OK to Draw on a Gun Snatcher?

[tbryanh]

Suppose a CHL holder carries two pistols concealed inside his waistband, one at the 1 o'clock position, and one at the 4 o'clock position. One day, someone sneaks up behind him and quickly snatches his pistol from the 4 o'clock position. The CHL holder then immediately draws his pistol from the 1 o'clock position and turns around and points it at the gun snatcher.

Is the CHL holder justified in pointing his gun at the gun snatcher even though the gun snatcher may not be a threat to him or anyone else? For example, maybe the gun snatcher was running away with the gun and was not pointing it at anybody.

[stingeragent]

I know this is hypothetical, but I can't see anyone snatching your gun just to run away with it.

Edit: Furthermore, since you said concealed, the hypothetical person wouldn't know you have a gun to sneak up and snatch.

[K.Mooneyham]

My advice is this: if you are going to open carry, carry in a holster with some sort of basic retention, such as a strap, to prevent getting into such a hypothetical position in the first place.

[tbryanh]

Yeah, it is probably rare that this would happen. I did see a youtube video of a convenience store camera where this happened. The CHLer was bent over picking something off the shelving and was printing quite a bit. The CHLer reacted immediately and was able to get the pistol from the gun snatcher. The gun snatcher was in an awkward position and only had one hand on the pistol and did not appear to have full control of the pistol yet. Seems the gun snatcher was alarmed by the CHLer's reaction. I am trying to find the video, but I am not having any luck.

[Beiruty]

Newbees, welcome all here.
Short answer: yes
1) Robbing is crime that justifies the use of the threat of deadly force or the use of deadly force.
2) Robbing you of deadly weapon is even more more of reason to to respond with threat of use of deadly force or use of deadly force.
3) Threat of deadly force is just a force.
4) if the criminal succeed in getting hold of your weapon, any further crime he commits is an aggravated crime.

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

Ranting to myself: Oh my God! Are some the CHLer instructors so none-proficient in teaching the basics of the justified use of force?

[Glockster]

Yeah, it is probably rare that this would happen. I did see a youtube video of a convenience store camera where this happened. The CHLer was bent over picking something off the shelving and was printing quite a bit. The CHLer reacted immediately and was able to get the pistol from the gun snatcher. The gun snatcher was in an awkward position and only had one hand on the pistol and did not appear to have full control of the pistol yet. Seems the gun snatcher was alarmed by the CHLer's reaction. I am trying to find the video, but I am not having any luck.

There was a case like that at a convenience store in Virginia. Unfortunately if I recall correctly the CHP'er was shot with his own weapon.

[o b juan]

Ranting to myself: Oh my God! Are some the CHLer instructors so none-proficient in teaching the basics of the justified use of force?
Beiruty,

Me to Beiruty

I am amazed at some of the questions CHL holders make after attending a class
But even more amazed by some of the questions some Certified Tx Chl Instructors ask.

I have found that people dont listen

[FastCarry]

Yes, it is OK. A question id like to ask, what made you think it wasn't okay? Just wondering if there's something being taught, or not taught, to cause someone to think that it wouldn't be legal to draw in the situation.

I've purchased a thumb break holster when I do open carry and have considered carrying a BUG for situations mentioned. Gun snatching is bawlsy, I mean.. You're trying to take a gun from a guy who carries to protect himself from some like you.. Doesn't make sense. Then again, crims lack common sense.

Thinking of a pocket revolver or micro 9mm for a BUG. Haven't been able to decide.

[Breny414]

Yes, it is OK. A question id like to ask, what made you think it wasn't okay? Just wondering if there's something being taught, or not taught, to cause someone to think that it wouldn't be legal to draw in the situation.

I've purchased a thumb break holster when I do open carry and have considered carrying a BUG for situations mentioned. Gun snatching is bawlsy, I mean.. You're trying to take a gun from a guy who carries to protect himself from some like you.. Doesn't make sense. Then again, crims lack common sense.

Thinking of a pocket revolver or micro 9mm for a BUG. Haven't been able to decide.

BUG = Backup gun?.

[Beiruty]

Yes, it is OK. A question id like to ask, what made you think it wasn't okay? Just wondering if there's something being taught, or not taught, to cause someone to think that it wouldn't be legal to draw in the situation.

I've purchased a thumb break holster when I do open carry and have considered carrying a BUG for situations mentioned. Gun snatching is bawlsy, I mean.. You're trying to take a gun from a guy who carries to protect himself from some like you.. Doesn't make sense. Then again, crims lack common sense.

Thinking of a pocket revolver or micro 9mm for a BUG. Haven't been able to decide.

BUG = Backup gun?.

Correct.

[ELB]

IANAL and all that.

To address the main question: Yes, I believe you would be legally and morally justified to use deadly force to prevent someone who has snatched your gun from causing further injury.

I think the key part of the law that Beiruty has quoted is not the part about robbery, but the part that says "the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary," the actor in this case being the one who just had his gun snatched. I think it would be very reasonable to believe that someone who just snatched your gun intends to use it against you, unlawfully, to effect one of the listed felonies.

Altho this is a hypothetical, gun snatches are not hypothetical at all, and they have spawned an entire segment of the holster industry and a significant segment of police training. If Glockster and I are thinking of the same incident, it was an open carrier and he was indeed targeted because his gun was visible. As I said in another thread, I think the reason we don't see this more often (yet) is that OC is really not very common, especially in areas where hoods congregate.

As for answering questions: Some CHL instructors are better in the classroom than others, and so are some students. The subject matter covered is significant in its importance, quantity, and depth. Lawyers who study it as a vocation make their money arguing about what it says and how to apply it. The best you can do in a CHL course is give the student a starting point to further educate himself, for him to think about how the law applies to various situations, and this forum is a handy way to do that. Thus I don't see the point in apparently mocking either the instructor or the student as to what he may or may not have been taught in a class I didn't witness.

When I have the time I often try to answer these questions for myself as an exercise by re-reading the law and other references, less for the questioner's benefit than my own. More than once I've discovered that what I thought was the "obvious" answer was in fact less obvious and more complicated than I had long supposed. Therefore I think it is a better policy to simply answer the question if I think it helps the questioner (or me).

[VoiceofReason]

1. Always carry a backup gun.
2. Carry it where it won’t be seen but you can get to it fast.
3. If you have to draw it on a gun snatcher shoot. No warning. Don’t wait to see if he/she intends to shoot you. Chances are it will be a matter of who drops the hammer first.

[SA_Steve]

Years ago, many years in fact, there was a West Texas sheriff who wore two pistols, left and right side - set up for cross draw, easy to snatch.
Kept them unloaded and used his hidden pistol when someone grabbed for the obvious ones.

Now that's a way to OC !

[KHickam]

I actually think not only would you be justified in drawing your other gun but also putting a bunch of holes in the snatcher - because now he is armed and a threat to you - never mind it was your own gun - I never carry a backup gun - but I have a retention holster and a handgun retention training when I was an LEO/CO - and I carry a knife and know how to use that well too.

[tbryanh]

Yes, it is OK. A question id like to ask, what made you think it wasn't okay? . . .

From what I have studied on my own (I could be wrong), the threat of force can be used to retrieve stolen property, but the threat of deadly force cannot initially be used to retrieve stolen property.

Example, someone pickpockets my wallet. I can draw my pistol and display it to the pickpocketer without pointing it at him (threat of force) and scream at him to give me my wallet wallet, but I cannot point the pistol at him at this point (threat of deadly force). If the situation escalates further and the pickpocketer becomes a deadly threat, then I can point the pistol at him (threat of deadly force) and shoot him (use of deadly force).

With the pistol being snatched, it is a property theft similar as it is with the wallet, but there is also the potential that the gun snatcher might shoot someone. If the CHLer draws his backup gun and turns around and sees that the pistol snatcher is running away with his back turned toward him, I am not sure the CHLer is justified in pointing his pistol at the gun snatcher or shooting him in the back. The CHLer is only trying to recover property at that point. He is not trying to defend himself against a deadly threat.