(NC) Bystander shoots purse snatcher in legs

[Drizzt]

Bystander shoots purse snatcher in legs

STEVE LYTTLE

The Charlotte Observer

Police say a man picked the wrong place for an apparent robbery attempt Wednesday night in north Charlotte.

The incident ended with the suspect shot in the leg.

Police say a woman reported a man grabbed her purse while she waited at a bus stop on North Tryon near 24th Street around 8 p.m. Wednesday.

But a man standing next the woman at the bus stop had a gun and pulled it, firing several rounds at the robbery suspect as he ran away.

When police arrived, they were told the man had been seen running into a storm sewer under North Tryon Street.

Officers found the man in the sewer pipe minutes later. They said he had gunshot wounds in his legs, and medics had to evacuate the suspect from the culvert.

The suspect was arrested. Police say they want to question the man who fired the shots.

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/13070700.htm

I know I shouldn't be laughing..... but I am

 

[Alex45ACP]

Excellent.

 

[KMKeller]

Unfortunately, in NC, unless the snatcher was beating the woman he snatched the purse from, the shooter is in deep dookie.

 

[dasmi]

While I've no problem that the scumbag was shot, the shooter will have some legal troubles I'm sure.

 

[mr_dove]

definitely sounds like protection of property (and someone elses at that) and not protection of life.

I have little sympathy for the bad guy but I think the law will see this as unjustified force and the shooter will be in deep trouble (both criminally and civilly)

 

[bubbygator]

Yah, don't see how any justification for use of lethal force could be made. Bad decision - he'll pay for it.

 

[jsalcedo]

Yah, don't see how any justification for use of lethal force could be made.

The bad guy had the womans ID and keys, medication, money, personal papers address book.

The snatcher could have easily have come back later that night for an easy rape and robbery.

The shooter effectively ended whatever crime spree that particular cretin was on.

In my eyes the man was 100% justified and should have aimed for the head.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The bad guy had the womans ID and keys, medication, money, personal papers address book.

The snatcher could have easily have come back later that night for an easy rape and robbery.

The shooter effectively ended whatever crime spree that particular cretin was on.

In my eyes the man was 100% justified and should have aimed for the head.

In your eyes, maybe, but not in the eyes of the laws of any of the 50 United States. I have no doubt that "Police say they want to question the man who fired the shots." I doubt very much that he wants to be questioned, however, and I hope he didn't stick around to give anyone his name, address and telephone number.

 

[Darth Ruger]

The snatcher could have easily have come back later that night for an easy rape and robbery.

So now we're going to start shooting people because of possible future crimes?

The shooter effectively ended whatever crime spree that particular cretin was on.

Who says he was on a crime spree?

 

[Rob1035]

yup, based on NC law, the shooter will probably face the court.

 

[R.H. Lee]

It works for me. Hopefully the Barney Fife department won't locate the good guy.

 

[Texas9]

Bummer

Though it seems on the surface that the shooter did a good thing, I regret (SOMEWHAT) to say that the shooter is "...in deep dookie" (thanks for the laugh, KMKeller). I also regret the shooter's judgement, which was extremely poor. I don't know NC law, but in Texas, you better not shoot anyone in the back unless he's running for your kid with a meat cleaver or something. Suffice to say, running away = no longer an IMMEDIATE threat (crime spree does NOT equal immediate threat). I can see leniancy on the shooter's behalf had he somehow prevented the purse-snatch (although I'm not sure how-these things are usually quick), but he's fried when the judge gets a gavel on him.

Furthermore, this'll be a BAD notch in the belts of every CCW permit-holder in NC and anywhere else this makes headlines:banghead: .

 

[jsalcedo]

So now we're going to start shooting people because of possible future crimes?

The purse snatcher already proved what he was. What more evidence do you need?
Oh.. I'm sure that was the first and last crime that fellow was ever planning to do. He just needed money to buy diapers and formula for the orphange he runs.

99% chance the guy was a dope addict looking to score some cash for his habit. If someone is desperate enough to rob someone in broad daylight in front of witnesses JUST IMAGINE WHAT THEY WOULD DO AT NIGHT with the keys to someones apartment.

 

[SJG26]

Yes-------there are laws.............

But admit it----deep down some of us would do the same!

The purse snatcher chose to not follow rules of society - I see no reason to afford him any second chances...................brutal??--yes--heartless---yes!

Don't do the crime and all is well--------else suffer the consequences!

 

[hotpig]

To bad in the eyes of the law it is the purse snatcher that is a victim of a violent crime. I feel that if a person robs for a living and gets injured or killed it should be considered as a hazard of the occupation. If you choose to steal or rob and get hurt in the process, who's fault is it.

The purse snatcher already proved what he was. What more evidence do you need?
Oh.. I'm sure that was the first and last crime that fellow was ever planning to do. He just needed money to buy diapers and formula for the orphange he runs.

99% chance the guy was a dope addict looking to score some cash for his habit. If someone is desperate enough to rob someone in broad daylight in front of witnesses JUST IMAGINE WHAT THEY WOULD DO AT NIGHT with the keys to someones apartment.

 

[Jeff White]

If things actually happened the way the media said, then the shooter needs to be in prison. If he had a CCW, then it's going to be a black eye for the entire concealed carry movement and will be a case that those of us fighting in the few remaining states without CCW will see used against us.

This is a clear example of vigilante justice, the same thing the antis love to make up stories about. Well, they don't have to make this one up. One hero with a firearm, opens fire on a public street at a man fleeing from a misdemeanor theft isn't going to look good for our side. :banghead:

And here on THEHIGHROAD.ORG where we are supposed to promote the responsible use of firearms, we've got members gleefully and what's worse publically supporting and condoning this type of conduct.

We play right into the anti's hands when we condone this.

Jeff

 

[Byron Quick]

This will only be a bad notch in CCW holders' belts in the mind of people who are antis already. Or nearly. Many women will place themselves in the place of the purse snatcher's victim. So will their loved ones. The more rational among them will thank God for this. I think we could actually wind up with more support for CCW through actions such as this.

I have long held that the laws need to be changed as related to the lawful use of lethal force. As far as I'm concerned, the purse snatcher not only got what he deserved; he got what he was begging for.

If there's one person on the jury who feels as I do; the man will never be convicted. The state of NC should give him a public service medal and tell all the other thieves they can expect the same.

The law mollycoddling criminals in this fashion is one of the first signs of rot in English common law. You can see what the result was in England today.

I'd narrow the laws on assault, too. Say some person threatens you and obscenely insults your wife while you are out in public. If you beat the snot out of him, most states would define your actions as assault. I'd define it
as giving the man exactly what he was asking for.

 

[jsalcedo]

One hero with a firearm, opens fire on a public street at a man fleeing from a misdemeanor theft

Can't armed bank guards shoot bank robbers in the back that are making of with bundles of cash?

Isn't it hypocritcal that the possesions of one group of people are worth protecting and others aren't

If the lady had more than $500 value in her purse then it was a felony property crime.

One hero with a firearm, opens fire on a public street

To me he is a hero I'm not sure if we agree on this point or not.

And here on THEHIGHROAD.ORG where we are supposed to promote the responsible use of firearms

I apologize If I broke the rules of this forum by cheering someone for shooting a criminal.

We play right into the anti's hands when we condone this

That is like being afraid that Ted Kennedy will rise up and turn his rhetoric dial up to 11.

 

[TexasRifleman]

In your eyes, maybe, but not in the eyes of the laws of any of the 50 United States..

Well, it's not all 50 my friend. At least in Texas if it's after dark shooting for protection of property is "legally" justified. You're still gonna have to convince a DA not to prosecute I think, but it IS in the statute. For exactly the reasons mentioned. A criminal that will commit this kind of crime after dark is capable of more, so it's OK to stop that potential threat.

Tough to use that as justification I'd think, but it's in the penal code.

 

[carebear]

Avoiding the "looks bad for CCW" part, I wouldn't use the term "vigilante justice" on this one Jeff.

The crime occured in front of him and was still in the act of commission. It's not like fleeing the scene with the goods is totally divorced from the act of grabbing them, it is a necessary componant for the completion of the act of "unlawfully depriving the victim of their stuff." Even with legal precision, I think it splits hairs to say the elements of the crime stop somewhere between the grab and the turn to run.

Vigilante, to my mind and I think technically, would be tracking the guy down later and beating the snot out of him. Stopping him from fleeing, actually apprehending him, isn't "vigilante justice."

The question will resolve itself around the force used to do the apprehending, which will probably be found to be legally excessive. Still, if the guy had hurled a baseball bat (easily deadly force as well) with only the intention and effect of stopping his flight, there'd be no question about him being a "vigilante" it'd be flat-out hail the hero time.

Why are we, of all people, demonizing the gun too? Negative political effects?

 

[Topgun]

I held a purse snatcher at gunpoint once. I told the gathering crowd to call the cops. The lady whose purse was snatched started to .....LEAVE. I didn't hold HER at gunpoint, but I told her if she left, he was free to go.
The cops came. Relieved me of the burden and asked what I would have done if he had run. I told em the truth. I said I would have let him run.

The guy didn't know that though so he got to go to jail.

CCW is .....VERY...... specific on "fear for life." No THEFT will justify a shoot. Usually.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Right, he should have called 911.

And let the authorities handle it.

That's what the police are for.

We can't have people taking the law into their own hands.

The streets will run with blood.

 

[Darth Ruger]

Just to clear up one small detail...

If someone is desperate enough to rob someone in broad daylight...

Police say a man picked the wrong place for an apparent robbery attempt Wednesday night...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The crime occured in front of him and was still in the act of commission. It's not like fleeing the scene with the goods is totally divorced from the act of grabbing them, it is a necessary componant for the completion of the act of "unlawfully depriving the victim of their stuff." Even with legal precision, I think it splits hairs to say the elements of the crime stop somewhere between the grab and the turn to run.

You make it sound like he was still there trying to get the purse when he was shot. That's not what the story says...

But a man standing next the woman at the bus stop had a gun and pulled it, firing several rounds at the robbery suspect as he ran away.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why are we, of all people, demonizing the gun too?

No one's demonizing the gun, just the actions of the shooter. Think about it, would a cop who witnessed the incident have started shooting at the guy on a public street as he was running away with a stolen purse? No, he would have chased him. What makes this guy think he can just start blazing away on a public street with other people around after a simple grab and run?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The purse snatcher already proved what he was.

Exactly. He didn't assault, rape, or murder anyone. He proved he's a purse snatcher, nothing more. The other guy started shooting at him while he was running away. That's not an immediate threat to safety. I have no sympathy for a criminal that gets hurt committing a crime, and he should be locked up for a long time. But that doesn't mean the shooter did the right thing. What if one of his bullets hit an innocent bystander?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why should we always be tippy toeing around afraid of what the anti's may say.

We're not tippy toeing around the anti's, just pointing out how they can and will use this against us.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's like being afraid that Ted Kennedy will rise up and turn his rhetoric dial up to 11.

Actually, I'd be more afraid if I saw his car coming down my street.

 

[chris in va]

Aiming for the legs too. 'Shoot to wound' is prohibited in many states, on top of him firing on a fleeing BG.

This is why I firmly believe in safety/law training with first time handgun owners. Some people run out, get a gun...and get in trouble.

 

[CrossofFire]

I'd say shooting him was a little bit over the top too, but hey, I guess that's the risk you take.

Realistically, I don't think shooting him multiple times in the legs was exactly...a proper response, there are other ways to handle it rather then just shoot him, like perhaps chase him.

But Regardless, this guy will catch hell, the man who shot him, reminds me of that man who was shot running from security in the U.K. this summer.

Realistically, I bet that cop lost his job because of the political atmosphere, but anyway, I think the purse snatcher shouldn't really be surprised, you're a criminal, expect to be shot at. But I do think shooting him for a purse is a little over board, I'm torn on this one.