I STOPPED A ROBBERY LAST NIGHT

[Charlies.Contingency]

You did a great job.

Some have asked about how to answer a BG's question "are you a COP." My answer would be "you're under arrest for aggravated robbery. Stay on the ground and live." (Don't say "citizen's arrest" or everyone including the BG will think you're an idiot.) He'll think I'm a COP and as Excaliber said, he probably won't be as willing to get up.

Chas.

That avoids direct implication of being LEO, but gives the impression of such. The law to me seems to have a tad shade of gray, and I'd hate for some bozo to rat one of us out, by blabbing off his mouth once the boys in blue arrive, and I can imagine things taking a wrong turn. Not implying it could or would, just my wild imagination! I have my line rehearsed, but I have authority behind it, at least as long as I stay in this career. (Now that I think of it, it's not really the boys in blue anymore, more like the boys in black. I'm just happy I get to wear tan! Texas is too hot for black! )

I had been thinking of why nobody suggested cuffing him or such, but I forgot that not everybody here is a LEO. I feel much better sitting on top of somebody who's "cuffed and stuffed", then holding them at gunpoint, hoping I don't have to shoot them, and hoping they don't try to pull any stunts. Regardless, as I said before, great job on the OP!

[LAYGO]

What would happen if . . . say you had some zip ties in the vehicle . . . and zip tied his hands behind his back?

(Omitting the fact that you'd have to put the gun away/not the best tactical move to put them on, but you had help ...)

[BobCat]

Javier730,

Late reading this but compelled to say - you did perfectly! Your wife is safe, nobody got shot, and it is not your responsibility to "take out" a bad guy so he won't hurt someone else in the future. The police will find him (or not) but shooting him just because he is a bad guy is not a good idea.

They say that "you don't shoot to kill or shoot to wound, you shoot to stop" - and you stopped him! Without having to shoot, you stopped his aggressive actions and everyone went home in one piece.

Thanks!

[EEllis]

What would happen if . . . say you had some zip ties in the vehicle . . . and zip tied his hands behind his back?

(Omitting the fact that you'd have to put the gun away/not the best tactical move to put them on, but you had help ...)

If you happen to have cuffs and ignoring the tactical issues I would say go ahead but zip ties are different and I wouldn't go there. Heck tie em up or even duct tape him if you want but zip ties just feels like a bad idea.

[KD5NRH]

If you feel like you must keep a BG there for the cops, carry a crossbow and use it to tack him to the nearest wall. Handcuffs pretty much require armed backup unless you can convince the BG to put them on himself. Zip ties even more so because you can't do regular ones one handed. Zip cuffs would look like you were a little too eager to get into the situation.

[Keith B]

You did a great job.

Some have asked about how to answer a BG's question "are you a COP." My answer would be "you're under arrest for aggravated robbery. Stay on the ground and live." (Don't say "citizen's arrest" or everyone including the BG will think you're an idiot.) He'll think I'm a COP and as Excaliber said, he probably won't be as willing to get up.

Chas.

[video][/video]

[Javier730]

You did a great job.

Some have asked about how to answer a BG's question "are you a COP." My answer would be "you're under arrest for aggravated robbery. Stay on the ground and live." (Don't say "citizen's arrest" or everyone including the BG will think you're an idiot.) He'll think I'm a COP and as Excaliber said, he probably won't be as willing to get up.

Chas.

Thank you sir. Good idea. Let him think your a cop without saying your one. Looking back, Im glad the police didnt arrive while I had my weapon drawn. They could have mistaken me for the bad guy. Im starting to think letting him go or even shooting him if I had to is not the worst that could of happened.

[Charlies.Contingency]

What would happen if . . . say you had some zip ties in the vehicle . . . and zip tied his hands behind his back?

(Omitting the fact that you'd have to put the gun away/not the best tactical move to put them on, but you had help ...)

If you happen to have cuffs and ignoring the tactical issues I would say go ahead but zip ties are different and I wouldn't go there. Heck tie em up or even duct tape him if you want but zip ties just feels like a bad idea.

Yes, cuffing somebody is a tactical issue, and should only be attempted if properly trained as well. You can also get in trouble for not applying them properly to my understanding. Tightening cuffs too tight can bring trouble, as well as not double locking them, at least in my world. I don't really know how it translates to non-LEO. I have to go through training for restraint use, and even security guards have to get a training certificate to use handcuffs.

Handcuffs pretty much require armed backup unless you can convince the BG to put them on himself.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but jumping into handcuff somebody isn't something you should do if all your training is watching COPS. I think I'll go back on myself if I've said otherwise, but I do not suggest detaining somebody if you're not trained of comfortable doing it. I myself have to issues doing it, but I can't say I've always had 100% at cuffing somebody that assumed the position. The BG's are still a very real threat, even if they make out like an airplane on the ground.

Does somebody smell Blue Berry Muffins? I think I'm getting off track, I'll go try to find those muffins now.

[Jaguar]

Javier,

I think you did a great job under an extremely difficult situation. You can "would of, should of, could of" yourself to forever but that doesn't change "did". You "did" great, you and your family are safe, you and your family went home, you don't have the emotional stress of shooting someone and it isn't your job to take out bad guys. I can only hope if it were me I would act as well as you did. My hat is off to you, sir, a horrible situation landed in your lap and you did what was needed to get through it.

I have heard of people that shoot a bad guy and have to go into hiding because the bad guy's friends think it is the good guy's fault their friend is dead. You should be happy to not have to worry about that.

Jeff

[68Charger]

That was you? I'm from San Antonio. Medical center area. It made me smile to hear that. Wish they had interviewed you to spread a good word about a chl. I'm glad all worked out for you. Where do you frequent to go to the shooting range?

[Javier730]

That was you? I'm from San Antonio. Medical center area. It made me smile to hear that. Wish they had interviewed you to spread a good word about a chl. I'm glad all worked out for you. Where do you frequent to go to the shooting range?

I am glad they didnt interview me. I would have refused. I would not like that kind of attention. I also would not want that guy and his buddies somehow trying to track me down.

I usually go to A Place To Shoot. Ive gone to The Bullet Hole. I went to BlackHawk when I went and took my chl class and I really liked it. I am thinking of going to that range from now on.

[Rrash]

Man, what a powerful thread. It captures the purpose and integrity of CHL in Texas. Javier, thank you for sharing. Above all, I'm so thankful that you and your family are okay.

[ELB]

Perhaps this should be a thread of its own, but a question occurred to me in re-reading about this incident.

When did this robbery stop being "imminent"? And...when, if ever, did the justification to use deadly force disappear prior to arrival of police and/or the suspect ran off?

PC 9.31/9.32/9.33 says, paraphrasing, an actor is justified in using deadly force to protect himself or others if he reasonably believes force is necessary to prevent the use or attempted use of unlawful force against himself or others, and (in this case) to prevent the imminent commission of robbery or aggravated robbery.

"Imminent commission of robbery" seems pretty clear here.

So when did the "imminent commission of robbery" stop? When the suspect walked out the door? Then shooting the suspect as he got up off the floor could fall under the "robbery" justification for self-defense. (I'm not talking about tactics here, or whether it was a good idea in the long run, just the legal aspect).

But if "imminent commission" stopped when the suspect laid down on the floor, then legally shooting him as he got up would have to rely on the actor's (Javier's) reasonable belief that it the suspect was attempting to use deadly force against the actor or others. I think it would be reasonable since the suspect had indicated he had a gun in his pocket, and it might still be there, but it seems a stronger legal justification if "imminent commission of robbery" is still in play.

I would think after years of robberies and trials there is some answer to this in case law/precedent, but I do not know it.

[Javier730]

Perhaps this should be a thread of its own, but a question occurred to me in re-reading about this incident.

When did this robbery stop being "imminent"? And...when, if ever, did the justification to use deadly force disappear prior to arrival of police and/or the suspect ran off?

PC 9.31/9.32/9.33 says, paraphrasing, an actor is justified in using deadly force to protect himself or others if he reasonably believes force is necessary to prevent the use or attempted use of unlawful force against himself or others, and (in this case) to prevent the imminent commission of robbery or aggravated robbery.

"Imminent commission of robbery" seems pretty clear here.

So when did the "imminent commission of robbery" stop? When the suspect walked out the door? Then shooting the suspect as he got up off the floor could fall under the "robbery" justification for self-defense. (I'm not talking about tactics here, or whether it was a good idea in the long run, just the legal aspect).

But if "imminent commission" stopped when the suspect laid down on the floor, then legally shooting him as he got up would have to rely on the actor's (Javier's) reasonable belief that it the suspect was attempting to use deadly force against the actor or others. I think it would be reasonable since the suspect had indicated he had a gun in his pocket, and it might still be there, but it seems a stronger legal justification if "imminent commission of robbery" is still in play.

I would think after years of robberies and trials there is some answer to this in case law/precedent, but I do not know it.

If lethal force was used, I assume it would be up to district attorney whether or not there would be a prosecution and it would be up to a jury to decide whether or not the shooter was guilty.