A CHLer stops a robbery in the daylight-Video

[Keith B]

Just one note, I didn't see where it said he had a CHL. He could have been carrying under MPA. Doesn't really matter though as once he saw the robbery taking place he would be jstified in using force, including the display of possible use of deadly force, in stopping the robbery.

And the video does show him being made to lay on the ground, but then the next scene shows him following another officer (I believe) down the sidewalk while the perps are being cuffed.

[mojo84]

Hopefully the complete video will show up on YouTube.

[MoJo]

I teach my students to 1. be a good witness and 2. do the right thing. The good samaritan did the right thing. He prevented a bad situation from escalating into a tragedy. The woman was either tangled with her purse or holding on for all she was worth. If the purse snatchers had managed to speed off she at least, would have been dragged for a distance and injured at worst, killed. If that gentleman does not have a CHL I will offer him a free CHL course and help him pay for his license.

[MoJo]

J
And the video does show him being made to lay on the ground, but then the next scene shows him following another officer (I believe) down the sidewalk while the perps are being cuffed.

I tell my students to expect to be cuffed after a deadly force incident until the good guys and the bad guys are sorted out.

[OnceFired]

Seems like a thoughtful response to a thoughtless crime on the part of the GG.

And as always I try to walk away from these types of stories learning something. I realized I have no idea what "under MPA" means. Please explain.

OF

[Pawpaw]

MPA = Motorist Protection Act

It's referring to this section of the code which I highlighted in red:

PC §46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:
(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or
(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control.
(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control at any time in which:
(1) the handgun is in plain view; or
(2) the person is:
(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic or boating;
(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm; or
(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01.

...which basically means as long as it's concealed and you're a good guy, you can have a handgun in your car without a CHL.

[rtschl]

Seems like a thoughtful response to a thoughtless crime on the part of the GG.

And as always I try to walk away from these types of stories learning something. I realized I have no idea what "under MPA" means. Please explain.

OF

MPA = Motorist Protection Act. His use of force was justifiable whether he was carrying under MPA or CHL.

Ron

[OnceFired]

Thank you very much. Learn something new every day.

[jmra]

Great story and outcome for sure.

For learning purposes and discussion, it begs the question, based on what we saw in the video:

In your view was this a legitimate defensive draw / threat of deadly force, not from a moral perspective, but purely from a legal one?

Did the GG in this case cross the line to playing law enforcement officer to some extent, rather than protecting someone against a threat of death or grave bodily injury?

The woman could have let go of her purse, and probably should have. Whatever was in it just isn't worth the risk she was taking in my view, especially with her children there.

The thieves were trying to get away as far as I could tell. I couldn't see that they were trying to use the car, or anything else, as a deadly weapon.

Don't get me wrong, I hope the GG will get a letter of commendation, and hopefully won't be charged, or will be no-billed if it's sent to a grand jury. If it ever did go to trial, I can't imagine a Texas jury would ever convict someone for his actions, nor should they.

But from a legal viewpoint, based on what I've been taught is justified use or threat of deadly force, I think this case is marginal at best ( based on the limited info in the video ), so is probably worthy of discussion along those lines.

Would you have done the same as the GG in this video?

I believe force was justified and thus the threat of deadly force was justified. Might have been a very different story had he shot one of them.

[Jumping Frog]

In your view was this a legitimate defensive draw / threat of deadly force, not from a moral perspective, but purely from a legal one?
...
But from a legal viewpoint, based on what I've been taught is justified use or threat of deadly force, I think this case is marginal at best ( based on the limited info in the video ), so is probably worthy of discussion along those lines.

You evidently didn't really learn PC §9.31-33.

Those robbers were very, very lucky.

Under Texas law, it is always open season, no bag limit, on varmints committing "aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery". Memorize those crimes.

He could just as easily filled them full of holes and his actions would be "presumed reasonable", per PC §9.32(b)(1)(C).

[naval_av8r]

This could have gone south in a hurry, had the robbers been armed. It very well could have led to a shoot-out in a public area leading to a much worse situation. Was he lawfully justified? Yeah, sure, we've seen multiple posts showing he was, but I'm not sure I would have done the same thing. Maybe intervention without he weapon drawn would have been enough. If not, at least he had a weapon to protect himself. Regardless, GG made a decision, stuck to it, and everything turned out alright.

[OldCurlyWolf]

I teach my students to 1. be a good witness and 2. do the right thing. (Blip) If that gentleman does not have a CHL I will offer him a free CHL course and help him pay for his license.

[rp_photo]

This is one of those horrible stories that destroys the Bloomberg narrative and that he's doing everything he can to prevent.

Unless he and others like him are willing forgo armed bodyguards and security when out in public, they need to shut their hypocritcal mouths.

CHL is the poor man's bodyguard.

[Excaliber]

This is one of those horrible stories that destroys the Bloomberg narrative and that he's doing everything he can to prevent.

Unless he and others like him are willing forgo armed bodyguards and security when out in public, they need to shut their hypocritcal mouths.

CHL is the poor man's bodyguard.

That's a good way to put it!

[WildBill]

This is one of those horrible stories that destroys the Bloomberg narrative and that he's doing everything he can to prevent.

Unless he and others like him are willing forgo armed bodyguards and security when out in public, they need to shut their hypocritcal mouths.

CHL is the poor man's bodyguard.

That's a good way to put it!

I like to think that if felt the need and had the funds to hire body guards, I would still carry.