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"?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.
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.
