A CHLer stops a robbery in the daylight-Video

[Beiruty]

This is a good story, since the whole action was captured on video.

HOUSTON — A mother out with her two children to go shopping became the victim of would-be purse snatchers, but a good Samaritan armed with a gun came to the rescue.

http://www.khou.com/news/crime/Armed-go ... 91061.html

[Excaliber]

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

However, I think the tide has turned and his $50 million attempted mass lobotomy by false information is going to fall flat.

The fact is the rest of us without armed bodyguard details like these kinds of outcomes.

[Beiruty]

What a coincidence? NRA news just released the call to believe in good guys and join NRA.
http://home.nra.org/home/video/good-guys/list/good-guys" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[chasfm11]

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

However, I think the tide has turned and his $50 million attempted mass lobotomy by false information is going to fall flat.

The fact is the rest of us without armed bodyguard details like these kinds of outcomes.

And this story also debunks the constant "blood in the streets" myth yet again. Every CHL is supposed to be just looking for every opportunity to shoot someone when there are stories like this one that show a good result with no shots fired and the BGs going to jail.

I wish the video had shown the police arrival. It looked like at one point the police had the GG spread eagled off to the right in the video and I could hear "get on the ground." I guess that is what I would expect if I were standing holding someone at gunpoint but it would have been interesting to see how it actually played out. I'm not sure that holstering at the last second as the police cars roll up would have been a good idea.

[RoyGBiv]

That was some AWFUL reporting.

Good news, bad story.

[Beiruty]

......
I wish the video had shown the police arrival. It looked like at one point the police had the GG spread eagled off to the right in the video and I could hear "get on the ground." I guess that is what I would expect if I were standing holding someone at gunpoint but it would have been interesting to see how it actually played out. I'm not sure that holstering at the last second as the police cars roll up would have been a good idea.

This is what I observed, the GG was asked by the Police to hit the ground in a flying position and most likely disarmed, cuffed, questioned verified his CHL, and let go with his gun back holstered and off to the Dollar store to buy some candy for his kids.

[philip964]

Channel 2 and 13 did not cover the story. Maybe 11 got an exclusive or they were not interested.

[katmandu]

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?

[Beiruty]

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?

Legally all what he did is justified under Texas laws. You should have learned so in your CHL course. The intervention and stopping the robbery is clean. Doing so is a personal choice of the CHLer.

[Purplehood]

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?

The law is pretty clear. Nothing was marginal about it. Your instructor may have been showing a little bias.

[TomV]

(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 - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/ ... rdBO4.dpuf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I admit, I'm still new and need to see this again and again and again...

[cb1000rider]

Legally all what he did is justified under Texas laws. You should have learned so in your CHL course. The intervention and stopping the robbery is clean. Doing so is a personal choice of the CHLer.

In my CHL course, we learned to "be a good witness" - which is another term for don't get involved.
Kudos to the guy that did get involved... And yes, you're allowed to stop a robbery in progress (legally).

[Pawpaw]

(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 - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/ ... rdBO4.dpuf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I admit, I'm still new and need to see this again and again and again...

In addition, the GG only used force, not deadly force, as allowed in PC 9.04. As for detaining the BGs, that also was justified, under PC 9.03.

PC §9.03. CONFINEMENT AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. Confinement is justified when force is justified by this chapter if the actor takes reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as soon as he knows he safely can unless the person confined has been arrested for an offense.

PC §9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

Of course, as always, it depends on each situation. IMHO, the GG did everything right. Good on you, Sir!

[mojo84]

As with most any class, instructors tend to teach and convey personal preference and opinion. The GG could have done what he did or been a witness. Really up to personal choice and situation.

I'm glad to see he helped out.

[ELB]

(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 - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/ ... rdBO4.dpuf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I admit, I'm still new and need to see this again and again and again...

I like to dig into these to sharpen my knowledge also. In this case,

Sec. 29.02. ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if, in the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he:(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.

So using deadly force to stop a robbery does not require a threat of deadly force by the perpetrator, but as a minimum an intentional or knowing threat of imminent bodily injury. Since it sounds like the victim was being dragged, via the purse, across the parking lot by a person in a car, I'd say that's a threat of imminent bodily injury, and the perpetrators were volunteering to be shot.

From a tactical perspective it might not be a great idea to fight over a purse like this, but the victim was certainly justified legally and morally to try to keep her purse from being stolen. The perpetrators put her in imminent danger of getting at least hurt, if not seriously hurt (which would bump it up to aggravated robbery). Also, if the woman was over 65, then merely threatening to cause bodily injury would be aggravated robbery, and that is also a way to volunteer to be shot).

In any case, glad the lady is ok and has her purse, the GG did well, and the perps are in custody.