WorldKush
Member
Alex45ACP said:
Excellent? You dont shoot purse snatchers when they're running AWAY. Would u still think it was "Excellent" if he was hit in the back of the head and killed? But then again everyones entitled to their opinion.
(NC) Bystander shoots purse snatcher in legs
- Thread starter Drizzt
- Start date
- Status
Excellent? You dont shoot purse snatchers when they're running AWAY. Would u still think it was "Excellent" if he was hit in the back of the head and killed? But then again everyones entitled to their opinion.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Thank you 1911Tuner. I read the post and spent about an hour doing a variety of searches and not coming up with any its that showed there was laws in any state that made the concept of shoot to wound illegal in situations where lethal force was justified. It was stated that such a shooting was illegal in some states and I was curious to learn more. Maybe Chris will get around to posting the salient informaiton or recanting.
I think you missed something however. The question was not if lethal force wasn't justified, but if it was justified. Lethal force is force known or capable to cause severe injury or death. While a person my employ lethal force, that person does not have to do so in a manner that will cause or is desired to cause death.
Somehow, I don't see your point that if you have time to take careful enough aim to wound that you probably have time to unass the AO. Strangely, a person's legs constitute several times the volume of a person's head and yet people seem to have time to attempt well sight head shots in the hopes of producing immediate incapacitation or death via destruction of the CNS. Here, the brain itselt is maybe only 50% of the volume comprising the head. So the brain becomes a very small target that may require some very precise shooting to intentionally hit, but if you have that much time...
Hm. Makes it sound like he didn't stick around.
In Texas, the law says that one may use deadly force to stop the consequences of theft. It's not just real well advised, and many jurisdictions within the state will still refer you to grand jury for it. I frankly, in my heart of hearts, am torn. Part of me says that the guy got what he deserved, and part of me questions how the guy was justified in flinging bullets down a public street.
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
Jeff,
You're probably right in your area. I'm certainly not used to being in such an environment. We have concealed carry here and before that had open carry.
Antis tend to keep there mouths shut in public here in Georgia.
Matt,
Depends on the public street. If I went out onto the street in front of my house, out of 360 degrees, there's a total of about 120 degrees where I could fire at someone and be able to know my target and what is behind it. The other 240 degrees would have the possibility of entering a dwelling and prudence would require withholding fire.
Outside of Atlanta, I don't think this man would be indicted in Georgia. He could be under the law as it stands. But I'm aware of a number of shootings that were technically illegal where either the grand jury refused to indict, or the DA refused to present the issue to the grand jury.
Jeff,
That court case you cited. Was that state or federal?
You're probably right in your area. I'm certainly not used to being in such an environment. We have concealed carry here and before that had open carry.
Antis tend to keep there mouths shut in public here in Georgia.
Matt,
Depends on the public street. If I went out onto the street in front of my house, out of 360 degrees, there's a total of about 120 degrees where I could fire at someone and be able to know my target and what is behind it. The other 240 degrees would have the possibility of entering a dwelling and prudence would require withholding fire.
Outside of Atlanta, I don't think this man would be indicted in Georgia. He could be under the law as it stands. But I'm aware of a number of shootings that were technically illegal where either the grand jury refused to indict, or the DA refused to present the issue to the grand jury.
Jeff,
That court case you cited. Was that state or federal?
Aguila Blanca
Member
Purse snatching is not a violent crime. It's grab and run -- non contact. If the snatcher struck the woman in order to get the purse away from her, than it wasn't a purse snatching, it was an assault, or "mugging."jsalcedo said:
Shootcraps
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,007
Even though the law in some states seems to support it, I think you are going to have one helluva time defending yourself against shooting a FLEEING purse snatcher. 
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
re:
DoubleNaughtSpy said:
>I think you missed something however. The question was not if lethal force wasn't justified, but if it was justified. Lethal force is force known or capable to cause severe injury or death. While a person my employ lethal force, that person does not have to do so in a manner that will cause or is desired to cause death.<
******************
Hi DoubleNaught,
I didn't miss your point. The point that I was trying to make was...If the situation isn't critical enough to shoot for the thoracic cavity, then it likely isn't critical enough to shoot at anything on a human being. Any gunshot wound has the potential to be lethal (I remember hearing of one of the early U.S casualties in Afghanistan who died after being shot in the ankle)...but intentionally taking aim at a *perceived* non-lethal part of the anatomy suggests that you either weren't truly in reasonable fear of iminent death or bodily harm...or you could have avoided shooting. If the threat is both iminent and close...If the attacker has the means...the will...and the opportunity to carry out the threat...we shoot neither to kill nor to wound. We shoot to stop the attack, and in as little time as possible. As you're doubtless aware, most shootings occur at something between 8 and 21 feet.
Now, if your strategy is to not actually admit that you deliberately aimed for the legs...and stick with the story of shooting in response to a deadly threat...and you just happened to hit him in the legs...then have at it, by all means. Just don't admit it. It suggests a cold blooded action when you're trying to convince 12 people that you were scared out of your wits.
As for square inches of target available...the pelvic area beats legs or head hands down, and if the pelvic girdle is broken, the assailant will drop like a sack of wet laundry. (He can still shoot back, however.) The legs are narrow, with a space between, and the target likely won't be standing still while you center your sights on one or the other.
DoubleNaughtSpy said:
>I think you missed something however. The question was not if lethal force wasn't justified, but if it was justified. Lethal force is force known or capable to cause severe injury or death. While a person my employ lethal force, that person does not have to do so in a manner that will cause or is desired to cause death.<
******************
Hi DoubleNaught,
I didn't miss your point. The point that I was trying to make was...If the situation isn't critical enough to shoot for the thoracic cavity, then it likely isn't critical enough to shoot at anything on a human being. Any gunshot wound has the potential to be lethal (I remember hearing of one of the early U.S casualties in Afghanistan who died after being shot in the ankle)...but intentionally taking aim at a *perceived* non-lethal part of the anatomy suggests that you either weren't truly in reasonable fear of iminent death or bodily harm...or you could have avoided shooting. If the threat is both iminent and close...If the attacker has the means...the will...and the opportunity to carry out the threat...we shoot neither to kill nor to wound. We shoot to stop the attack, and in as little time as possible. As you're doubtless aware, most shootings occur at something between 8 and 21 feet.
Now, if your strategy is to not actually admit that you deliberately aimed for the legs...and stick with the story of shooting in response to a deadly threat...and you just happened to hit him in the legs...then have at it, by all means. Just don't admit it. It suggests a cold blooded action when you're trying to convince 12 people that you were scared out of your wits.
As for square inches of target available...the pelvic area beats legs or head hands down, and if the pelvic girdle is broken, the assailant will drop like a sack of wet laundry. (He can still shoot back, however.) The legs are narrow, with a space between, and the target likely won't be standing still while you center your sights on one or the other.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Hawkmoon said:
No, Purse snatching is not a property crime, it is a personal crime.
A criminal act affecting a specific person. Crimes against persons, as defined by NCSB, include rape, sexual assault, robbery, assault, and purse snatching/pocket picking. The victimization is personal either through the direct experience of force or threat of force or by theft directly from one’s person.
ANY physical contact between criminal and victim and it's no longer a property crime. Hard to convince anyone you can steal a purse without any contact at all.
The last purse snatching victim I saw was black and blue where the thief practically ripped her arm off pulling the purse and breaking the straps.
I'm sure this doesn't happen every time and it all depends on how the woman
carries her purse.
I'm really concerned however about the number of posters here who are trivializing this sort of crime.
A funny story:
A very close friend of mine woman in her late 40's was at the mall Christmas shopping. She was walking to her car with arm loads of boxes, bags and her purse.
A woman walked up grabbed the purse and began pulling violently trying to take advantage of my friends precarious overloaded state.
My friend dropped all her packages and punched the purse snatcher in the face breaking the womans glasses and nose.
Reeling and covered in blood the wannabe thief ran to a nearby car where her and her accomplice sped off.
I'm sure this doesn't happen every time and it all depends on how the woman
carries her purse.
I'm really concerned however about the number of posters here who are trivializing this sort of crime.
A funny story:
A very close friend of mine woman in her late 40's was at the mall Christmas shopping. She was walking to her car with arm loads of boxes, bags and her purse.
A woman walked up grabbed the purse and began pulling violently trying to take advantage of my friends precarious overloaded state.
My friend dropped all her packages and punched the purse snatcher in the face breaking the womans glasses and nose.
Reeling and covered in blood the wannabe thief ran to a nearby car where her and her accomplice sped off.
Burt Blade
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Messages
- 477
The shooting of this scumbag will likely have a deterrent effect on other scumbags, regardless of the legalities. A plus to society.
"Sorry Mr. Prosecutor. I just do not believe the state has sufficiently proved the worth of its case to this Grand Jury. No True Bill."
Why are some so morally repulsed at the idea of using force to protect the property of another? The owner had to earn the money to buy the property. That makes the property a piece of the owner’s life. They cannot get back the time spent to buy that property. A thief steals a piece of your life when he steals your property. He has _no_ right to it. He has _no_ right to a claim of invulnerability just because he is running away with what is the property of another. If he does not want to get hurt, he should go earn his own property.
Laws that restrict protection of property from thieves are counter to the good of society. They encourage thievery. "Oh, I know I just beat granny to the ground, but I turned my cowardly tail, now you cannot shoot me!" Or even "I didn't even ruffle her hair when I stole her purse and month worth of cash. Too bad. You can't touch me now that I am running!"
The law should allow any reasonable use of force to stop a forcible crime, including snatch or sneak theft, and to prevent the escape of the perpetrator, who is highly likely to re-offend until stopped. It would have a positive protective effect on society as a whole, and help ensure protection of the Life, Liberty, and property of those least able to protect their own.
The thief always has the option of honest work, or even panhandling. The victim is out that much of their life.
"Sorry Mr. Prosecutor. I just do not believe the state has sufficiently proved the worth of its case to this Grand Jury. No True Bill."
Why are some so morally repulsed at the idea of using force to protect the property of another? The owner had to earn the money to buy the property. That makes the property a piece of the owner’s life. They cannot get back the time spent to buy that property. A thief steals a piece of your life when he steals your property. He has _no_ right to it. He has _no_ right to a claim of invulnerability just because he is running away with what is the property of another. If he does not want to get hurt, he should go earn his own property.
Laws that restrict protection of property from thieves are counter to the good of society. They encourage thievery. "Oh, I know I just beat granny to the ground, but I turned my cowardly tail, now you cannot shoot me!" Or even "I didn't even ruffle her hair when I stole her purse and month worth of cash. Too bad. You can't touch me now that I am running!"
The law should allow any reasonable use of force to stop a forcible crime, including snatch or sneak theft, and to prevent the escape of the perpetrator, who is highly likely to re-offend until stopped. It would have a positive protective effect on society as a whole, and help ensure protection of the Life, Liberty, and property of those least able to protect their own.
The thief always has the option of honest work, or even panhandling. The victim is out that much of their life.
Shootcraps
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,007
Perhaps because you can buy more property to replace what was stolen. You can't buy your life back.
Burt Blade said;
Try this scenario on for size. Say you have a 14 year old son. Your son is walking home from school one afternoon with his buddies and they are passing farmer Miller's orchard. One of his friends suggests they grab a couple apples for an afternoon snack. Your son, who you've raised well, says "No, that's stealing." His friends say; "Oh you're just chicken, you're afraid you'll get in trouble." The tautning continues and all the boys run into the orchard and grab some apples. Just then farmer Miller pulls up in his pickup and gets out with the 12 gauge he keeps in the cab for varmints. He hollers at the boys who all run off, apples in hand. Farmer Miller cuts loose with 5 rounds of 00 buck and your son and another boy are killed fleeing the crime scene.
I suppose you're going to be standing there proudly when the mayor and police chief give famer Miller his good citizenship award for making the community safer....
Sneak theft is not a forcible crime. Should I as a police officer be permitted to shoot anyone who ran from me?
I'm sorry my friend but I don't think I'd want to live in your idea of utopia...
Jeff
Try this scenario on for size. Say you have a 14 year old son. Your son is walking home from school one afternoon with his buddies and they are passing farmer Miller's orchard. One of his friends suggests they grab a couple apples for an afternoon snack. Your son, who you've raised well, says "No, that's stealing." His friends say; "Oh you're just chicken, you're afraid you'll get in trouble." The tautning continues and all the boys run into the orchard and grab some apples. Just then farmer Miller pulls up in his pickup and gets out with the 12 gauge he keeps in the cab for varmints. He hollers at the boys who all run off, apples in hand. Farmer Miller cuts loose with 5 rounds of 00 buck and your son and another boy are killed fleeing the crime scene.
I suppose you're going to be standing there proudly when the mayor and police chief give famer Miller his good citizenship award for making the community safer....
Sneak theft is not a forcible crime. Should I as a police officer be permitted to shoot anyone who ran from me?
I'm sorry my friend but I don't think I'd want to live in your idea of utopia...
Jeff
bubbygator
Member
I refuse to be part of any thinking that sees death as a reasonable penalty for purse-snatching. The fact that the guy was not actually killed does not erase the fact that he easily could have been by this irresponsible and unsafe behavior.
Burt Blade
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Messages
- 477
How is granny going to eat for a couple of weeks to a month when the thug swipes her purse? Why should he be protected from reasonable violence by the people he runs past?
Fear of bodily harm is a _proven_ effective deterrent to crime against persons. Laws preventing victims and bystanders from using reasonable force to stop a crime _encourage_ more crime.
You cannot replace the _life_ you expended obtaining your property if a thief steals it. You might buy another car, but the four years you spent paying it off is _gone_. If you were insured, you are still out the time expended from your life represented by the deductible. At $10 an hour, 50 hours of your _life_ was stolen by the thief.
And note I said "reasonable". Johnny the lad stealing apples off a tree is far, far different than Joe Orc swiping granny's purse or slipping into her home to abscond with her television set.
Fear of bodily harm is a _proven_ effective deterrent to crime against persons. Laws preventing victims and bystanders from using reasonable force to stop a crime _encourage_ more crime.
You cannot replace the _life_ you expended obtaining your property if a thief steals it. You might buy another car, but the four years you spent paying it off is _gone_. If you were insured, you are still out the time expended from your life represented by the deductible. At $10 an hour, 50 hours of your _life_ was stolen by the thief.
And note I said "reasonable". Johnny the lad stealing apples off a tree is far, far different than Joe Orc swiping granny's purse or slipping into her home to abscond with her television set.
R.H. Lee said;
Of course I can see the difference. But Burt's post would not have us make value judgements like that. In the case we're talking about, society has already made that value judgement. We don't shoot people just for fleeing any longer. Not even for forcible felonies. It's settled law.
Jeff
Of course I can see the difference. But Burt's post would not have us make value judgements like that. In the case we're talking about, society has already made that value judgement. We don't shoot people just for fleeing any longer. Not even for forcible felonies. It's settled law.
Jeff
Lupinus
Member
Thats besides the point. Punching someone in the stomache isn't leaving any real lasting effects, should people who do it not be considered assulters just because it leaves no lasting effects?
100% different. You are talking about a kid taking a few apples. A kid being a kid. There is a difference between a kid sneaking a few apples and an "underprivliged youth" ripping grannys purse from her hands.
...How the hell is it not forcible? I run up and physicly rip a purse so hard the snaps strap from a woman. That is forced. Why isn't it forcible cause he didn't technicly touch the woman?
Depends what the did/are accused of doing.
And some would see death as not being an acceptible punishment for anything. Some see it as being acciptable for rape and a host of crimes we don't use the death penelty for currently. If we catch the guy should he be hung? Likly not. But absoloutly we should be able to shoot someone running with our or someone elses property.
It's also settled law that people under 21 can't buy a handgun. It's also settled law that on a road with no other cars in sight you can easily go 80 on you can't go over 65. It's also settled law that can't leave your coach wagon light on past 10pm in Bound Brook NJ. Just cause it is decided law doesn't make it right. States with very restrictive gun laws also have settled law. Doesn't make it right.
Amen
The fact the the woman he attacked was not actually killed or crippled for life does not erase the fact that she could have been due to the attacker's irresponsible intentionally criminal behavior.
Woulda, coulda, shoulda. If the dog hadn't stopped to..............
Hypothetical lala land.
Actions have consequences. When you willfully wantonly attack someone with complete disregard for their well being you deserve whatever happens to you.
Lupinus
Member
Amen Lee
How about if in the process of ripping the purse from her she was thrown into the path of an oncoming bus?
I don't particuarly care what happens to the criminal, he could get an infection and die for all I really care about him.
What sickens me is knowing if they find the hero he will likly be going to jail.
How about if in the process of ripping the purse from her she was thrown into the path of an oncoming bus?
I don't particuarly care what happens to the criminal, he could get an infection and die for all I really care about him.
What sickens me is knowing if they find the hero he will likly be going to jail.
Shootcraps
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,007
R.H. Lee said:
But it absolutely does erase it. It is not a fact that "she could have been killed or crippled for life". It is YOUR assumption that because the perp wanted to steal her purse, he was ready to kill or cripple her.
You can only punish the perp for what he did, not what he "could have done".
You just can't shoot an UNARMED, FLEEING purse snatcher. They are fleeing, that means they are no longer a threat.
Shootcraps
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,007
carebear said:
Wrong. He had completed the illegal act and was leaving the scene.
Lupinus
Member
So the theif shouldn't have been stopped because he could snatch faster then the guy with the gun could draw?
Shootcraps
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,007
Lupinus said:So the theif shouldn't have been stopped because he could snatch faster then the guy with the gun could draw?
Yes. Once the act is over and the perp is leaving, he's no longer a threat. Pretty simple.
Stand_Watie
Member
I thought it required at least one Briton on the thread before the "You bloody savage Americans all want to kill the mischievous lads for nickin' apples" came out
- Status