Granny foils purse snatcher

[seamusTX]

East Fort Worth -- On Sunday, a 65-year-old woman was the victim of a purse-snatching in a parking lot. She jumped into her car and chased and hit the thief. A crowd of people leaving a movie theater helped hold him until police arrived.

http://www.kare11.com/news/whatsup/what ... zTPLZhE%3D" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The thief was not seriously injured and later apologized to the woman.

Purse-snatching is robbery, which is a justification for the use of deadly force.

- Jim

[Fangs]

Haha, wow. Fortunately he wasn't armed.

[seamusTX]

If he had had a weapon, he probably would have been robbing stores or banks instead of grannies.

Purse-snatching is a cowardly crime.

- Jim

[ladromar]

Are things starting to get worse or is it just my perception?

[Purplehood]

Are things starting to get worse or is it just my perception?

No, this is status quo ever since we collectively decided to emasculate ourselves and not spank our kids.

[cowboymd]

Are things starting to get worse or is it just my perception?

No, this is status quo ever since we collectively decided to emasculate ourselves and not spank our kids.

[ClarkLZeuss]

East Fort Worth -- On Sunday, a 65-year-old woman was the victim of a purse-snatching in a parking lot. She jumped into her car and chased and hit the thief. A crowd of people leaving a movie theater helped hold him until police arrived.
...
Purse-snatching is robbery, which is a justification for the use of deadly force.

Dude, kudos to the old lady! I can definitely see my 69 y/o Granny doing that! I bet that perp felt completely humiliated, gettin owned by grandma!

All laughing aside for a minute, are we justified in the use of force/deadly force after a robbery, or only during it?

[seamusTX]

It's a matter of judgment when a robbery begins and ends. The robber may grab a purse, but he may not be finished. The use of force and deadly force is also justified to recover stolen property, with all the usual caveats.

IANAL, etc.

- Jim

[ClarkLZeuss]

The use of force and deadly force is also justified to recover stolen property, with all the usual caveats.

It just has to be immediately after the crime, right? Not days/hours later?

[seamusTX]

Correct:

PC §9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. ...
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately
necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

PC §9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

I highlighted a number of ands and ors that are difficult to keep in mind in the heat of the moment, but that a prosecutor can use to nail you to the wall.

- Jim

[ClarkLZeuss]

PC §9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. ...
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

PC §9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

That cleared some things up, thanks! Got another follow-up for you, if you don't mind. The parts that I highlighted in red..."reasonably believes" and "any other means." Those seem kind of nebulous to me. Have those been pretty well established by now through Case Law? I guess the first one is somewhat easy to define...if you don't think that just asking the robber, "Please give me my stuff back" would work. This would cover just about all thieves. Or is there more to it than that? The second one though, that is the one that bothers me. How are you going to prove that just reporting it to the police and having them recover it for you wasn't a viable option?

[KD5NRH]

The second one though, that is the one that bothers me. How are you going to prove that just reporting it to the police and having them recover it for you wasn't a viable option?

I think the key is actually (B):

(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Remember that serious bodily injury is poorly defined, but if the guy's capable of hurting you badly, you've got a fair argument with that.

[seamusTX]

The parts that I highlighted in red..."reasonably believes" and "any other means." Those seem kind of nebulous to me. Have those been pretty well established by now through Case Law?

I don't have access to case law, except as it may be published on the WWW.

IMHO, this area is subjective enough that I have decided that I don't own anything movable that is worth a shooting. (When I owned horses, they would have been an exception; but I no longer do.)

We have cases like Joe Horn, who was no-billed, and cases like this one, which is going to cost the defendant tens of thousands of dollars even if he does not go to prison.

I am speaking only of property, not a threat to my person or a member of my family.

- Jim

[ClarkLZeuss]

The parts that I highlighted in red..."reasonably believes" and "any other means." Those seem kind of nebulous to me. Have those been pretty well established by now through Case Law?

I don't have access to case law, except as it may be published on the WWW.

IMHO, this area is subjective enough that I have decided that I don't own anything movable that is worth a shooting. (When I owned horses, they would have been an exception; but I no longer do.)

We have cases like Joe Horn, who was no-billed, and cases like this one, which is going to cost the defendant tens of thousands of dollars even if he does not go to prison.

I am speaking only of property, not a threat to my person or a member of my family.

- Jim

I totally hear you on that. At least, that's what I want to think is what I truly believe, but I guess I'll never know until someone tries to carjack me. If someone uses force on me to try and rob me, I think I would probably respond more to the force than the prospect of the loss of property. As in, "I don't care that you're trying to take my wallet/camera/car...you pull a gun on me, and that's the last thing you'll remember." Then again, if it's moreso pickpocketing or else theft (as opposed to robbery), it's hard to say. I imagine if the person is within range, I would first chase them down and demand they return my property. If they try and fight me, I return the fight, but with an equal amount of force. If they pull a weapon, well then I draw. And I guess I'm assuming that I would win! So that's where the really critical decision has to be made: more than "Will I shoot over this?" it's rather "Am I willing to risk losing a fight over this?"

[ClarkLZeuss]

I think the key is actually (B):

(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Remember that serious bodily injury is poorly defined, but if the guy's capable of hurting you badly, you've got a fair argument with that.

Good clarification, thanks!

I'm not saying I would do this (because of tactical and also moral considerations), but does this statute justify the following scenario: guy robs you at gunpoint, he's running away, and you shoot him in the back to recover your property. You shoot him in the back, because if he were to turn and face you (with your gun drawn), or if you were to confront him face to face, he might shoot first.

Disclaimer: I have an aversion to shooting even a robber in the back, as no doubt many of you do, but I'm just curious if the law can be stretched that far.