Almost Robbed At Walmart !!!

[Oldgringo]

As was mentioned previously, if y'all are thinking of blowing BG's to smithereens, make sure that you're carrying the groceries in the offhand, not your CCW hand. That little tactic/mannerism improves one's draw immensely.

Now that that's settled and the LEO's, DA and Grand Jury have no-billed you, all you have to concern yourselves with are the civil proceedings. Should be a piece of cake, right?

[Beiruty]

As was mentioned previously, if y'all are thinking of blowing BG's to smithereens, make sure that you're carrying the groceries in the offhand, not your CCW hand. That little tactic/mannerism improves one's draw immensely.

Now that that's settled and the LEO's, DA and Grand Jury have no-billed you, all you have to concern yourselves with are the civil proceedings. Should be a piece of cake, right?

In Texas, if you are not charged, there is no civil liability. Yes, it is piece of cake, read it at the end of the CHL handbook.

[CompVest]

Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 83 Use of Deadly Force in Defense of Person

CPRC 83.001 Civil Immunity. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of the force or deadly force, as applicable.

[Ed4032]

I grew up in Beaumont and now live in Dallas. That place is a cess pool. I seldom ever go back. None of us can say he should have shot the thief because we were not there. Always best if you can just walk away. I was in a similar situation once. What scared the bad guy away was that he saw my hand on my holstered gun. He just said never mind and walked away. But I had already yelled at him to stay back and he kept approaching me anyway. I thought later I should have called the police but did not. Tunnel vision sets in and you just want out of there.

[handog]

About that time the man grabbed my sons arm and said give me your I-Phone !!

For those of you questioning whether he should have drawn at that point or not - how would the son know he wasn't about to be kidnapped?

It sounds to me like the BG wanted to make a phone call and was being obnoxious. In this case a punch in the mouth was in order. If the son would have pulled his gun out in a public parking lot even though it was justified he would have been sharing a bunk bed with Bubba that night. No one here has suggested handing over the phone. It sounds like some here reach code red a little quicker than others and that's fine. We all have to do what we feel is right at the time to protect ourselves and our families.

[.45mac.40]

Dan20703
The Annoyed Man

Ditto ... same, same !

I refuse to be left lying.. bleeding, dying OR dead, on some dirty ole' parking lot ! (( Item of interest, doesn't matter & most perps are doped up and stronger than me. ))
iF he is close enough to grap your arm ... he can take your pistol ! NOW WHAT ??

Mac .45 >>>>> # %%% #

[Oldgringo]

Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 83 Use of Deadly Force in Defense of Person

CPRC 83.001 Civil Immunity. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of the force or deadly force, as applicable.

Yeah, yeah...and, who determines whether the deadly force was justified? It ain't the LEO's and it ain't the DA. It is determined by twelve of your peers in Civil Court. Even if you win, you lose $$$. OTOH, sometimes you just gotta' do what you gotta' do.

BTW, IANAL. Ask yours.

[Fredd]

If someone attacks me I will defend myself. I'm not going to lower my chances of survival by worrying about a criminal trial. I mos def won't risk being hurt or killed because I'm worried about a mythical civil suit.

[joe817]

None of us can say he should have shot the thief because we were not there. Always best if you can just walk away. I was in a similar situation once. What scared the bad guy away was that he saw my hand on my holstered gun. He just said never mind and walked away. But I had already yelled at him to stay back and he kept approaching me anyway. I thought later I should have called the police but did not. Tunnel vision sets in and you just want out of there.

Ed4032, thank you for sharing. You clearly show that a threat of deadly force quickly reduces a potential deadly force encounter....something no one ever, ever wants to come to fruition.

I must assume you were in condition "RED" and was ready and able to pull the trigger, if conditions warranted. But your training, and awareness very clearly showed to the bad guy that things were going south for him very, very quickly. And he came to a correct conclusion........don't even think about messing with him.....just walk away. And he did....and so did you.

Folks, I believe this is a lesson to be learned. This is my opinion, and I'm not a lawyer.

[srothstein]

Apparently, when Gigag04 posted that some of us need to review our Penal Code, he was correct. There seem to be differing opinions on what is legally required to use force, what is required to use deadly force, the definition of each, and how criminal liability versus civil immunity works. And then we have to get into the main sections of the Penal Code to know which crime is being committed.

Seriously, these are all things we need to know if we are going to be armed. And with the way things are all interrelated, we need to know them all.

For example, most of us are aware that if we are involved in a justified shooting, we are immune from liability. But that still means we can be sued, because it is the civil trial that determines if we are justified, not the criminal actions. The grand jury could refuse to prosecute for many reasons, not the least of which is justification. They could refuse to charge because of a lack of evidence or they feel your rights were violated during police questioning. Even if a jury finds you not guilty and the only defense you presented was self-defense as justification (a la Billy Shaver), the victim can sue you. The civil jury would get to decide the justification issue again (a la O.J. Simpson).

A very commonly confusing area for police officers is the difference between theft, theft from person, robbery, and aggravated robbery. When you add in burglary, it can get even more confusing. Taking someone's property without their permission is theft. Taking it from a human being is theft from person (a special case of theft with an upgraded penalty). Using force or the threat of force to take the property is robbery. Think of a pick pocket. He does not use force to steal from a person and could not be charged with robbery. Aggravated robbery is a robbery with certain upgraded elements, such as a deadly weapon is used, or serious bodily injury is suffered.

In the case under discussion, when the man placed his hand on the victim's arm and demanded the phone, it was a robbery. The use of the hand and the demanding voice is enough force to make it a robbery. The demand, as opposed to a request is one of the determining factor. Consider if a person just asks you if you can give him a dollar. This is begging and not robbery.

As was posted, robbery is all it takes to justify the use of deadly force. Fortunately, it also justifies the use of force, which is what the robbery victim used. The robbery victim would have been justified in shooting him at that point, as I read the laws.

One important difference we must all keep in mind is our personal morals versus the law. As one person said, I may hate to explain to a jury that I shot to stop the person from taking a cell phone but I would be fully justified, legally, in doing so even if it is not in my personal standards. There is no minimum value required in the law. I may have my morals, which probably will differ from yours, but the law is pretty clear cut on what society will accept.

[The Annoyed Man]

Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 83 Use of Deadly Force in Defense of Person

CPRC 83.001 Civil Immunity. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of the force or deadly force, as applicable.

Yeah, yeah...and, who determines whether the deadly force was justified? It ain't the LEO's and it ain't the DA. It is determined by twelve of your peers in Civil Court. Even if you win, you lose $$$. OTOH, sometimes you just gotta' do what you gotta' do.

BTW, IANAL. Ask yours.

If you get no-billed because a grand jury rules that the use of lethal force was justified, then there are no "12 peers in Civil Court" because you are immune to lawsuit, so civil trial is not a concern. You may have to pay a lawyer to get you through it, but plaintiff is not going to succeed in taking your house, or levying your wages, or anything like that. Your only real concern is whether or not you are indicted and a Criminal court is convened to try you. If either the DA, or failing that, a grand jury determine that use of deadly force was justified, then there is no criminal trial.

If you have to face a grand jury, you will have legal expenses, no doubt. But I balance the cost of legal representation against the value of my life. I don't know about you, but I think that my life is worth defending. In the case of this cretin in the OP who is refusing to take "no" for an answer over my cellphone, how do I know that he is not willing to take my life in order to get what he wants, since his overt behavior is already criminally violent over such a small thing as a cellphone? Am I willing to risk that he will be placated if I just give it to him? What if I give him the cellphone, and he demands my wallet next, then my watch? What if there isn't enough cash in the wallet, and the watch is a Timex, and in a rage he decides to take it out on me physically? At what point, exactly, in your mind does the use of force in your own self-defense become justifiable?

In that situation, I don't give two figs and bag of nuts for what a grand jury might think, because I don't see a fellow human being in need in front of me. I see a mad dog which is out of control and is a threat to my life. I will do whatever it takes to stop that threat now rather than acquiesce to it in the probably vain hope that no harm will come to my person if I comply. H. E. Double hockey sticks "NO," I am not giving this guy my cellphone just because he is a physical threat.

The way I see it, if I'm not willing to make that evaluation, which seems pretty straightforward to me, then why am I even bothering to be in possession of a CHL and a loaded gun? Is not the purpose to defend my life? When do you determine the need — before, or after your life is taken? And when do you determine that the threat against you is going to culminate in your death — when the rapid advance in a threatening manner is made and he attempts to grab your arm; or do you decide after he's already stuck a concealed knife between your ribs? There is no legal requirement that you may only meet force with equal force. That does not stop the altercation, it merely prolongs it. The law says you are justified in using whatever force is necessary to stop the attack, up to and including the use of deadly force. Conveniently for us, the law also gives us a certain amount of leeway by further saying that use of deadly force is justified when a reasonable person reasonably believes that the bad guy may cause him/her bodily harm and/or death if the attack is allowed to proceed. You really only have one reasonable chance to make that decision, and it is before he actually gets his hands on you.

Hey, I am nothing else if not a reasonable guy. Who am I to refuse the bad guy what he is asking for?

[Oldgringo]

The Oldgringo wrote:

...sometimes you just gotta' do what you gotta' do...

The Oldgringo also recalls the timely and true message from that Texas CHL sage, 03lightningrocks who reminded us that 'a CHL is not a Batman license'.

Folk, our CHL license is not a permit to shoot everybody who looks at us cross-eyed or jostles us in the checkout line or pushes their buggy against our vehicle in the parking lot, or tries to hand out various literature or even asks, "brother, can you spare a dime".

If you're going to shoot, you had better know dadgummed well what you're doing because you and your progeny are going to have to live with it for a long time. I may have to shoot somebody someday; however, I'm definitely not looking forward to it.

[E.Marquez]

To the OP.. Happy to read your son came out ok.. even better you helped him understand the power goes to the first person to call 911 (not bring help, as it's already too late for that, but to inform and cover ones position)

This entire discussion reminds me of my standard reply when asked why I feel the need to carry a gun ..
“Crime is random, if you can tell me the time and place of where I will be randomly attacked, mugged, carjacked, I’ll simply not be there and have no need for the weapon”
Same ideal for this…in my twisted mind..
The OP asked “#1 If you were armed, at what point would you draw your weapon and #2 at what point would you have fired ??” And then got all kinds of replies from “shoot him” to “a CHL is not a Batman license”
The simple answer is , well simple.. You shout your warning, whatever verbiage it is for you that you have practiced (for the BG to hear and any potential witnesses) Sir, STOP, ,, STOP, Stay away... If he continues you draw and present your weapon... (all the talk about it not being worth it to stop the theft of an I phone is revisionist history, at this point in the scenario you have no idea if that is the final intent of the attacker)
If the BG walks away you move to a secure place while holstering your weapon and calling 911, if he continues forward and time allows..you shout your second warning “stop or deadly force will be used” if he continues forward you then place two well aimed shots into his chest, while moving to a more secure location and calling 911.
If I knew in advance (see the first quote above) that the BG was just a harmless obnoxious guy that really wanted to JUST use my phone would I draw and shoot him... well no.... but how do you determine what is in a man’s mind and hart as he is coming toward you in an aggressive manner. IMHO you don’t.. you give him all the opportunities you can to understand you will not be his victim, and then you defend yourself using all of the tools you have at your disposal (first and foremost your mind, feet and cellphone).

[Beiruty]

All good points are welcomed.

Let me add, all the time we need to have situational awareness, awareness of our surroundings, awareness of shaddy people and their acts. And last but not least, keep a enough distance between you and potential threat that gives time to react.

The clear cut case if the BG guy presented a deadly weapon, a bat, a knife, or a firearm, that will be enough to go full blown reactive mode with deadly force.

[The Annoyed Man]

The Oldgringo wrote:

...sometimes you just gotta' do what you gotta' do...

The Oldgringo also recalls the timely and true message from that Texas CHL sage, 03lightningrocks who reminded us that 'a CHL is not a Batman license'.

I never said it was. In fact, I am extremely circumspect in my behavior, and I already go out of my way to avoid areas where trouble has a higher likelihood of finding me. OTH, I refuse to become a complete stay-at-home recluse, and one does need to make the odd trip to the market now and then. Walmart is a market. See the thread title.

Folk, our CHL license is not a permit to shoot everybody who looks at us cross-eyed or jostles us in the checkout line or pushes their buggy against our vehicle in the parking lot, or tries to hand out various literature or even asks, "brother, can you spare a dime".

Nobody is suggesting that it is. And if you review my posting history, you'll see that I am one of those who is more likely to give money to a vagrant, even knowing that it will be misused, than not. And I'm not going to plug someone for bumping into me at the supermarket checkout line. That's just dumb. But not one of those things comes remotely close to being aggressively attacked for your cellphone, as in the OP. Why are you leading the conversation away from that salient point?

If you're going to shoot, you had better know dadgummed well what you're doing because you and your progeny are going to have to live with it for a long time. I may have to shoot somebody someday; however, I'm definitely not looking forward to it.

Who is looking forward to it? I understand your caution, but your post seems to imply that I, and others who agree with me, are being incautious, when nothing could be further from the truth. I practice caution in my daily lifestyle. But when some mongo assaults me despite my efforts at caution, that mongo is going to get shot, for all the of the reasons I have outlined in previous posts; and any possible lack of caution on my part hasn't got a thing to do with it, because I am cautious. Indeed, it is the other guy who is not being cautious.

If he were being cautious, a simple "sir, you have a cellphone, and I need some help; can you please help me?" would have sufficed to get me to help him.