Almost Robbed At Walmart !!!

[Abraham]

I find it curious that some here seem to think this situation is about a cell phone: It's NOT about a cell phone - It's about assault and it potentially lethal consequences.

We're NOT debating the merits of protecting our property with lethal force - We're discussing defending our lives when assaulted.

I wonder why that's so clear for some of us and others simply don't get it?

If you're attacked without provocation, irrespective of why - you better get a handle on understanding the overall situation pronto and respond appropriately or you may very well end up being another crime statistic - one in his grave.

[Oldgringo]

The Oldgringo wrote:

...sometimes you just gotta' do what you gotta' do...

The Oldgringo also recalls the timely and true message from that Texas CHL sage, 03lightningrocks who reminded us that 'a CHL is not a Batman license'.

I never said it was. In fact, I am extremely circumspect in my behavior, and I already go out of my way to avoid areas where trouble has a higher likelihood of finding me. OTH, I refuse to become a complete stay-at-home recluse, and one does need to make the odd trip to the market now and then. Walmart is a market. See the thread title.

Folk, our CHL license is not a permit to shoot everybody who looks at us cross-eyed or jostles us in the checkout line or pushes their buggy against our vehicle in the parking lot, or tries to hand out various literature or even asks, "brother, can you spare a dime".

Nobody is suggesting that it is. And if you review my posting history, you'll see that I am one of those who is more likely to give money to a vagrant, even knowing that it will be misused, than not. And I'm not going to plug someone for bumping into me at the supermarket checkout line. That's just dumb. But not one of those things comes remotely close to being aggressively attacked for your cellphone, as in the OP. Why are you leading the conversation away from that salient point?

If you're going to shoot, you had better know dadgummed well what you're doing because you and your progeny are going to have to live with it for a long time. I may have to shoot somebody someday; however, I'm definitely not looking forward to it.

Who is looking forward to it? I understand your caution, but your post seems to imply that I, and others who agree with me, are being incautious, when nothing could be further from the truth. I practice caution in my daily lifestyle. But when some mongo assaults me despite my efforts at caution, that mongo is going to get shot, for all the of the reasons I have outlined in previous posts; and any possible lack of caution on my part hasn't got a thing to do with it, because I am cautious. Indeed, it is the other guy who is not being cautious.

If he were being cautious, a simple "sir, you have a cellphone, and I need some help; can you please help me?" would have sufficed to get me to help him.

My, aren't we the touchy one today?

I usaully agree with everything you say - at least in part. This post is no exception. That said, there may be others who are not as apt as you to use learned good judgement before laying down a barrage on some soul, deserving or otherwise, under the false impression that there will be no consequences for their actions. When that happens, all CHL's suffer.

Y'all have a nice day.

[Abraham]

Oldgringo,

It's very possible I've overlooked it - has anyone posting in this thread suggested go to guns as a first response without regard to appropriateness?

[stevie_d_64]

Isn't is sad that those of us who take our self-defense seriously enough to jump through the hoops to get licensed and trained up on the technicalities and the law, that a trip to WalMart (of all places) begins to resemble a patrol out in the toons of Kandahar...

Most people who do not take their self-defense seriously seem to go through life oblivious to the risks and seem to do ok...Until...Well, the odds seem to catch up sometimes...

I've said it before...Times like these we need to do the "gut-check"...Every one of us that carry have the means to take care of most situations in a very decisive manner...

The question(s) almost doesn't even need to be asked then...So what are the rules of thumb at this point???

Is a trip to WalMart at a particular time worth it???

Am I prepared mentally and physically to deal with most "annoyances"???

And am I prepared to deal with the consequences of my actions, to be responsible and accountable for them???

Like I said, it is sad that we must do a mental checklist before venturing out into our own little world, but it may help you put it all together, and help you in the long run to boot...

In this situation, I do not care who it is approaching me or my party...

A simple "Stay away from me!" is the simplest thing to say...

No need to make any move to the gun yet, but at the same time all of this requires you to have your head on a swivle and know well ahead what appears to be a threat and what is not a threat, but then again you just don't know I suppose...

There are certainly a lot of things you need to be prepared for out in the scrub...All of which need to be within your personal capabilities both mentally and physically...

Which reminds me...I gotta run to WalMart...If they don't have it, you don't need it!

[The Annoyed Man]

My, aren't we the touchy one today?

My apologies if I came on too strong. I'm just tired of hearing and reading assumptions on the Internet that people who lawfully carry guns are intemperate, ignorant, hasty to violence, or some such kind of denigration. I'm sorry if I mistook your posts to be in that vein.

[Oldgringo]

My, aren't we the touchy one today?

My apologies if I came on too strong. I'm just tired of hearing and reading assumptions on the Internet that people who lawfully carry guns are intemperate, ignorant, hasty to violence, or some such kind of denigration. I'm sorry if I mistook your posts to be in that vein.

TAM, no apologies are called for nor will any be accepted.

I pretty much feel the same way as you do - on all CHL issues. It's some of the others who seem to be anxious to use their gun whom I am concerned both for and about.

[srothstein]

If you get no-billed because a grand jury rules that the use of lethal force was justified, then there are no "12 peers in Civil Court" because you are immune to lawsuit, so civil trial is not a concern. You may have to pay a lawyer to get you through it, but plaintiff is not going to succeed in taking your house, or levying your wages, or anything like that.

I thought this statement might need a little clarification. At first glance, I thought it was wrong in the first half, then I realized what I think TAM is saying and he is right. But if I might get confused, so will others.

So, let me see if I understand this right, because there is one part that is going to be wrong if taken out of the context.

If you are involved in a shooting, in almost all cases, a grand jury will examine the situation. not every case will go to a grand jury, but most police department's will want to share the political blame if the shooting is unpopular. If a grand jury does indict you, they return what is called a true bill of indictment. If they decide not to, they return a no bill of indictment. A true bill has only one legal meaning, and this is that the grand jury thought there was probable cause to believe you had committed the crime accused in the bill. If they return a no bill, this has only one legal meaning, and that is they did not feel there was probable cause to believe you had committed the crime. There is no legal way for a grand jury to indicate that you were justified. sometimes, the grand jury, the D.A., the police, or your lawyer will get the media to say this is because the grand jury thought you were justified. This is just an opinion that the media reports though, and not a legal fact.

When you are no billed, you are not immune from a lawsuit. If you were justified, you are immune from being found liable. This is a fine line to understand, but the criminal you shot may still find a lawyer to sue you. The judge in the case may decide on his own that you were justified and will throw out the suit, but there is also a chance that he will let it go to a jury to decide if you were justified. This is where you will still need the lawyer TAM mentioned, but you should not have to worry about the outcome. If you are justified, you will win the lawsuit.

So, here is what the immunity really does to you and your odds, presuming you are justified in a shooting. It guarantees that you will win the lawsuit at some point in time but it does not protect against a lawsuit. Most personal injury lawyers work on commission. So, if there is little chance of a big cash award, they do not want the case. It will be very hard to find a lawyer willing to sue you, but it is always possible. There are some lawyers who disagree with this law and would sue for the publicity of the case (more clients later to pay for it). If the suspect you shot does find one of those lawyers, most cases will be dismissed by the judge because of your immunity. There are a few judges out there who prefer to let juries hear all points in dispute, so in a small number of cases, you might have to wait until a jury decides. There are always a few juries who feel sorry for the poor deprived little robber and will give him a settlement, especially if they think it is coming from your homeowner's insurance instead of out of your pocket or if you make some dumb statements on the news (like Joe Horn to the Dispatcher). Since the law still applies, these cases may end up going to an appellate court. Appellate courts are notorious for not being swayed by the feelings of the people like a jury is, so I doubt it would ever go past this stage. If the facts and the law support you, you are almost certainly going to win at this stage.

Long term, TAM is correct and you do not have to worry about losing your home or paying off judgments against you. Your defense attorney may even be paid for by the insurance company, but you might need to pay him. That might be expensive enough but should be affordable. To me, worrying about the law suit should be the last thing on your mind when thinking about the possibility of a shooting. It is always much better to survive to be sued than to not fight back and die.

[NORMAN]

I am sorry guys to have created such a heated discussion. i wanted to post so others can be aware just as I have learned from many of your post. To clarify a couple of questions my son decided to stop a the last minute and only had a tee shirt on and did not feal it was enough to conceal (an issue we will deal with)
He was also carring his I-phone in his left hand whivh we have gone over before. He will be home tonight and I will get all the details especially why the BG was able to get close enought to grabb my sons arm. I am one also who takes having my CHL a very serious matter especially with the crime esculating as it is. I know there have been instances in my area where people have been robbed and shot by the BG in broad daylight in the parking lot of Walmart and the mall. This is why I got my CHL along with my wife, son and daughter. We talk about these issues all the time and about being aware of your surroundings. I make it a point to shoot at least once a week and take the family as well and work on all kinds of senerios and moving while shooting etc. So we do take it seriously.
So maybe this discussion will be of some use to others. I just know I don't want to end up being a statistic because I was trying to be gracious to a BG when I feel he really is BG and poses a threat. That is why I posted the questions because to me in this instance it is a very gray area and one we all could very easily could find ourselves in. The last thing I want to do is take a life but I will not hesitate if I have to.

Thanks for all the concerns

[The Annoyed Man]

Steve, I think I'm on the same page as you, only you stated it more clearly...

If you get no-billed because a grand jury rules that the use of lethal force was justified, then there are no "12 peers in Civil Court" because you are immune to lawsuit, so civil trial is not a concern. You may have to pay a lawyer to get you through it, but plaintiff is not going to succeed in taking your house, or levying your wages, or anything like that.

I thought this statement might need a little clarification. At first glance, I thought it was wrong in the first half, then I realized what I think TAM is saying and he is right. But if I might get confused, so will others.

So, let me see if I understand this right, because there is one part that is going to be wrong if taken out of the context.

If you are involved in a shooting, in almost all cases, a grand jury will examine the situation. not every case will go to a grand jury, but most police department's will want to share the political blame if the shooting is unpopular. If a grand jury does indict you, they return what is called a true bill of indictment. If they decide not to, they return a no bill of indictment. A true bill has only one legal meaning, and this is that the grand jury thought there was probable cause to believe you had committed the crime accused in the bill. If they return a no bill, this has only one legal meaning, and that is they did not feel there was probable cause to believe you had committed the crime. There is no legal way for a grand jury to indicate that you were justified. sometimes, the grand jury, the D.A., the police, or your lawyer will get the media to say this is because the grand jury thought you were justified. This is just an opinion that the media reports though, and not a legal fact.

Exactly. When I said "...a grand jury rules that the use of lethal force was justified...," that is an inverse way of saying the same thing. The GJ is not positively affirming that the shooting was justified. What they are saying is that there is not enough evidence to rule that it was not justifiable, so there will be a no-bill returned. In effect, they are kind of backing into saying it was justifiable. Even so, they are not the ones, as I understand it, who will rule that a shooting is justified. An actual ruling of "justified" would be obtained by either a successful defense during a criminal trial if the GJ returns a true bill, or during a civil trial following a no-bill.

When you are no billed, you are not immune from a lawsuit. If you were justified, you are immune from being found liable. This is a fine line to understand, but the criminal you shot may still find a lawyer to sue you. The judge in the case may decide on his own that you were justified and will throw out the suit, but there is also a chance that he will let it go to a jury to decide if you were justified. This is where you will still need the lawyer TAM mentioned, but you should not have to worry about the outcome. If you are justified, you will win the lawsuit.

Exactly. And to this point, the law uses terms like "reasonable fear" of bodily harm and/or death; and it even states, within limits, that lethal force may be justifiable because there is no way for the victim of the attack to know what the attacker's intentions are with regard to committing murder, or merely administering a beating. Those are the kinds of ideas your lawyer (if he/she is any good) is going to bring to the jury's attention. So, unless you have the kind of situation that existed during the OJ Simpson trial, where you had a jury that clearly had its own agenda separate from seeing justice done, you stand a reasonable expectation of the jury finding that the shooting was justifiable — and thus, you are immune to civil penalties.

So, here is what the immunity really does to you and your odds, presuming you are justified in a shooting. It guarantees that you will win the lawsuit at some point in time but it does not protect against a lawsuit. Most personal injury lawyers work on commission. So, if there is little chance of a big cash award, they do not want the case. It will be very hard to find a lawyer willing to sue you, but it is always possible. There are some lawyers who disagree with this law and would sue for the publicity of the case (more clients later to pay for it). If the suspect you shot does find one of those lawyers, most cases will be dismissed by the judge because of your immunity. There are a few judges out there who prefer to let juries hear all points in dispute, so in a small number of cases, you might have to wait until a jury decides. There are always a few juries who feel sorry for the poor deprived little robber and will give him a settlement, especially if they think it is coming from your homeowner's insurance instead of out of your pocket or if you make some dumb statements on the news (like Joe Horn to the Dispatcher). Since the law still applies, these cases may end up going to an appellate court. Appellate courts are notorious for not being swayed by the feelings of the people like a jury is, so I doubt it would ever go past this stage. If the facts and the law support you, you are almost certainly going to win at this stage.

Long term, TAM is correct and you do not have to worry about losing your home or paying off judgments against you. Your defense attorney may even be paid for by the insurance company, but you might need to pay him. That might be expensive enough but should be affordable. To me, worrying about the law suit should be the last thing on your mind when thinking about the possibility of a shooting. It is always much better to survive to be sued than to not fight back and die.

Bingo!

Let me add to all the above: IANAL, IANYL, YMMV, etc., etc., etc. This is just how I understand things to be.

[Oldgringo]

Steve, I think I'm on the same page as you, only you stated it more clearly...

If you get no-billed because a grand jury rules that the use of lethal force was justified, then there are no "12 peers in Civil Court" because you are immune to lawsuit, so civil trial is not a concern. You may have to pay a lawyer to get you through it, but plaintiff is not going to succeed in taking your house, or levying your wages, or anything like that.

I thought this statement might need a little clarification. At first glance, I thought it was wrong in the first half, then I realized what I think TAM is saying and he is right. But if I might get confused, so will others.

So, let me see if I understand this right, because there is one part that is going to be wrong if taken out of the context.

If you are involved in a shooting, in almost all cases, a grand jury will examine the situation. not every case will go to a grand jury, but most police department's will want to share the political blame if the shooting is unpopular. If a grand jury does indict you, they return what is called a true bill of indictment. If they decide not to, they return a no bill of indictment. A true bill has only one legal meaning, and this is that the grand jury thought there was probable cause to believe you had committed the crime accused in the bill. If they return a no bill, this has only one legal meaning, and that is they did not feel there was probable cause to believe you had committed the crime. There is no legal way for a grand jury to indicate that you were justified. sometimes, the grand jury, the D.A., the police, or your lawyer will get the media to say this is because the grand jury thought you were justified. This is just an opinion that the media reports though, and not a legal fact.

Exactly. When I said "...a grand jury rules that the use of lethal force was justified...," that is an inverse way of saying the same thing. The GJ is not positively affirming that the shooting was justified. What they are saying is that there is not enough evidence to rule that it was not justifiable, so there will be a no-bill returned. In effect, they are kind of backing into saying it was justifiable. Even so, they are not the ones, as I understand it, who will rule that a shooting is justified. An actual ruling of "justified" would be obtained by either a successful defense during a criminal trial if the GJ returns a true bill, or during a civil trial following a no-bill.

When you are no billed, you are not immune from a lawsuit. If you were justified, you are immune from being found liable. This is a fine line to understand, but the criminal you shot may still find a lawyer to sue you. The judge in the case may decide on his own that you were justified and will throw out the suit, but there is also a chance that he will let it go to a jury to decide if you were justified. This is where you will still need the lawyer TAM mentioned, but you should not have to worry about the outcome. If you are justified, you will win the lawsuit.

Exactly. And to this point, the law uses terms like "reasonable fear" of bodily harm and/or death; and it even states, within limits, that lethal force may be justifiable because there is no way for the victim of the attack to know what the attacker's intentions are with regard to committing murder, or merely administering a beating. Those are the kinds of ideas your lawyer (if he/she is any good) is going to bring to the jury's attention. So, unless you have the kind of situation that existed during the OJ Simpson trial, where you had a jury that clearly had its own agenda separate from seeing justice done, you stand a reasonable expectation of the jury finding that the shooting was justifiable — and thus, you are immune to civil penalties.

So, here is what the immunity really does to you and your odds, presuming you are justified in a shooting. It guarantees that you will win the lawsuit at some point in time but it does not protect against a lawsuit. Most personal injury lawyers work on commission. So, if there is little chance of a big cash award, they do not want the case. It will be very hard to find a lawyer willing to sue you, but it is always possible. There are some lawyers who disagree with this law and would sue for the publicity of the case (more clients later to pay for it). If the suspect you shot does find one of those lawyers, most cases will be dismissed by the judge because of your immunity. There are a few judges out there who prefer to let juries hear all points in dispute, so in a small number of cases, you might have to wait until a jury decides. There are always a few juries who feel sorry for the poor deprived little robber and will give him a settlement, especially if they think it is coming from your homeowner's insurance instead of out of your pocket or if you make some dumb statements on the news (like Joe Horn to the Dispatcher). Since the law still applies, these cases may end up going to an appellate court. Appellate courts are notorious for not being swayed by the feelings of the people like a jury is, so I doubt it would ever go past this stage. If the facts and the law support you, you are almost certainly going to win at this stage.

Long term, TAM is correct and you do not have to worry about losing your home or paying off judgments against you. Your defense attorney may even be paid for by the insurance company, but you might need to pay him. That might be expensive enough but should be affordable. To me, worrying about the law suit should be the last thing on your mind when thinking about the possibility of a shooting. It is always much better to survive to be sued than to not fight back and die.

Bingo!

Let me add to all the above: IANAL, IANYL, YMMV, etc., etc., etc. This is just how I understand things to be.

So, good luck with your next shooting. Let us kow how it works out for you and yours.

I'm really this time.

[03Lightningrocks]

The value of the thing being hijacked is not the point. The point is that we can either allow it to continue, or we can stop it. It's that simple.

Now, there are situations where I'm going to let the thief get away. If it is the middle of the night and someone is absconding with my lawn mower, I'm not going to go charging out of my house to confront him out in front of my house, because I don't want to surrender the tactical advantage of staying in the house. But in a public parking lot, you have no tactical advantage, and unless you can get away, there is nothing to be gained by refusing to confront the bad guy.

I could not agree more. Walking through the parking lot I have no choice but to defend myself. I would never chase a person down for running off with my lawn mower or car stereo for that matter. The difference is in whether or not I am being assaulted. Your son was being assualted. Degree of force matters not to me. I don't feel obligated to respond with equal force. I have no doubt I would have shot that guy.

[juggernaut]

I think somewhere between 1/4 and 1/2 of strong arm robberies and armed robberies occur in parking areas for shopping.

[LongHairedRedneck]

I find it curious that some here seem to think this situation is about a cell phone: It's NOT about a cell phone - It's about assault and it potentially lethal consequences.

We're NOT debating the merits of protecting our property with lethal force - We're discussing defending our lives when assaulted.

I wonder why that's so clear for some of us and others simply don't get it?

If you're attacked without provocation, irrespective of why - you better get a handle on understanding the overall situation pronto and respond appropriately or you may very well end up being another crime statistic - one in his grave.

Abraham you hit the nail on the head with this one!

[gigag04]

Hmmm. Maybe I just so annoyed by thugs stealing that I think I would hawk down the guy taking my mower. Granted I would grab either my phone or radio and get on the horn with our dispatchers to have a bunch of help. I understand my situation is unique but I don't like getting my stuff stolen. Those people need some law enforcement contact, and I'd be happy to oblige them.

[jlangton]

Bottom line I am with The Annoyed Man. My mental hairs on my neck would tell me this person is going to do harm even if I have not SEEN the method to do the harm. Therefore, I must ASSUME there is deadly force available and act accordingly. At 20 feet away a BG can bolt, get to you, pull a knife and you lose. Are you willing to accept that? I am not. So you do as stated to effect a verbal stop, continue to move your mental and physical mode to protect yourself and continue to put yourself in position to assert the needed force to stop the BG. If that means drawing or revealing your weapon then so be it. If it stops there, I use my phone, call 911 and wait in a safe area even if I have to leave and wait for the police. If I draw and the BG runs, I still use the phone and deal with the police. But I do not let some one yelling at me dictate my life. As said by others, allowing them to get away with that puts all others at the same risk.

As a note in past couple of years, BG now rob and even if the victim complies, they kill. So I have to expect that in my case and must defend.

BTW, I liked your wording in your first post Annoyed Man. Well spoken.

Gary

I'm in total agreement with you and TAM.
JL