Granny foils purse snatcher

[seamusTX]

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.

Carjacking is robbery. It is usually done with a knife or gun, which makes it aggravated robbery. In that case, I am defending myself, not a 6-year-old Honda that is insured.

If someone wants to steal a potted plant off my front porch, I am not going to risk my life, health, and fortune to recover it. It's just not worth the risk.

Pocket picking is easily avoided by keeping your wallet in a pocket where it cannot be picked without attracting your attention. For men, that means a front pants or jacket pocket. Most pocket picking scams involve one person distracting you while another does the dirty work. You can avoid that by not letting people close on you -- stiff-arming them if necessary.

Purse-snatching can also be avoided by using a shoulder bag and putting the strap across your chest -- though some women have been injured by purse-snatchers who grabbed such bags and knocked them down.

... 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.

In my opinion, the legislature intended that kind of scenario to be a justified use of deadly force.

Many robbers shoot victims who comply with their demands. As long as you are in the presence of an armed criminal, you are in danger.

However, in real life, you are very much at the mercy of the DA and the grand jury.

As usual, IANAL, etc.

- Jim

[KD5NRH]

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.

The lawyers will probably cringe at this suggestion, but the way I look at it, leaving your presence with your property is part and parcel of robbery, so you could argue that you were still in the process of stopping the robbery, rather than recovering the property.

Look at it this way: if I walk up to you and take your wallet from your pocket, then just stand there holding it and whistling Sousa marches, have I really stolen it from you? Theft requires "intent to deprive the owner of property" and at that point it would appear that my intent is just to show you that you need better pockets and/or situational awareness. Only when I try to leave your presence with it or otherwise prevent you from taking it back from me does the intent to deprive you of the property become apparent.

Robbery is a bit more clear cut in general, but I could see circumstances where it could be reduced to assault. (For example, you think someone has stolen your wallet, so you demand, backed by threat of force, that he empty his pockets: he's justified in using DF, because any reasonable person would assume they're being robbed, but you have no intent of depriving him of any of property he has a legitimate claim to, so if you can convice a jury of that, you're only assaulting him - if you can show that your belief that he had stolen it from you either by force or during the night was reasonable, and that you pursued him immediately after the theft to recover it, you even have a defense to the assault.)

Have I muddied that one up enough?

[BigRon]

Cool.

[Fangs]

My thoughts are leaning in the direction of: If someone steals my stuff, he wants to be shot. Albeit in the back as he's running away.

[KD5NRH]

My thoughts are leaning in the direction of: If someone steals my stuff, he wants to be shot. Albeit in the back as he's running away.

You missed it; he's not running away, he's removing the property from your presence in order to deprive you of it.