TexasCHLforum.com

I want to avoid any confusion my post may create. My reference to Tex. Code Crim. Procedure §14.01 does not conflict with Steve's reference to Tex. Penal Code §9.51. I was addressing when a citizen can make an arrest while Steve was addressing the use of force to effect such an arrest.

I hope my post didn't confuse the issue.

Chas.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".

A crime is in progress.

A woman (gender is not the issue, she is another human being) asks for help.

Your being armed or not is not the issue.

Your being a member of the human race and a person who believe in right and wrong is the issue.

Crime, no matter how small affects all of us all of the time, everywhere we go, no matter what we are doing.

To allow even one instance of crime to occur and not intervene when we can make a difference is wrong.

Anygunanywhere

...nope...just NOPE...I've been a Marine, been a cop, made dozens of felony arrests single-handed...pulled burglars out of a building 4 at a time, looooooooooooove wimmen, have taken a gun off someone in a restaurant without even drawing my weapon...this scenario is not about not caring, it's not about not wanting to do your part, it's not about being timid or afraid, not about not wanting to help a woman in distress...not about being a good citizen...
...it's about intervening in something that is none of our business, putting our health and our family's future security on the chopping block, for a corporation who, more often than not, FORBIDS their own employees to jump in and get physical with a shoplifter...nobody's life is in danger, we simply have an incompetent security weeble who's made a poor choice...and the extent of our help should be GIVEN THE FACTS AS THEY WERE POSTED to be a good witness...whatever she suspected he stole is not worth the consequences that could arise...

...If I applied the above post to a speeding motorist, or someone who ran through a yard and was fleeing...I'd be judged a fool for charging in and trying to pull him over...
...if it were a fistfight or family dispute, applying the above would obligate me to intervene...on WHO's behalf??? No way...not wise or prudent...

...if it were a major crime like robbery or rape...of course I would instinctively do what I'm capable of doing...but not for a shoplifting where the dollar value might not exceed the cost of the gas I'd burn going to court....the police won't even come out on cases below a certain dollar amount...why should you and I feel obligated to risk our bodies and financial futures???

...as the OP gave us the facts...I can't make Texas PC9:43 fit suspicion of theft where neither the security person nor I have seen any property...so I intervene and explain how I broke his arm or hurt his back because of a suspicion??? Nope...

speedsix wrote:...nope...just NOPE...I've been a Marine, been a cop, made dozens of felony arrests single-handed...pulled burglars out of a building 4 at a time, looooooooooooove wimmen, have taken a gun off someone in a restaurant without even drawing my weapon...this scenario is not about not caring, it's not about not wanting to do your part, it's not about being timid or afraid, not about not wanting to help a woman in distress...not about being a good citizen...
...it's about intervening in something that is none of our business, putting our health and our family's future security on the chopping block, for a corporation who, more often than not, FORBIDS their own employees to jump in and get physical with a shoplifter...nobody's life is in danger, we simply have an incompetent security weeble who's made a poor choice...and the extent of our help should be GIVEN THE FACTS AS THEY WERE POSTED to be a good witness...whatever she suspected he stole is not worth the consequences that could arise...

...If I applied the above post to a speeding motorist, or someone who ran through a yard and was fleeing...I'd be judged a fool for charging in and trying to pull him over...
...if it were a fistfight or family dispute, applying the above would obligate me to intervene...on WHO's behalf??? No way...not wise or prudent...

...if it were a major crime like robbery or rape...of course I would instinctively do what I'm capable of doing...but not for a shoplifting where the dollar value might not exceed the cost of the gas I'd burn going to court....the police won't even come out on cases below a certain dollar amount...why should you and I feel obligated to risk our bodies and financial futures???

...as the OP gave us the facts...I can't make Texas PC9:43 fit suspicion of theft where neither the security person nor I have seen any property...so I intervene and explain how I broke his arm or hurt his back because of a suspicion??? Nope...

Chasing down a speeder is not the same as refusing to help someone in arm's reach. Certainly all scenarios will present themselves in diferent ways and our situation at the time will dictate the appropriateness of our response. As long we can come to terms with our decisions and accept the consequences of both our action and our inaction....for we will have to answer for them both.

Anygunanywhere

...were I to stand in Judgement for not intervening in the case the OP posted, I would expect my Advocate to look at the Father with a twinkle in those fiery eyes, and quote Proverbs 26:17 as my defense: "He who passes by and meddles in a quarrel not his own is like one who takes a dog by the ears."

with speedsix:

sugar land dave wrote:Race and gender have nothing to do with my decision as to whither I would put my health and financial future at risk for the profit of a company with which I have no employment or fiduciary relationship. Little upside with the possibility of a huge downside is not a choice that I would normally make.

This is not a LEO asking for assistance, in which case, I would have a different set of parameters, those of a person helping in an authorized function of government. This, however, is instead a private person contracted to a corporation in an employee relationship. Different set of circumstances when considering my position.

Some say I should consider if it was a pretty girl? Well, what if it was a merchant struggling with a man who had stormed up and overturned display counters at the church store spilling sermon tapes and the register on the floor? What if the man had authority to do so, but I did not know? It is easy to make a decision, but not always so easy to make a good decision.

Matthew 21:12 KJV: And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves.

anygunanywhere wrote:"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

What if the presumption is wrong and the woman isn't a loss prevention officer and the man was the victim of an assault? What if she was a loss prevention officer, but she was using excessive force? What if you hurt the male assault victim because your assumption was wrong? What if the male assault victim was willing to defend himself with hands alone, until you joined the assault and you got shot?

In every one of my CHL classes, I point out that when we decide to defend an unknown 3rd person, we are risking that our presumptions are incorrect. Unless you know the people involved AND you saw the events unfold from the beginning, you cannot be sure you know the facts. Well meaning intervention into events can result in innocent people getting hurt or killed, a guilty person escaping, or the rescuer getting injured or killed.

Try to put yourself in the position of an innocent person incorrectly believed to be an attacker. They are already being assaulted and you join with his attacker. If I'm the victim, . . . well it won't go well for either of my attackers, including the would-be rescuer.

There certainly are incidents involving innocent 3rd persons that clearly warrant a rescuer to get involved, including the use of deadly force. However, not all incidents are so clear and the one described was not.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

What if the presumption is wrong and the woman isn't a loss prevention officer and the man was the victim of an assault? What if she was a loss prevention officer, but she was using excessive force? What if you hurt the male assault victim because your assumption was wrong? What if the male assault victim was willing to defend himself with hands alone, until you joined the assault and you got shot?

In every one of my CHL classes, I point out that when we decide to defend an unknown 3rd person, we are risking that our presumptions are incorrect. Unless you know the people involved AND you saw the events unfold from the beginning, you cannot be sure you know the facts. Well meaning intervention into events can result in innocent people getting hurt or killed, a guilty person escaping, or the rescuer getting injured or killed.

Try to put yourself in the position of an innocent person incorrectly believed to be an attacker. They are already being assaulted and you join with his attacker. If I'm the victim, . . . well it won't go well for either of my attackers, including the would-be rescuer.

There certainly are incidents involving innocent 3rd persons that are clearly warrant a rescuer to get involved, including the use of deadly force. However, not all incidents are so clear and the one described was not.

Chas.

Getting involved with other people conflicts without knowing all the ins and outs seems like a bad decision to me.

I guess when you find out later the person you're assisting was in the wrong, at least you can tell the judge that you didn't want to let evil prevail.

anygunanywhere wrote:To allow even one instance of crime to occur and not intervene when we can make a difference is wrong.

If she laid hands on him first, then it's her fight, not mine.

Like turning a hose on two dogs, I would be happy to pepper spray the both of them if you can guarantee criminal and civil immunity, but no way am I wading into two strangers fighting.

.

I give.

I was playing devil's advocate.

You win.

Please allow me to limp off quietly.

Anygunanywhere

Our shared knowledge wins, forum friend. Play on!

...one less to share the reward with!!! Hold him, fellers...I'll run over to aisle 7 and get some duct tape!!!...

Ouch! Making my eyes work hard this early in the morning?

Both my wife and I used to work Loss Prevention for a regional department store, actually how we met. I also have a cousin who works as LP for a national department store.

That being said, I will not jump into anything I see like that. The store has money to pay for their legal bills (they just jack up prices to make us pay for it anyways). It is the stores responsibilty to help, managers or other store employees can come assist. Call the police, have someone alert store management etc.

I will not risk my life, liberty and happiness for the benifit of a corporation.

In the years that I did that job, only a few times did I use force. One was to grab the guy's jacket as he tried to run away with about $300 in jeans (he pulled out of his coat and left the bag. his ID was in the coat, gotta love it) Another time was when I approached person at door to ask him to step back in, he grabbed top half of a pool stick that he had put out by the door and swung it at me. I got out of the way, but he did get taken down and held till PD got there.

I wasn't a hero, but was being paid to protect my companies assets. That's the difference between then and now.

...talked to my son again...they're forbidden as loss prevention department to touch a suspected thief...corporate figured out it's just not worth it...retail electronics...