TexasCHLforum.com

some GREAT discussion going here.

ok, for my serious answer.

The moment she felt uncomfortable in the conversation she should have begun to get belligerent and LOUD.

If he had not threatened her as he approached she should have told him to stop and got much louder and more belligerent. After warning him (assuming he made no open threat through voice or actions) I feel the law would have justified NDF like defensive spray, but only if he failed to heed the warnings.

(I wonder how it would have turned out if he turned out to be deaf and without ill intent and she dressed him down with OC. That would be an interesting situation, but i digress.)

However, the moment he hit her it became assault and due to the severity of the assault I believe she would have been legally justified to use DF at that time, not before.

Now if during his approach he had made threats for robbery or assault I can see DF being justified depending on the threats.

Just because you FEEL threatened doesn't mean you whip out the broomstick. There has to be a legitimate threat and it has to meet the criteria presented in the penal code to justify whipping it out. If she had drawn down on him and he was a legitimate bible salesman (with obviously poor judgement) I believe she would have legally been in a Failure to Conceal situation. Now whether that would have actually come to fruition depends on the folks involved. I like to think if he was a nice guy and she got an understanding officer on the scene it wouldn't have come to that, but IMO it would still be failure to conceal.

It sounds like he was probably all smiles until he was up in her personal space and then it turned ugly. It's her bad for letting him get in her space before she reacted, but as someone said she was behind the power curve. That's her bad. I'm willing to bet she won't let a situation like that happen again.

At any moment after the assault until he was actually out of range I believe DF would have been justified in this specific case.

Now justified doesn't mean you actually whip it out and shoot. That's a personal decision. I would have. She might feel differently. That's a question more of morality in my book.

Sangiovese wrote: However, even though she would have most likely been justified to use deadly force to defend herself, I believe that OC spray would have been the most appropriate response.

Disagree, respectfully, but I do disagree. He lost his right to suck her oxygen.

seamusTX wrote:I guess someone needs to point out that people who try to strike up converstations with strangers are always trouble. They may be harmless nuts or religious proselytizers, but they are always trouble.

I hate to second-guess the victim, but she should have ignored the guy, and started yelling when he approached her.

- Jim

++2

tallmike wrote:

LedJedi wrote:Major kudos to her for fighting back, but a controlled and lawful pull of the trigger could have ended that situation quite well.

You've just crossed the Curtis line. ~Dreamcatcher

If she had shot someone who was walking towards her she would have more problems than just a missing purse and some loose teeth at this point. She had no idea that he was a threat until he hit her, and even then it was not a deadly force situation.

She should have had pepper spray, this is a good example of why everyone should.

umm, someone feel free to correct me if i'm wrong here, but at the moment he assaulted her and then stole her purse that makes it robbery which is a justification for deadly force.

§ 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.

Sec. 29.02. ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if, in the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.

If he's trying to drive off in a car and there's not a cop right there to do it for her I believe it's reasonable to assume she would need to use more than standard force to get her purse back. Apparently she needed more than non-deadly force anyway since she used force and still did not get her purse back.

After he punched her in the face (a pretty good whack from what I gather form the article) I also believe that using non-deadly force would expose her to further serious injury.

Considering she lost teeth from the punch and sounds pretty banged up it wasn't just a love tap. I could easily see that being aggravated robbery.

You are correct though that she would not have been justified until it turned into a robbery.

I talked with my wife a bit about this last night. She was a bit aghast that this happened in Sam's parking lot since we shop at Sam's all the time, but it did serve to drive the point home that it can happen to anyone, anywhere anytime.

She brought up the point that it would be horrible if the woman had to use DF in front of her children but I then asked what is worse, seeing your mother victimized or seeing your mother defend herself after being victimized?

This is exactly why I carry and exactly why my wife will soon have a CHL as well and exactly why this woman should have been armed.

Luckily the creep just wanted her purse. It could have been a whole lot worse.

Major kudos to her for fighting back, but a controlled and lawful pull of the trigger could have ended that situation quite well.

In my mind when you deal with someone like that you're not just saving yourself from harm, you're saving every person that creep will eventually do the same (or worse) to when he's done with you.

You've just crossed the Curtis line. ~Dreamcatcher