Barely missed a Convenience Store Robbery

[Katygunnut]

If someone claims to have a weapon, I am taking them at their word. A chl is not a baton license but I am not giving a threat the upper hand if i can help it and if i allowed an innocent person to be murdered when I was in a position of advantage, I would have a very difficult time living with myself.

I would greatly prefer to not have to draw anytime I can help it but if I feel it absolutely necessary, I don't want to draw second.

Now, what would I have done had I been in this exact situation? I can't honestly say for sure because i wasn't there. There are always variables.

Before I had my CHL, I was at an incident where a thug was waving around a pistol only a few feet away. Honestly, I probably would not have handled the situation any differently if I had been armed. I actually felt somewhat confident that he wasn't going to use it as strange and foolish as that sounds and he was holding his little girl at the time. Shooting at someone using a child for a shield is not something I want any part of.

What kind of low life would bring his little child to an armed robbery?

I can top that.

My ex-wife was a bank teller after she got out of high school. She was working the drive through window when a man pulled up in his car and put a gun to the head of a baby, saying that he was going to kill the kid if she didn't give him all the money in her til. She hit the silent alarm, and gave him the dye pack and a bunch of ones. The caught the guy shortly after, and yes, it was really his kid.

Needless to say, she changed jobs shortly after that incident.

[Katygunnut]

Good discussion. A lot depends on where I am in relation to the bad guy, how many other people are in the store, might there be an undetected accomplice covering the bad guy's back, can I unholster and keep the gun at my side undetected, is the threat escalating or is the bad guy picking up the money and leaving without producing his alleged gun. There is no easy answer to less than a dynamic situation.

Alot depends on where I am in relation to the bad guy and also who else is in the store. If there is a Mom with her 2 kids standing anywhere near me or the bad guy, then a gunfight may well have even more tragic consequences than normal.

My first choice would almost always be to get to cover (or at least concealment) without being seen by the bad guy. If that's not possible, then it would really depend on the exact tactical situation as well as my "read" of the perp. I would only resort to a gun fight if there were no better options available.

[VMI77]

2. You're in the perennial quandary of the CHL holder: whether to draw now, in response to a perceived potential threat, or wait until the BG has his gun out and pointed at you with his finger on the trigger, in which case you don't have time to draw and survive.

When a situation has developed enough that one has clear justification for the use of deadly force -- and the commission of a robbery qualifies -- then there is no quandary in my mind. One is legally justified in drawing and "intentional failure to conceal" is no longer a concern.

Now tactically, one may wish to find the best moment to draw. For example, if under observation and waiting for the BG to look away or be distracted. But if I am in the back of the store and the BG is in the front facing the clerk instead of me, then I am drawing for sure. May or may not fire (yet), depending upon circumstances.

Unless there is some specific reason to do otherwise, failing to either flee or otherwise act decisively may get you killed.

BG: "Gimme all the cash in the register or I'll shoot you with this gun I have here in my pocket."
You: "Excuse me Sir, but can you SHOW me that gun? I need to be 100% certain that you actually have a gun so I'm more comfortable using my gun to shoot you in self defense. "

or ... Hard to decide..

If it was just either/or, live/die, and if the law worked the way it should, it would be a simple decision. But say you act decisively and it turns out the robber doesn't have a gun and was 16 years old? While you may be justified, and shouldn't but may or may not face criminal charges, you're also at risking of losing just about everything you have in a lawsuit --and that's for doing the right thing....if a round passes through the bad guy and hits a bystander, or you miss and hit a bystander, you'll be in a world of trouble. If he's got a confederate standing behind you in the store you may end up dead. The decision to draw has great risks beyond whether or not the BG really has a gun under his shirt.

I think we can and should consider all the angles ahead of ever being involved in such a situation, and we should be mentally prepared in advance to do the right but difficult thing, but none of us can really say in advance what we'd do: it all depends on the specific circumstances at the moment of decision.

[RoyGBiv]

2. You're in the perennial quandary of the CHL holder: whether to draw now, in response to a perceived potential threat, or wait until the BG has his gun out and pointed at you with his finger on the trigger, in which case you don't have time to draw and survive.

When a situation has developed enough that one has clear justification for the use of deadly force -- and the commission of a robbery qualifies -- then there is no quandary in my mind. One is legally justified in drawing and "intentional failure to conceal" is no longer a concern.

Now tactically, one may wish to find the best moment to draw. For example, if under observation and waiting for the BG to look away or be distracted. But if I am in the back of the store and the BG is in the front facing the clerk instead of me, then I am drawing for sure. May or may not fire (yet), depending upon circumstances.

Unless there is some specific reason to do otherwise, failing to either flee or otherwise act decisively may get you killed.

BG: "Gimme all the cash in the register or I'll shoot you with this gun I have here in my pocket."
You: "Excuse me Sir, but can you SHOW me that gun? I need to be 100% certain that you actually have a gun so I'm more comfortable using my gun to shoot you in self defense. "

or ... Hard to decide..

If it was just either/or, live/die, and if the law worked the way it should, it would be a simple decision. But say you act decisively and it turns out the robber doesn't have a gun and was 16 years old? While you may be justified, and shouldn't but may or may not face criminal charges, you're also at risking of losing just about everything you have in a lawsuit --and that's for doing the right thing....if a round passes through the bad guy and hits a bystander, or you miss and hit a bystander, you'll be in a world of trouble. If he's got a confederate standing behind you in the store you may end up dead. The decision to draw has great risks beyond whether or not the BG really has a gun under his shirt.

I think we can and should consider all the angles ahead of ever being involved in such a situation, and we should be mentally prepared in advance to do the right but difficult thing, but none of us can really say in advance what we'd do: it all depends on the specific circumstances at the moment of decision.

I never tried to imply that the situation REQUIRED you to draw your weapon. I DID intend to say that the situation requires action. Flee, cover, draw.. whatever your tactical mind sees as appropriate given the exact circumstances at hand. I can tell you with some conviction that standing in place awaiting confirmation that the gun actually exists equates to wasting valuable time. That seemed to be the consensus in some of the earlier posts.. "Gather more information before taking action"... Potentially deadly.

Of course YMMV.

[snatchel]

ish.

I agree that you shouldn't just stand there. Violence of action. You should immediately be on your toes and in action, whatever you decide. Standing and watching with a blank stare = target.

[VMI77]

2. You're in the perennial quandary of the CHL holder: whether to draw now, in response to a perceived potential threat, or wait until the BG has his gun out and pointed at you with his finger on the trigger, in which case you don't have time to draw and survive.

When a situation has developed enough that one has clear justification for the use of deadly force -- and the commission of a robbery qualifies -- then there is no quandary in my mind. One is legally justified in drawing and "intentional failure to conceal" is no longer a concern.

Now tactically, one may wish to find the best moment to draw. For example, if under observation and waiting for the BG to look away or be distracted. But if I am in the back of the store and the BG is in the front facing the clerk instead of me, then I am drawing for sure. May or may not fire (yet), depending upon circumstances.

Unless there is some specific reason to do otherwise, failing to either flee or otherwise act decisively may get you killed.

BG: "Gimme all the cash in the register or I'll shoot you with this gun I have here in my pocket."
You: "Excuse me Sir, but can you SHOW me that gun? I need to be 100% certain that you actually have a gun so I'm more comfortable using my gun to shoot you in self defense. "

or ... Hard to decide..

If it was just either/or, live/die, and if the law worked the way it should, it would be a simple decision. But say you act decisively and it turns out the robber doesn't have a gun and was 16 years old? While you may be justified, and shouldn't but may or may not face criminal charges, you're also at risking of losing just about everything you have in a lawsuit --and that's for doing the right thing....if a round passes through the bad guy and hits a bystander, or you miss and hit a bystander, you'll be in a world of trouble. If he's got a confederate standing behind you in the store you may end up dead. The decision to draw has great risks beyond whether or not the BG really has a gun under his shirt.

I think we can and should consider all the angles ahead of ever being involved in such a situation, and we should be mentally prepared in advance to do the right but difficult thing, but none of us can really say in advance what we'd do: it all depends on the specific circumstances at the moment of decision.

I never tried to imply that the situation REQUIRED you to draw your weapon. I DID intend to say that the situation requires action. Flee, cover, draw.. whatever your tactical mind sees as appropriate given the exact circumstances at hand. I can tell you with some conviction that standing in place awaiting confirmation that the gun actually exists equates to wasting valuable time. That seemed to be the consensus in some of the earlier posts.. "Gather more information before taking action"... Potentially deadly.

Of course YMMV.

I didn't interpret your post as suggesting drawing was required --I was just pointing out that every choice has risks and that some of those risks aren't as clearly defined as being shot or not being shot.

[C-dub]

So, the robbery changes the requirements for the use of deadly force? Because I keep thinking in the back of my head that someone threatening me with words is not enough to meet the requirements for the use of deadly force or any force at all.

[RoyGBiv]

So, the robbery changes the requirements for the use of deadly force? Because I keep thinking in the back of my head that someone threatening me with words is not enough to meet the requirements for the use of deadly force or any force at all.

I am not a lawyer. This is my OPINION, not legal advice.

PC §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.

My interpretation: You can draw and threaten, legally. No need to wait for perps weapon to become visible. I'm not suggesting that's what I would do, only that 9.04 would find such action "Justifiable". See 9.31 below for justification for use of "force".

PC §9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;
(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and
(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

My interpretation: Not only is the perp threatening violence, he is IN THE ACT of committing a felony. Would a "reasonable" person believe that the perp presents a threat of imminent harm?

PC §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; <snip>

PC §9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B)

My Interpretation: is any interpretation necessary?

PC §9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH.
(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the other's life in an emergency

My interpretation: Not only is the perp threatening violence, he is IN THE ACT of committing a felony. Would a "reasonable" person believe that the perp presents a threat of imminent harm?

Sec. 29.02. ROBBERY.
(a) A person commits an offense if, in the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.

Sec. 29.03. AGGRAVATED ROBBERY.
(a) A person commits an offense if he commits robbery as defined in Section 29.02, and he:
(1) causes serious bodily injury to another;
(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon; or <snip>

Sec 31.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:<snip>
(5) "Property" means:
(A) real property;
(B) tangible or intangible personal property including anything severed from land; or
(C) a document, including money, that represents or embodies anything of value.

Sec. 31.03. THEFT.
(a) A person commits an offense if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property.
(b) Appropriation of property is unlawful if:
(1) it is without the owner's effective consent;<snip>

Seems to me this perp is on the border between Robbery and Aggravated Robbery. Not sure what case law says about declaring you have a gun and showing off a bulge in your hoodie pocket. Is that "exhibiting".?

I am not a lawyer. This is my OPINION, not legal advice.

[jmra]

The OP said a LEO walked into the store to get a cup of coffee and arrested the guy. Lets back up and place a CHL into the mix. CHL hears hoodie boy say I have a gun. CHL pulls gun on hoodie boy. LEO walks in for his cup of coffee...

[Jumping Frog]

So, the robbery changes the requirements for the use of deadly force? Because I keep thinking in the back of my head that someone threatening me with words is not enough to meet the requirements for the use of deadly force or any force at all.

Yes, the fact that it is a robbery is huge.

When I took my CHL training from Mr. Cotton, he told the class to memorize the following crimes: aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

RoyGBiv already quoted PC §9.32(a). However there is also very key language in PC §9.32(b), which states in part:

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable . . . .

This key to recognize. If one of those listed crimes is being committed, it changes the burden of proof.

Under normal circumstances, a self defense claim requires the defendant to prove he "reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary". The burden of proof is on the defendant.

However, if the conditions in PC §9.32(b) are met, then the burden of proof changes because your belief that using deadly force was immediately necessary is presumed reasonable. Now the prosecutor has to prove that even though the statute says you were presumed to be justified, you didn't really believe it was necessary.

So it is important to all of us to recognize the conditions specified in PC §9.32(b):

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B); (Note: which is aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.)

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

Further, the fact that it is a robbery is important because since deadly force is clearly justified, then you can feel free to draw without worrying about getting charged for intentional failure to conceal. In other cases where self defense is not so clearly justified, or if there is a blurry line between force or deadly force being justified, there is always a worry that drawing too early can lead to being charged for failure to conceal.

[magillapd]

3 nights ago I was driving to the gas station to get gas. I pay cash, so I always go in. When I pulled into parking lot, there was 7 police cars in parking lot and they were going in and out of store. I don't know what was going on, so rather then deal with it, I pulled out and went to another gas station just down the road.

As I pulled up to the light right before the 2nd gas station, 4 patrol cars flew into the lot and hurried inside.

I just turned around and went home. Got gas the next day.

Avoidance is sometimes the best thing.