Good Talk Radio Discussion Today

[JLaw]

740 AM, Sam Malone show, true story,

A lady called in, she was with her husband (?) in downtown Houston, and they were confronted by two men who wanted her purse. One man pulled a knife and put it to the lady's throat, while the other man grabbed the husband from behind and put his hand to the husbands head (pretending it was a gun). Long story short, the husband fought the man with the fake gun off, not sure if the bad guys made of with the purse or not. But something the lady said bothered me, she said people were passing by in cars not paying any attention to the incident, ignoring the armed robbery that was going on right at their front bumpers!!!

I'm not trying to play cowboy here, but aren't we as CHL holders allowed the decision of stopping this type of crime with our CCW's??? I do remember from the CHL class that a property owner must give us permission to protect their property, but what about their life???

Surely we are allowed by the law to stop a crime such as this?!? After all, wasn't the Luby's incident what really pushed the TX CHL into action? Granted the reason I got my CHL is to protect myself and my family, I'd hope I would be able to protect others also. I'm no police officer, I know that, but what would I have done had I seen it? What would you have done.

Your input/opinion please.

JLaw

[seadawg221]

Had I seen the incident you described I myself would have taken actio whether or not I had a weapon. Not that I am some kind of hero or anything but I just think that it is human nature to help!

[orc4hire]

[ElGato]

I'm not trying to play cowboy here, but aren't we as CHL holders allowed the decision of stopping this type of crime with our CCW's??? I do remember from the CHL class that a property owner must give us permission to protect their property, but what about their life???/quote]

[As CHL holders we have absolutely no more right than any other citizen to use force or otherwise intervene in a crime. No, not even a little bit. What we have, we hope, is more ABILITY to intervene successfully.]

Very well said, you get an A+

Tomcat

That said, lets roll tape on the statues:

§ 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified
in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third
person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably
believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31
or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against
the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes
to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his
intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.


§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A
person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31;
(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect himself 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 requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor.

(Okay, this is a long one.)

§ 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 he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under
Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

[ElGato]

That sure didn't come out like I wanted. I meant to use part of your quote and then add my message. Y'all can tell I'm not a puter person.

Hey, that's the first time I've ever tried to add an Emoticon, and it worked.

Tomcat

[orc4hire]

[JLaw]

Otay, I'm ashamed to admit I'm confused. I can see how I can interpret the previos statements two ways. I understand the fact that because we have a CHL we don't have the right to go around fighting crime, I agree with that 100%. But now I'm thinking that if I were in that predicament and did intervene, I might be breaking the law?? Or maybe if I intervened I wouldn't be breaking the law?? Geez, no wonder lawyers make so much $. Obviously if I did nothing and went on about my business I'm not breaking the law.

JLaw

[JLaw]

After re-reading the laws, here's how I interpret it :

If John Doe is being robbed at gun point, and I see the robbery, I can only intervene if John Doe has a legel right to use force to stop said robbery? That is only if John Doe would believe that force is iminent to stop the force of the robber, and John Doe believes that harm will come to him at the hands of the bad guy if force is not used to stop the confrontation, and all the other legal mumbo-jumbo jives together?

Please let me know if I'm wrong. I'm only trying to learn what is allowed and not allowed by the law. I haven't seen a robbery in progress yet and hope I never do, but I just wanted to learn from the insight of others.

JLaw

[stevie_d_64]

I think "orc" summed it up very well...

Its a judgement call to act on behalf of a third party...Whether they approve or not...

My personal opinion...If I see a knife or a firearm, or see an assault in progress...Remember most of us are NOT law enforcement, we may not know the full situation, but if the event is egregeous enough to warrant concern, and a "reasonable" person should not assume anything, but observe and act accordingly...

In that knife/purse snatching incident, is it worth a life???If the knife is the deciding factor in presenting a choice to the perpetrator to cease the attack or face the use of deadly force??? Regardless if the intent is only aggrevated robbery???

I know split seconds are give some of us in situations like this, so the decision needs to be already formulated, and either a go/no-go is needed to decide if you are to act...

I'm not much of a person to hesitate, because I think I have honed my "mindset" in deciding a threshold where I act or just be a good observer...

Its sometimes makes me think I am a horrible person to dwell on such things...But I feel I must because of the seriousness of my convictions and my acceptance of what I have trained and certified myself to be able to do, "just in case"...

Look deep into your soul to discover just what is that threshold, examine that line in the sand, and review it from time to time and test yourself in your mind on what you would "really" do if put into a situation like this...

There is no wrong answer...If you take your responsibilities seriously, and are ready to accept and be accountable for your actions...

Its a mature person to examine yourself this way, and to be truelyu objective in that assessment...

Whoa! Am I full of it or what??? Good thing I do have a sense of humor to counter some serious stuff ike what I just wrote!!!

[orc4hire]

[BenGoodLuck]

One thing I'd like more information on is the woman's statement that no one intervened - we don't know where the robbery was taking place - could have been in an alley or part of the sidewalk that was blocked from the passersby view. We don't know enough information to make a judgement in this case. And that is what's important in any intervention - having enough information and being able to decide in a split second how to react.

[res1b3uq]

I Think I would react and then worry about the consequences later, armed or unarmed. I guess none of us really know what our reaction would be unless actually presented with the situation.

[JLaw]

One thing I'd like more information on is the woman's statement that no one intervened - we don't know where the robbery was taking place - could have been in an alley or part of the sidewalk that was blocked from the passersby view. We don't know enough information to make a judgement in this case. And that is what's important in any intervention - having enough information and being able to decide in a split second how to react.

The only thing the lady stated on the radio program is that she was on a sidewalk in downtown Houston. She did state the cross streets but I do not recall them.

JLaw

[JLaw]

I guess none of us really know what our reaction would be unless actually presented with the situation.

Very true.

JLaw