TexasCHLforum.com

Another Wal-mart parking lot robbery near Leaugue City Texas. Story here:

http://www.click2houston.com/news/23988484/detail.html

The video is here:

http://www.click2houston.com/video/23988311/index.html

Not only does it give us another reason to carry, but more importantly it reminds us to excercise good situational awareness at all times. From the video, it appeared there was very little time to react. Just proves the times we live in today.

Wow -- sure was QUICK!

Should the wally walk be renamed trial by fire???

sjfcontrol wrote:Wow -- sure was QUICK!

WOW. Not sure anything could stop someone pulling up, jumping out and robbing that fast!

It only took 19 seconds from drive up to drive off. Just makes you think how vigialant we need to be, you lose focus for just seconds and you have a gun in your face.

How was it possible that in the 3 seconds or less that the BG was at the passenger window, did the victim get into her purse (presumed) or pocket(s) to produce the bounty?
If it were me, it would have taken at least that long to realize what was happening, let alone fumbling for my wallet -- and my gun is right in front of it, so could pull that as well.
So I would guess 8 or 10 seconds at a minimum (unless, and I did not notice) if the video was time lapsed?

Now the boogers are coming out in the light of day. Guess the sunlight doesn't bother them any more. Maybe these people were in training for the robbers olympics. Be aware, be very aware!

It looked to me, and may have been mentioned in the article, that he took her purse. Doesn't take much time just to hand over something already in your hands, or on your shoulder.

Teamless wrote:How was it possible that in the 3 seconds or less that the BG was at the passenger window, did the victim get into her purse (presumed) or pocket(s) to produce the bounty?
If it were me, it would have taken at least that long to realize what was happening, let alone fumbling for my wallet -- and my gun is right in front of it, so could pull that as well.
So I would guess 8 or 10 seconds at a minimum (unless, and I did not notice) if the video was time lapsed?

I came up with about 13 - 15 seconds from the time the bandit's feet hit the pavement until he was back in his vehicle.

This was cleverly done. The robbery team drove past the victim's vehicle, which placed the victim's vehicle in the victim's line of sight to the offender's vehicle. This avoided any potential warning from a "blocking" position, and gave the victim no opportunity to see the BG until he was already on her side of her car and her only potential escape route was blocked by her own open passenger side door. The technique, speed, and efficiency here suggest this was not a first run for the bandits.

From a situational awareness standpoint, she would have had to sense them focusing on her before they pulled up in order to create enough opportunity to evade or defend - a feat that only the most alert folks can accomplish, and then only some of the time. Once the BG exited the vehicle, it was pretty much over for the victim from a viable options standpoint, even if she had been armed.

The video is not time lapse. The slightly jerky movement is caused by the frame storage rate of only about 7 frames per second instead of the 28 frames per second you see in a movie. This practice is used in surveillance systems to reduce the cost of the hard drive space needed for video storage, and to extend the time images are kept before being overwritten by new ones.

Excaliber wrote:bandit's feet hit the pavement

I agree, but from the time they BG got to the window to the time he left the window.

PC §9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after com-
mitting burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the night-
time from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by
any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover
the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial
risk of death or serious bodily injury.

What are the chances of getting the contents of her purse back?

Teamless wrote:

Excaliber wrote:bandit's feet hit the pavement

I agree, but from the time they BG got to the window to the time he left the window.

Easy - he took the whole purse, as is usually done in these situations to minimize confrontation time.

Excaliber wrote:Easy - he took the whole purse

Thanks, I did not notice that.

Says something about the disadvantage of off body carry. If someone came up and demanded your bag or purse, would you be able to draw or he is going to get your wallet and your gun?

wheelgun1958 wrote:PC §9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after com-
mitting burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the night-
time from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by
any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover
the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial
risk of death or serious bodily injury.

What are the chances of getting the contents of her purse back?

Yes, Texas law allows that. BUT, justifying it afterwards is problematic. Juries don't look kindly on killing people over minor property crimes, such as purse snatching. And think about it. Do you REALLY want to kill somebody over a purse?