TexasCHLforum.com

I am curious.....

What actions are you trained/prepared/willing to take in such an incident... that calling the police and keeping the suspect in view wouldn't solve?

That's kinda funny: whatever happened to "when seconds count, the police are minutes away"? I agree, if I can get to my car and get out behind the guy, or block him in, while on the phone with 911, that's the better scenario. But what if I can't? What if I try to do so and fail (traffic around a mall is generally a zoo)? Either of those two are going to be far more likely and would result in me being able to give only a description and the first turn the guy made. If the officer is not RIGHT behind him at that time, he takes another turn and he's gone.

If I was an alleged kidnapper and you came up to me to "stop" me, what would you do if I resisted?

If I honestly believed you were kidnapping the child I'd draw and order you to the ground. Beyond that, define "resistance"; if it's the stuff below, bee below. Approach on me and I fire. Retreat with the kid and I follow. Retreat without the kid and I advance to cover ground between me and the kid but no further. If you're gonna stand there and argue with me you can do so till you're blue in the face, but in any case if I draw my gun it will not be lowered until someone in uniform shows up. Presenting to someone who may or may not have a gun himself is risky; lowering the gun after you've done so is suicidal.

Are you willing to "go at it" hand to hand?

No; that's what the gun is for.

If you pull your weapon...and I shield myself with the child..then what?

Two ways to shield yourself; duck behind the child, or pick up the child. Duck, and I've accomplished my objective; you can duck all you like till the police show up. Pick up the child and the child will not cover you effectively. You also are limited by the additional weight; it will be harder for you to run, jump, or bend down, and holding onto the child makes it more difficult for you to produce a weapon.

If you pull your weapon and I pull mine, are you REALLY good enough to take me out?

Consider the situation. I've drawn and sighted my weapon with the intention of using it. The question is, are YOU REALLY good enough to draw, point and shoot before I get a shot off?

If you pick up the child in one arm AND produce a weapon, then honestly no, I couldn't trust myself to get a shot off around the kid before you'd be able to fire at me. I'd have to find my own cover around the next car. Very last resort: duck, double-tap at your legs, roll and run. A broken tib-fib is not going to support you and the kid, and even if I miss you're not likely to hit me either with lead coming your way and my center of mass two feet lower than it was a second ago.

If I simply ignore your objections/orders are you going to shoot me in the back?

Nope; the tire of your car is a much better way to keep you where you are. And if you do drive off, I just add the flat tire to my description of the getaway vehicle; the sparks from the rim will make you easy to spot and will slow you down considerably. If you run and take the child with you, I think I'm in good enough shape to keep pace. If you run without the child, mission accomplished.

Do you think your CHL actually gives you the authority to hold a person at gunpoint in order to ascertain their relationship to a child, or does that sound more like something the police should do?

My CHL gives me the ability to carry concealed. With or without it, I have the justification and thus the ability to use deadly force in defense of a third person to prevent a kidnapping, without retreat, anywhere I have a legal right to be, and that includes the parking lot. Even if I broke the law by carrying it, I would be justified in using it. There's no "authority" to be given; it's a civic duty.

I am all for intervention when the facts are 100% clear AND your actions have a greater chance of making things better than making them worse, but.... "good intentions" have turned to bite the butt of many a person.

If you are ever faced with "choosing" to intervene in a third party affair, make darn sure you are right, and be certain of your skills.

I agree. I said myself that drawing a weapon immediately opens the doors for a world of legal trouble whether you're wrong or right. But I've said many more times: the second you "know", whether in your gut or because the facts scream it from the rooftops, that it won't end well if you do not pull your weapon and use it, is the second you do exactly that. The weapon you leave in your waistband is just as helpful as the one in your car's glove compartment when you're in the store, or the one at home when you're in the car.

Or........call the police (who are trained and have better resources) keep the "suspect" in view (if possible) and be a good witness.

Level of intervention is important!

I understand, but see above.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

dihappy wrote: Hey you do what you want to do. I believe that if more average people got involved, this world would be a better place.

How many times have we seen videos where we see people just walking by not lending a hand to a helpless woman, man or kid whos in need of help.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't "get involved."

What I am saying is that there are different levels of "involvement", ranging all the way from wise to heroic to utterly foolhardy or wrong-headed.

I don't think any of us have outright advocated immediately drawing and shooting at someone forcing an uncooperative kid into a car. However, what middle ground do you suggest, especially when you say that if someone came up to you while you were wrestling with a kid having a temper tantrum you'd tell them to butt out? What exactly would you expect me to do next? I could assume that if you were a criminal you would have reacted differently to being confronted (run, produced a weapon, tried to fight), but if this is a custody battle gone wrong you'd know that kid, be used to parenting them and be able to act the part of the kid's frustrated guardian very convincingly. What is a call to 911 with a license plate going to do? If they stop you and you're a kidnapper, all well and good. If they do not stop you and you're a kidnapper, that kid is gone from the face of the earth unless the police get incredibly lucky later. If they stop you and you're not a kidnapper, you're going to be just as hacked with the officer as you were with me, and an officer will not let you go as easily. And there's a greater chance you won't be stopped, unless there's an officer just around the block or it takes you a while to get home, so given that you caught my attention as a possible kidnapper, your chances of actually being one skyrocket, and if you are there's an excellent chance I'm the last guy who can prevent the crime and possibly save a life.

Quite simply, if it looks like a kidnapping, sounds like a kidnapping, it's prudent to assume it is a kidnapping. From a justification standpoint, "mistake of fact is a valid defense". If a "reasonable person" in my shoes would have concluded, based on what I had to work with at the time, that this was a kidnapping in progress, then my actions to prevent the supposed kidnapping are justified under a combination of Sections 9.22 (necessity as a justification) and 9.33 (defense of third person) of the Penal Code even if a crime was not actually taking place. In addition, the threat of deadly force is equivalent to the use of force less than deadly force, and the use of force is justified in pretty much any situation where I reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent a violent crime as opposed to the actual use of deadly force which is far more specific in its justification. Section 83.001 of the CPRC grants immunity from any suit based on any finding of justification in Section 9 TPC, so if the officer declines to arrest, the DA declines to prosecute, or I am found not guilty, that is Exhibit A for a summary judgment in any civil suit.

All in all, you leave me with little recourse if I honestly think a crime is being committed and want to stop it. My options are to let you go, in total opposition to the purpose of a CHL (the ability to defend yourself and those around you), call 911 and take a big risk that you'll get away anyway, or try and stop you myself. Put yourself in my shoes; if you honestly felt that you could be the last person to see that child alive if you didn't act, would you not act to protect that child yourself, at least until the police arrive and sort it out?

Russell wrote:What if it's a parent picking their misbehaving child up and taking them to the car?

Now you've just pulled a gun on a mother/father that was trying to take care of their ill-behaved child.

Never assume anything when it involves you using force or deadly force on somebody.

That works in reverse too; the perfect cover for an abductor is to play the parent of a misbehaving child. It explains everything that's obvious to the casual observer and once that explanation is heard most people would ignore anything the child says or does to the contrary. And it doesn't have to be an unrelated person; parents can kidnap their own children (in fact a large percentage of Amber Alerts are custody disputes turned abductions). Answer honestly; would you think there was anything out of place about an adult using nonviolent force to control a screaming kid, and if you thought there was anything suspicious would you ask any question other than "is everything all right"?

You don't immediately DRAW on someone carrying a screaming kid to a car, but you should take a good long look and if anything at all seems fishy then start asking questions. A parent will usually be able to provide recent photos from their purse or wallet, or the general contents of their vehicle (toys, bags of finger food, children's books or magazines, car seats, a diaper bag) that is a natural consequence of parenting will indicate they're telling the truth. Dragging a child to an old beat-up van is an immediate red flag, as is any difference in general appearance between alleged parent and child (if the child is dressed better and looks cleaner than the adult, alarm bells should be ringing) or anything between the two that belies a parent-child relationship (a woman or man that looks too old or young to be the parent of a child that age).

Now, the picture changes dramatically when it's an adult screaming. No adult screams without good reason, and when one adult is dragging another around that's trouble, plain and simple. In that situation you draw, approach and interrogate, and if necessary you pull the trigger.

From a purely legal standpoint, TPC statutes differentiate between the threat and use of deadly force. The threat of deadly force is construed as equal to the use of force other than deadly force. Thus it is justifiable to draw a gun on someone you reasonably believe is committing kidnapping, but generally not presumed justified. In general, if you think otherwise unlawful conduct such as brandishing a gun is justified in order to prevent imminent harm, and that need outweighs expectation of reasonable public conduct (it's generally a social faux pas to point a gun at someone ), you are justified in using that conduct.

You might even truly be able to argue a presumption of justification; someone is being forcibly removed from a building. If the victim is an adult, it may not be immediately clear whether the victim worked in that building; if so, your belief that force is necessary is presumed reasonable and you are thus presumed justified in threatening or using deadly force. You are also resumed justified if your target exhibits any deadly weapon (gun or knife) while hurting or removing the victim. That makes it aggravated kidnapping or aggravated assault, and the victim then does not have to be in their home, car or workplace as is required for assumption of justification based on illegal forcible entry or removal. An abduction of a child is, 99% of the time, also aggravated kidnapping, as the intent is almost always one of these things: to sexually abuse the child, murder them, hold them for ransom, terrorize someone else (typically whoever has legal custody), or interfere with a governmental function (typically the duty of CPS and police to enforce custody). Even if none of this applies technically, using force to prevent or stop what turns out to be a simple assault or kidnapping is pretty safe ground against a Texas jury even if it turns out you are not presumed justified in doing so. However, if you're mistaken in a case like a parent controlling an unruly child, the prosecutor is going to tear any assertion of a "reasonable belief" to shreds and you will probably be convicted of brandishing, unlawful use of force, or even aggravated assault.

In short, if you have good reason given the circumstances to think that someone around you is being assaulted or kidnapped by someone else, even if you are mistaken, drawing a weapon to prevent or stop the alleged act is justifiable. Proving it however is your responsibility, made easier or more difficult by the actual circumstances surrounding the incident. The legal morass you open yourself to, not to mention the threat of escalation, necessitates that you be pretty damn sure you know what's going on before you step in.