TexasCHLforum.com

I think that regardless of what "tactics" are used at getting away, or returning fire as a kidnapper, anyone getting "involved" would expose you as such.

Well....yes, but my concern is not with "exposing" the person as a "possible" kidnapper. That can be done a variety of ways, the safest of which.. is calling the police. Bam! exposed....

Where as the "i'll mind my own business" way of thinking would have let a kidnapper get away.

I am certainly not advocating that anyone ignore what they think is a kidnapping in progress (or any other crime for that matter), quite the contrary.

I am simply asking each person to carefully consider what "level" of intervention is appropriate... with consideration given to the circumstance, your skills, and the law.

I am not asking you to "butt-out" or let anyone "get away".

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.

The police will take a kidnapping in progress report seriously and will be there as fast as is possible. You seem to think that unless YOU catch the person…that all is lost.

Actually, the police do a pretty darn good job of finding folks that have “freshly� left a scene. Most cities have numerous units they can dispatch, they have communication links, they are trained, some depts. even have aerial assistance, they have the ability to put out an Amber Alert many places. You have a misplaced eagerness to help and some bravado. Neither are appropriate in third party situations where you don’t know all the facts.

If I honestly believed you were kidnapping the child I'd draw and order you to the ground.

O.K. well you have me quaking now! Suppose I just don’t feel like “going to the ground�?

Now what? Do you shoot?

Maybe you could order me to the ground a little louder, possibly I didn’t hear you…or more likely I just don’t scare that easy. Ever thought of that?

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.

I see you have this all neatly planned out. Do you have any tactical training? Have you considered that I may not be acting alone? Oops! If I retreat with the child and you advance.. you will most likely expose yourself. Rule #1, if you have a clear path to take a shot at me, then I have one of you also.

No; that's what the gun is for.

Ahhhhhh, so your first reaction is to go for your weapon. Is it reasonable to assume that someone might call the police and report “man with a gun� (putting you at risk when they arrive).

Is it possible that some other brave soul with your same propensity to get involved might draw a gun on YOU while this all happening? Maybe they “thought� some guy was robbing a parent and his child.

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.

I can easily pick up any child up to 100 lbs. (struggling or not) and carry them. Even a small child would effectively cover all of my vital areas (look at a B-27 target). Are you pretty good at shooting moving targets?

If I have an accomplice waiting in a van, how hard do you think it would be for me to keep you pinned down behind concealment until I get to the vehicle?

Consider the situation. I've drawn and sighted my weapon with the intention of using it.

If you ever do this to another person who is carrying, I hope their first reaction is to respond in kind. I know it would it be mine, and my intent would be the same as yours. Does that sound like a good deal for anyone? I think you believe that if you produce a weapon…the other person is going to immediately obey your commands or faint dead away. Not likely!

The question is, are YOU REALLY good enough to draw, point and shoot before I get a shot off?

Don’t know. Don’t know how “good� you are. I do know that the cemeteries are full of people that underestimated their opponent or dumb luck.

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.

The “next car� assuming it’s available.. is NOT cover…save for the engine/transmission and maybe the wheels.

It provides “concealment� more than anything else. And good luck “double tapping� my legs…which will be on the move. Most folks can’t hit a full size IDPA target reliably when it’s moving, let alone something as small as my lower leg.

And when you miss, where did those errant rounds go? Hopefully not into that same crowded parking lot you were talking about earlier.

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.

Well….now we have imagined a convenient shot at my tires. Or maybe not…since I’m putting my own rounds your direction and you are busy keeping your head down behind that Volkswagen Jetta.

Meanwhile my partner has positioned the van two rows over facing away. Shouldn’t be any problem to pop those tires though.

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.

Exactly! It gives you the “ability� but provides no “sensibility�, that is something we have to apply ourselves based on the totality of the circumstance. And there is no “civic duty� to inject yourself into a situation where your presence has a high probability of making it worse.

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.

We are in agreement here. I can think of numerous scenarios where a person might witness (firsthand and without doubt) events that beckon intervention. I doubt many third party situations will be that clear cut though. Hence… my advice to be careful.

I understand, but see above.

I did “see above�, that is why I don’t think you understand how easily your good intentions could turn into a fiasco as concerns a (supposed) kidnapping.


Basically, there are two considerations:

1. Is what I am seeing an “actual� unlawful kidnapping?
2. If I intervene (at any level), will my actions make the situation better or worse?

It is NOT enough to have good intentions, it doesn’t matter that the “law� is your side. If you are not certain that your actions will make a positive difference in the outcome, then be a good witness and let the police do their job.

Now, maybe you’re fresh out of the military and you trained Special Forces while you were in. Perhaps…you are well trained and equipped to handle high stress situations such as we discussed. I don’t know.

Personally, I am hesitant to encourage the use of deadly force in a third party situation on the internet. I have only to look to the left and right of me when I go to renew each time to see why that is. Most folks don’t have what it takes to pull off what you say you would do.

Just my .02 on it, and I respect yours as well.


Flint.

Liko81 wrote:

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?

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

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!

dihappy wrote:

flintknapper wrote:

dwsUSA wrote:I had never thought about this before but after hearing an Amber alert the other morning I was wondering what the law would be in the following situation: You see someone trying to kidnap someone (assume it is someone you don't know) - can/should/would you shoot to help them if you could? If I knew I could do so without hitting the innocent person I think I would. If nothing else I would certainly try to disable their vehicle.

I would strongly advise against this.

Example why:

I have a niece on my wife's side of the family that is severely Bi-Polar. I have had to physically restrain her in the past...and even force her into (or out of) a vehicle. In the midst of this....I don't have time to stop and convince some bystander that I am temporarily in charge of this girl (acting in Loco Parentis).

I would prefer not to be shot, or have to shoot someone over a kidnapping they "thought" they were witnessing.

If you want to help, call 911, be a good witness, give good descriptions of the person and their vehicle, their dress, the place it occurred, etc. Follow them if it can be done safely, stay on line with 911 personnel.

Unless you personally know the person being "kidnapped" and all the circumstances surrounding it, then NO...do not physically intervene.

Just my .02 on it.

And this coming from a guy with "napper" in his name!


J/K i couldnt pass it up :)

Yes, but it is the prefix (flint) not (kid)...that is the important distinction.

dwsUSA wrote:I hear what you are saying. In some cases you wouldn't know what was really going on. I'm talking about the situation where it is obvious that a child is being abducted. Here in Austin there was a little boy, I think he was 5, that was taken by 4 young men from the families driveway. Thank God he is now safely back with his family but the 4 that took him are still on the run.

When I took my CHL class my instructor told us that the only way he would ever pull his weapon is if he or someone in his family was in danger. He said for anyone else he would call 911 and be the best witness he could be, but he wouldn't risk using his weapon for someone else.

There is certainly some wisdom in this approach because in some cases you would never really know all of what was going on. But from a legal stand point, if you have reason to believe that someone's life is in danger you can legally use deadly force, correct?

Yes, the law provides that you may use deadly force or the threat of deadly force to protect a third person from death or serious bodily harm, subject to the same retrictions as for your self.

As for the kidnapping thing, make darn sure you are right.

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 20.
KIDNAPPING AND UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT


§ 20.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Restrain" means to restrict a person's movements
without consent, so as to interfere substantially with the person's
liberty, by moving the person from one place to another or by
confining the person. Restraint is "without consent" if it is
accomplished by:
(A) force, intimidation, or deception; or
(B) any means, including acquiescence of the
victim, if:
(i) the victim is a child who is less than
14 years of age or an incompetent person and the parent, guardian,
or person or institution acting in loco parentis has not acquiesced
in the movement or confinement; or
(ii) the victim is a child who is 14 years
of age or older and younger than 17 years of age, the victim is taken
outside of the state and outside a 120-mile radius from the victim's
residence, and the parent, guardian, or person or institution
acting in loco parentis has not acquiesced in the movement.
(2) "Abduct" means to restrain a person with intent to
prevent his liberation by:
(A) secreting or holding him in a place where he
is not likely to be found; or
(B) using or threatening to use deadly force.
(3) "Relative" means a parent or stepparent, ancestor,
sibling, or uncle or aunt, including an adoptive relative of the
same degree through marriage or adoption.
(4) "Person" means an individual, corporation, or
association.
(5) Notwithstanding Section 1.07, "individual" means
a human being who has been born and is alive.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 790, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999;
Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 822, § 2.03, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.


§ 20.02. UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT. (a) A person commits an
offense if he intentionally or knowingly restrains another person.
(b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this
section that:
(1) the person restrained was a child younger than 14
years of age;
(2) the actor was a relative of the child; and
(3) the actor's sole intent was to assume lawful
control of the child.
(c) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor,
except that the offense is:
(1) a state jail felony if the person restrained was a
child younger than 17 years of age; or
(2) a felony of the third degree if:
(A) the actor recklessly exposes the victim to a
substantial risk of serious bodily injury;
(B) the actor restrains an individual the actor
knows is a public servant while the public servant is lawfully
discharging an official duty or in retaliation or on account of an
exercise of official power or performance of an official duty as a
public servant; or
(C) the actor while in custody restrains any
other person.
(d) It is no offense to detain or move another under this
section when it is for the purpose of effecting a lawful arrest or
detaining an individual lawfully arrested.
(e) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this
section that:
(1) the person restrained was a child who is 14 years
of age or older and younger than 17 years of age;
(2) the actor does not restrain the child by force,
intimidation, or deception; and
(3) the actor is not more than three years older than
the child.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 707, § 1(b), 2, eff. Sept. 1,
1997; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 790, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1999;
Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 524, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.


§ 20.03. KIDNAPPING. (a) A person commits an offense
if he intentionally or knowingly abducts another person.
(b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this
section that:
(1) the abduction was not coupled with intent to use or
to threaten to use deadly force;
(2) the actor was a relative of the person abducted;
and
(3) the actor's sole intent was to assume lawful
control of the victim.
(c) An offense under this section is a felony of the third
degree.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 20.04. AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING. (a) A person commits
an offense if he intentionally or knowingly abducts another person
with the intent to:
(1) hold him for ransom or reward;
(2) use him as a shield or hostage;
(3) facilitate the commission of a felony or the
flight after the attempt or commission of a felony;
(4) inflict bodily injury on him or violate or abuse
him sexually;
(5) terrorize him or a third person; or
(6) interfere with the performance of any governmental
or political function.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally
or knowingly abducts another person and uses or exhibits a deadly
weapon during the commission of the offense.
(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under
this section is a felony of the first degree.
(d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may
raise the issue as to whether he voluntarily released the victim in
a safe place. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative
by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the
second degree.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 318, § 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
§ 20.05. UNLAWFUL TRANSPORT. (a) A person commits an
offense if the person for pecuniary benefit transports an
individual in a manner that:
(1) is designed to conceal the individual from local,
state, or federal law enforcement authorities; and
(2) creates a substantial likelihood that the
individual will suffer serious bodily injury or death.
(b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.

Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1014, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.

dwsUSA wrote:I had never thought about this before but after hearing an Amber alert the other morning I was wondering what the law would be in the following situation: You see someone trying to kidnap someone (assume it is someone you don't know) - can/should/would you shoot to help them if you could? If I knew I could do so without hitting the innocent person I think I would. If nothing else I would certainly try to disable their vehicle.

I would strongly advise against this.

Example why:

I have a niece on my wife's side of the family that is severely Bi-Polar. I have had to physically restrain her in the past...and even force her into (or out of) a vehicle. In the midst of this....I don't have time to stop and convince some bystander that I am temporarily in charge of this girl (acting in Loco Parentis).

I would prefer not to be shot, or have to shoot someone over a kidnapping they "thought" they were witnessing.

If you want to help, call 911, be a good witness, give good descriptions of the person and their vehicle, their dress, the place it occurred, etc. Follow them if it can be done safely, stay on line with 911 personnel.

Unless you personally know the person being "kidnapped" and all the circumstances surrounding it, then NO...do not physically intervene.

Just my .02 on it.