for help...and I respect the opinion of those who feel they shouldn't...their reasons are their own...

Unless you are in a lot better shape than I am, the odds of chasing down a "fine young man" are slim to none. I understand these guys post pretty good 40 times carrying 42" TV's.

Unless I had the jump on the guy and was able to blind side him, I would be a good witness and make sure the lady was ok and leave the track stuff to some young stud who wants to impress his girl friend.

(I am an old stud who impresses his wife by doing the laundry.)

Jumping Frog wrote:

Keith B wrote:You would NOT have the legal right to pursue and use deadly force once the threat to the woman was gone. It would become a gray area REAL quick for you and the lines of justified pulling your gun would be fuzzy. So, you could end up having to defend yourself against an unjustified use of the gun and trying to scramble to prove what you did was legal.

I forget the various conditions spelled out in the CHL course regarding the use of ordinary force (i.e., not deadly force). I recall that holding someone at gunpoint is ordinary force, not deadly force.
However, if that lady had $20 in her purse, I don't think ordinary civilians have the right to use force to detain someone for a misdemeanor. Can anyone chime in with what the law says about conditions for use of force?

I don't recall ever hearing anything about holding someone at gunpoint being defined as "ordinary" force.

Oldgringo wrote:I think that I would have donned my CHL Cape and pursued the evildoer. When close enough to avoid collateral damage, I would have shot him in the back of the head seven times with my eargesplitten loudenboomer .45 acp.

On second thought, maybe not. Frankly my dears. I dunno' what I'd do...either.

Purplehood wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:

Keith B wrote:You would NOT have the legal right to pursue and use deadly force once the threat to the woman was gone. It would become a gray area REAL quick for you and the lines of justified pulling your gun would be fuzzy. So, you could end up having to defend yourself against an unjustified use of the gun and trying to scramble to prove what you did was legal.

I forget the various conditions spelled out in the CHL course regarding the use of ordinary force (i.e., not deadly force). I recall that holding someone at gunpoint is ordinary force, not deadly force.
However, if that lady had $20 in her purse, I don't think ordinary civilians have the right to use force to detain someone for a misdemeanor. Can anyone chime in with what the law says about conditions for use of force?

I don't recall ever hearing anything about holding someone at gunpoint being defined as "ordinary" force.

Here:

Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

Oldgringo wrote:I think that I would have donned my CHL Cape and pursued the evildoer. When close enough to avoid collateral damage, I would have shot him in the back of the head seven times with my eargesplitten loudenboomer .45 acp.

I laughed