Mother gets mugged in front of her 4 kids in Ft. Worth

[Sangiovese]

She had no idea that he was a threat until he hit her, and even then it was not a deadly force situation.

That would be incorrect. Being assaulted by someone with the capability to cause permanent damage or death with their fists -- and I'll wager that the person doing the assaulting was bigger than the victim -- is indeed a deadly force situation.

PhilR.

Male attacker vs female defender is always enough disparity of force to justify deadly force... doesn't matter if he was bigger than her or not.

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.

[LedJedi]

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.

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]

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

She basically had 2 chances to draw and fire, before he hit her and after he had the purse and was walking away (she said she didnt even realize right away that she was hit, just something was wrong and he grabbed her purse so she didnt have the wits about her to draw as he was taking the purse off of her).

Which of those times would you say she should have fired? Before he did anything that justified deadly force, or as he was fleeing?

If she had pepper spray she can legally use it once she feels threatened, which was as soon as he exited the car and advanced toward her. Problem solved very quickly and without any undue legal process.

[HighVelocity]

If you're walking in a parking lot and a stranger is approaching you, that is a threat until proven otherwise.

Had she produced a pistol before he got to her and the man backed off, would she have found herself in legal trouble if the man turned out to be anything but a threat?
I am not being sarcastic, that is a serious question.

[Sangiovese]

If you're walking in a parking lot and a stranger is approaching you, that is a threat until proven otherwise.

Had she produced a pistol before he got to her and the man backed off, would she have found herself in legal trouble if the man turned out to be anything but a threat?
I am not being sarcastic, that is a serious question.

Yes, she would have been in trouble. Here is the applicable law:

PC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE
HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.

Drawing it would fall under, "intentionally failing to conceal" it. The only time you can display your handgun is when you would be justified in pulling the trigger.

(h) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) that the
actor, at the time of the commission of the offense, displayed the
handgun under circumstances in which the actor would have been
justified in the use of deadly force under Chapter 9.

[Mage34]

If you're walking in a parking lot and a stranger is approaching you, that is a threat until proven otherwise.

Had she produced a pistol before he got to her and the man backed off, would she have found herself in legal trouble if the man turned out to be anything but a threat?
I am not being sarcastic, that is a serious question.

I would like an answered to this post also.....If I walk up to someone and they feel threatened and they pull on me (I would hope they don't just shoot) there is no way I'm going to call the cops on them. In today's society I think it is better to be safe than sorry.......

Someone replied before I pushed Submit......still seems like I would rather deal with the repercussions of drawing than of trying to figure out where all that blood is coming from......

[stevie_d_64]

If you're walking in a parking lot and a stranger is approaching you, that is a threat until proven otherwise.

I agree with this part...But...

Had she produced a pistol before he got to her and the man backed off, would she have found herself in legal trouble if the man turned out to be anything but a threat?
I am not being sarcastic, that is a serious question.

My serious answer would be that if the "threat" backs down, you acted appropriately...

You reasonably determined that it was a threat to you at that time...You reasonably determined the only way to stop that threat considering the circumstances, conditions, and the manner of the approach of the threat, was to draw your weapon...I think this has to happen more often than not...2.5 million times a year seems to ring a bell...I find it difficult not to believe some of those defensive uses were based upon a percieved threat that turned out to be mistaken...No shots fired, everyone apologizes, and you go on with your life...

If she had her wits about her, why would you or anyone want to assume a man approaching a woman in this manner would back down with a verbal warning in this day and age??? Without the capability of a woman displaying the means to back that warning up???

In this case she was not armed, nor in any state of awareness to defend herself...Thats what her problem was...

If the threat backs off in this hypothetical case, then they should have been aware that their own posture and presense could have appeared to be threatening to someone they saw, or maybe didn't notice till it was too late...

I will not condemn a woman in this day and age, if the situation we are expanding upon was similar...And they drew on a perceived threat...Hopefully that action stops the threat, and no shots are fired...But if the threat is real and continues...They are prepared to deal with it...

Sorry I ran off with this one...

But this is just my opinion...

[seamusTX]

Had she produced a pistol before he got to her and the man backed off, would she have found herself in legal trouble if the man turned out to be anything but a threat?

Maybe, maybe not.

If no one complained to the police, nothing would happen.

If someone called 911 and the cops got there, and the guy turned out to be a traveling Bible salesman, she could be charged with failure to conceal by a CHL holder, or deadly conduct if she pointed the weapon at the man.

However, the guy is most likely a felon, and being as stupid as they usually are, has warrants or is carrying drugs. In that case, no harm, no foul.

That's why I said she should have yelled, specifically, "DON'T COME NEAR ME! DON'T HURT ME!," followed by variations such as "GET AWAY FROM ME AND MY KIDS" until she had an audience.

In that case, if the guy kept advancing, he definitely would have been a threat.

- Jim

[fm2]

If she had pepper spray she can legally use it once she feels threatened, which was as soon as he exited the car and advanced toward her. Problem solved very quickly and without any undue legal process.

I agree, that having the pepperspray in hand during the "interview" phase of the assault, would have been appropriate. Heck, it may have disuaded the BG to continue. It depends how motivated the BG is. Thats why we gotta have plan B,C, D etc...

[Sangiovese]

That's why I said she should have yelled, specifically, "DON'T COME NEAR ME! DON'T HURT ME!," followed by variations such as "GET AWAY FROM ME AND MY KIDS" until she had an audience.

In that case, if the guy kept advancing, he definitely would have been a threat.

- Jim

I agree 100% with this.

I don't subscribe to the school of, "if someone makes you feel uncomfortable, draw your gun immediately so you can feel safe" that seems to be more and more common on various messageboards... but I also don't think you should just wait around and hope that if they DO attack you, you'll be able to respond fast enough.

Making a scene so that the person approaching you and any bystanders know that you feel threatened serves a couple purposes.

First, if the person is not trying to do something bad... he will probably be shocked by your response. He might even think you are crazy for reacting that way. But he will stop. If he does mean to cause you harm, then he will continue to advance. You now have a good idea if this is a real threat or not and nobody's life has been placed in danger and nobody has potential legal troubles.

Second, if he continues advancing against your verbal orders, he is now an overt threat. Most sheep won't believe that you were able to tell someone who was "just walking toward you" in a parking lot was a threat. But nearly everyone will agree that someone who advances on you when you are screaming at them to back off is up to no good. You have now established for yourself AND for the witnesses that there is a real threat. Any actions you take to defend yourself from this point on are much more likely to be viewed as reasonable and necessary than if you had just jumped straight to the defense.

[fm2]

Excellent discussion! Stevie, SeamusTX, Mage34, and HighVelocity great line of thought. Start off with the verbal and be ready for the physical part.

So we see, she got behind the power curve in what part of the criminal assault? I call it the interview phase. Maybe awareness would have allowed her to see him setting up his ambush before the interview, maybe not. Maybe, she could have manuvered out and avoided the confrontation. I have caught panhandlers setting up,ie... to intersect your path, during their victim selection, before they start their sob story.

How to Manage Unknown Contacts is a vital skill.
Awareness, as well as MUC are the skills many of us will use daily. Whether it's a bum, harmless lost person, or someone intent on victimizing us, that interaction usually starts at a distance and then closes to arms length, if we allow that to happen. The BG will almost always close the distance to commit asault.

This material is covered very thoroughly in the ECQC course by Shivwoks.

[seamusTX]

First, if the person is not trying to do something bad... he will probably be shocked by your response. He might even think you are crazy for reacting that way.

There's nothing wrong with seeming crazy. I fended off a possible mugger doing just what I said.

I know I steer clear of people who seem crazy.

- Jim

[Sangiovese]

First, if the person is not trying to do something bad... he will probably be shocked by your response. He might even think you are crazy for reacting that way.

There's nothing wrong with seeming crazy. I fended off a possible mugger doing just what I said.

I know I steer clear of people who seem crazy.

- Jim

I hope I didn't sound as if I thought it was a bad thing for someone to "think you're crazy" in that situation. The important thing is that if they don't intend to harm you, then they will stop advancing. That prevents you from misconstruing their motives and prevents them from getting shot. Having them think you might be a little bit nuts is a small price to pay for that result.

And if they DID mean to do you harm... well, they might reconsider (as your mugger did). They might continue anyway. If they do continue, then you at least are sure of their intentions. As an added bonus, all the witnesses are aware that you tried to avoid the situation and they continued with it. Again... someone thinking you're a bit looney is a small price to pay.

[seamusTX]

I hope I didn't sound as if I thought it was a bad thing for someone to "think you're crazy" in that situation.

I just wanted to emphasize that of all the possible outcomes, it's one of the least bad.

After all, it's unlikely that any of the witnesses will see you again.

- Jim

[LedJedi]

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.