PDA

View Full Version : Strange situation from the news


Strike Penguin
January 5, 2006, 07:16 PM
From an alert e-mail service that I get... It's not local to me (well, it's less than 50 mi. anyway, which is "local" in TX) :D

http://www.crimeweb.net/details.asp?id=7589

First thought that came into my head, after "A cat is a pretty strange thing to steal" is "What, if anything, could have been done, had somebody with a CHL been present?"

My tentative answer to that is "Nothing" because, assuming the initial report is correct, the gun was only brandished, and only a cat was stolen... I don't know what somebody with a CHL could have done other than try to hold these guys for police, and that's assuming that drawing down on them didn't escalate things. What do you all think?

Doug.38PR
January 5, 2006, 07:41 PM
Satan worshipers :eek: ? I can only hope those two guys were poor and couldn't afford to give one of their boy or girls a pet so they stole one out of desperation.


Personally, if a cruel looking monster tried to make off with a cat (I like really like pets :o ) I would plant a .38 right in his chest and explain it to a jury need be. No they aren't people, but they are just innocent little animals not to be allowed to be had by sadistic people (especially ones willing to brandish guns at other people)
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c108/Doug38PR/file000.jpg
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c108/Doug38PR/Unknown.jpg

Would you let someone makeoff with either of these two?

Dwight55
January 5, 2006, 07:45 PM
Even drawing down, . . . if the guys just told the CHL holder to kiss off, . . . turned and walked out, . . . nothing to be done.

Good thing though, . . . looks like it should be pretty easy to ID the tee shirt dude, . . . 20 yrs in the slammer for catnapping a kitty:D :D

Stupid is as stupid does, I guess.

May God bless,
Dwight

tanksoldier
January 5, 2006, 08:33 PM
<<I don't know what somebody with a CHL could have done other than try to hold these guys for police, and that's assuming that drawing down on them didn't escalate things. What do you all think?>>

I'm curious about the thinking here. Are you going to wait for them to shoot someone before you react? They might shoot you first.

If someone draws a weapon to commit a crime, they present a deadly threat merely by presenting the weapon. Shoot them.

<<Even drawing down, . . . if the guys just told the CHL holder to kiss off, . . . turned and walked out, . . . nothing to be done.>>

If you draw your weapon, fire it.

Mike in VA
January 5, 2006, 08:41 PM
Uh-oh, Cat Burglers:rolleyes:

I suspect flashing the gun while commiting a robbery will get you armed robbery most places. Hope the hairbag makes out OK, a pox on the perps:mad:

Ozzieman
January 5, 2006, 08:57 PM
Around here (Indiana) back in the 80's scum bags were sealing dogs and cats from around homes and using them for dog fights.
What they would do is throw dogs or cats in to the rings with only one of the fighting dogs and it would tair them to peices, then another fighting dog would be brought in and another poor animal would be tossed in.
These scum bags would do this to rais the bets.
I know this from a good friend that was an undercover officer that busted several rings.
If you are into dog fighting you are less than human.
In one case they actualy broke into a pet store and took a good number of animals.
Shoot them and ask questions later.

rapier144
January 5, 2006, 09:06 PM
The FBI just busted a huge cock fighting ring not far from me. Those people were idiots they advertised on t-shirts. The t-shirts read (I've been to the DEL RIO cock fights). And people wonder how the get caught.:rolleyes:

Sir William
January 5, 2006, 09:10 PM
Simple. Death or imminent threat of death or great physical injury. Weapon was brought out as a threat. Draw, aim, fire, reload and repeat as needed until threat is terminated. Armed robbery and assault with intent to harm/kill. No free pass.

Strike Penguin
January 5, 2006, 10:24 PM
"If someone draws a weapon to commit a crime"
"Weapon was brought out as a threat"

Read again, the weapon wasn't out, it was shown but not drawn. I gather that the perp just pulled up his shirt to show it. Then these guys start to leave with the cat. All things being equal, you're looking at starting a gunfight over a cat, in a pet store with other people around.

It looks to me like the only moment where you can shoot is immediately when the guy lifts his shirt and you see a gun. Other than that it's a case of "leaving while brandishing", where's the imminent threat?

I'm sorry, maybe coming from Massachusetts originally this is all just hair-splitting and the cops in Texas won't come down on you like a ton of bricks for just blasting the guy in the store even though he's walking away, but I thought the idea was to avoid killing people when not necessary...

(Though if he's taking the cat for an animal-fighting ring :barf: I'd be happy to shoot him any old time :mad: )

tanksoldier
January 5, 2006, 10:38 PM
After he showed the weapon, anytime his hand went near his belt he could possibly have been drawing the weapon.

It makes no sense that a person could flash a gun, commit a crime, and walk away from a CCW holder. Criminals will start leaving the gun in their belt and just showing it, because that makes them perfectly safe.

GHT
January 5, 2006, 10:58 PM
You show the gun - you used the gun.

Really simple, no nuance required.


G

BigFunWMU
January 6, 2006, 05:19 AM
You show the gun - you used the gun.

Really simple, no nuance required.

+10

This is brandishing a handgun. Display of a weapon with intent to intimidate. Done in the comission of a robbery. = Armed robbery = by definiton a violent felony.

Flash your gun at me while you take my stuff/pets/whatever/threaten my life, thats a direct and immediate threat on my life, and you're toast.


Now as to a gunfight in a petstore...

That is a big judgement call. If I am not near what is going on, and (assuming I even see the gun) not immediately involved, blasting away is a bad idea. I will try my best to be a good witness. If I am also looking at the lil kitty kats :rolleyes: and that gun threat is directed towards me, see above............

Tim Burke
January 6, 2006, 07:53 AM
If someone had drawn and shot the guy displaying the gun, it would have been a clean shoot- perhaps not a wise decision, but legally justified.
Understand that when the robber displays a firearm in this circumstance it comes with an implied threat: "Do what I want or I'll shoot you." Ability, opportunity and jeopardy are all established.
If someone had shot him in the back as he left... well, this was in Texas, but I don't recommend it.

Strike Penguin
January 6, 2006, 03:21 PM
"Justified but (possibly) unwise", then... That makes sense to me. I didn't intend to dispute the justification for shooting (I understand that if he's showing it, he's using it and the threat is there) but more that what you could do on the scene might be dictated by the flow of events and what the surroundings are like. I was thinking of the pet adoption days they have on our side of DFW, where the cages are out front, with nothing to stop a slug from flying out across the parking area and into the road (other than BG's sternum). The solution to that is Good Shooting, I guess. :cool:

Frankly, when it came time to lay down .45 I'd be more worried about accidentally hitting the cat. **** the perp, I wouldn't want to hurt the kitty. :p The cat's innocent. The thief is Just Another A-Hole.

molonlabe
January 6, 2006, 03:57 PM
Armed robbery over a cat!!! What a maroon

Derius_T
January 6, 2006, 05:08 PM
tanksoldier wrote:

It makes no sense that a person could flash a gun, commit a crime, and walk away from a CCW holder. Criminals will start leaving the gun in their belt and just showing it, because that makes them perfectly safe.

What? Why couldn't he walk away? You are not a law officer, and simply having a CHL does not give you ANY powers or reasons to try to stop ANY crime. Your CHL is for SELF DEFENSE ONLY, against immediate bodily harm. Not to make you Wyatt Earp. People who act like that with a handgun liscense simply do not need one. You are a danger to yourself and others.

Think about it. I'm in the store. I see one perp brandish, then you (another perp to me) draw a gun. I shoot you, because you are the more immediate threat, then move to him.....smart? Don't think so.....

KyJim
January 7, 2006, 09:36 AM
As probably everyone knows, states differ on the standard for defending one's self:

1. A reasonable person would believe he/she was in imminent danger of being killed or seriously injuried. This is an objective standard.
2. The person actually believed he/she was in imminent danger of being killed or seriously injured. This is a subjective standard.

Some states may also have a stricter standard:

The person was actually in imminent danger of being killed or being seriously injured. This uses 20/20 hindsight with no room for error.

In addition, states differ on whether there is an affirmative duty to retreat and under what circumstances (e.g., some say no duty to retreat from a habitation).

Most (all?) states also do not allow use of deadly force to protect property.

For example, in my state, the subjective standard is used for defending one's own self. There is no right to use deadly force for the protection of property. You would probably come out okay on self-defense if you told the police/jury the right stuff -- "I was scared to death he was going to pull the gun and shoot me because anyone crazy enough to commit armed robbery for a cat is crazy enough to kill someone just for the fun." However, if you told them, "I thought they would steal the cat to use in animal fights and how could anyone be so terrible to do this with such a cute kitten," then plan on going to prison.

The standard for protecting a 3rd person may vary even from the standards above; e.g., in my state it is the 20/20 hindsight rule.

RevoRick
January 7, 2006, 10:06 AM
I was threatened with a gun. I am in danger.....take it from there.

RioShooter
January 8, 2006, 01:01 PM
Derius T wrote
Your CHL is for SELF DEFENSE ONLY

NOT in Texas. According to the Texas penal code a CHL has the right to defend a third person.

BTW, at night you can use deadly force to defend property.

Don't mess with Texas!

Chuck

Derius_T
January 8, 2006, 07:01 PM
Yes, I understand that you also have the right to defend other persons from death or immediate bodily harm by use of deadly force, and in certain states, may protect personal property. That being said, I don't see ANY jury in the word letting you go free for killing a man who was stealing a cat.....thats just stupid....

It makes no sense that a person could flash a gun, commit a crime, and walk away from a CCW holder.

That is the real issue I was addressing. A CHL does not give you the rights of authority of any type of LEO. It is very troubling that CHL holders think they have the authority to stop crime they see. If you want to stop crime, go to school and become a LEO. That is a very dangerous idea to have, and is serious fuel for anti-gunners to paint CHL holders as vigilanties, ect.

IndianaDean
January 8, 2006, 09:09 PM
As I said over at THR, if the cat was stolen for them to train their dogs, if they're ever caught, they should be put into a pen to play with the friendly tigers for a few hours.

And the tigers should not have been fed for awhile.

tanksoldier
January 9, 2006, 01:53 AM
<<Think about it. I'm in the store. I see one perp brandish, then you (another perp to me) draw a gun. I shoot you, because you are the more immediate threat, then move to him.....smart? Don't think so.....>>

So we've all become completely incapable of protecting ourselved from crime BECAUSE we carry a gun?

Incidentally, private citizens do have the power of arrest... you just have to be willing to use it.

Also, in the case mentioned above, I didn't kill him because he was stealing a cat, I killed him because he threatened me with a weapon.

Chris Phelps
January 9, 2006, 09:04 AM
haha I will be the first to say it, I guess. Id offer then $10 for taking the pesky little chinese food off my hands for me. I hate cats, and it would definitly be absolutly no loss at all if someone were to steal one while I was there. Id wave and wish him a happy voyage.

Weeg
January 9, 2006, 09:07 AM
NOT in Texas. According to the Texas penal code a CHL has the right to defend a third person.

Same thing in NC...

I'm also a displaced Texan, but we have a House there in San Antonio :D

We'll be back one day!!!!!

Derius_T
January 9, 2006, 11:54 AM
tanksoldier wrote:

Also, in the case mentioned above, I didn't kill him because he was stealing a cat, I killed him because he threatened me with a weapon.

Actually, he didn't physically threaten anyone specifically with the weapon if he just brandished it. Brandishing does not count as putting you in immenent danger. Now if he makes a move towards it, different story.

And citizens arrest is very far removed from shooting someone who you see commiting a crime. There are all sorts of circumstances that you can't forsee, and you open a huge can of worms for yourself if you go around acting like a LEO...or the punisher. If you feel so strongly about stopping crime, get yourself a real badge.........or a cape.....:rolleyes:

Tim Burke
January 9, 2006, 05:59 PM
Actually, he didn't physically threaten anyone specifically with the weapon if he just brandished it.Just how does one interpret his actions? Was his belly too hot? Was he showing off his gun? Or was he saying, "I'll shoot you if you interfere!"? I think it was "C." He's got a gun= ability. He's within range = opportunity. He's (implicitly) threatened you with the gun = jeopardy. While it may not be wise to engage him, it's certainly legally defensible. It isn't about the cat, it's about the lethal threat he presents. You are not obligated to wait until he's shooting, or until he's aiming the gun, or until he has the gun in hand, or even until he's reaching for the gun. He already poses an immediate lethal threat.

Derius_T
January 11, 2006, 08:06 PM
Just brandishing is not grounds to drawn and shoot the man dead. You would end up in prison. No sense arguing the matter, just hope you don't act so foolishly if it happens to you....

joab
January 11, 2006, 08:18 PM
Just brandishing is not grounds to drawn and shoot the man dead. You would end up in prison. No sense arguing the matter, just hope you don't act so foolishly if it happens to you.Brandishing a gun while committing a crime implies the threat of using that gun in a deadly manner while in the commission of the crime.
Couple that with one putting his finger to his mouth a reasonable person could reasonably conclude that a threat of deadly force if the person did not keep quiet was made

You are allowed as a citizen to stop any crime that you witness in progress you are also allowed to use deadly force against the threat of deadly force

I love living in Florida, no reason to over analyze deadly threats

EMB135Driver
January 12, 2006, 12:33 AM
Try to take my cat at gunpoint, and you are gonna get 2 to the chest and 1 to the head....then the real indignity begins as my cat ****** on your rotting corpse.

If a reasonable person in the same situation could infer that the bad guy had Opportunity, Ability and Intent to cause death or serious bodily harm during the commission of a crime, force, including deadly force, is permissible.

Florida is a great State, unless you are intent on being a criminal....life expectancy isnt' so good after 10/01/05

Tim Burke
January 12, 2006, 10:55 AM
Just brandishing is not grounds to drawn and shoot the man dead.That is correct. However, the guy did not "just" brandish the weapon.
There are 3 elements that you must be able show to demonstrate that someone poses an immediate threat of grave bodily injury.
Ability- He has to have the means.
Opportunity- He has to be a position to use his means. A guy with a club threatening you from 40 yards away has the ability, but not the opportunity.
Jeopardy- He must, by his words or actions, demonstrate that he intends to cause you immediate injury. A guy simply walking out of a sporting goods store carrying a bat has Ability and Opportunity, but demonstrates no Jeopardy.
Which of these 3 elements do you believe has not been satisfied by the robber's actions?

joab
January 12, 2006, 05:13 PM
I don't see ANY jury in the word letting you go free for killing a man who was stealing a cat.....thats just stupid....This something that sets me off.
Nobody is going to shoot someone for stealing a cat up for adoption. It's a different story when you shoot someone for committing a violent felony with implied use of deadly force, even if the crime just happens to be stealing a cat

Eghad
January 13, 2006, 01:09 PM
He showed me his so its only polite for me to show him mine.

Edicut
January 13, 2006, 08:54 PM
Like it's been said previous, the item of value (cat) has nothing to do with this. What if it had been a man brandishing the same way and telling you nothing more than to get out of your car? Fact is, you have no way of knowing what he wants when he shows the weapon, cat and cash register and no witnesses?
Personally I'd do my best to prepare for the worst. If I was just walking in I'd back my way out of the store and call for help. If I was unable to get to a door I may very likely pull and be ready especially if I had a clear target and no one could see the weapon in my hand..

Edicut

Derius_T
January 15, 2006, 10:06 AM
On January 1, 2006, at about 5:00 p.m. the two suspects walked into the Petco Store in the 1100 block of N. Buckner Blvd.

They walked to a cage housing animals up for adoption and selected a cat. A clerk walked over to assist the two and the older suspect raised his shirt displaying a handgun.

The second suspect motioned for the clerk to be quiet and the two then walked out of the store with the cat and fled in an unknown direction.

I understand that would make one nervous, and would be quite startling. But the fact is, as far as the limited information we have, they calmly walked over, got a cat, when the guy approached asking if he could help or whatever, the guy lifted his shirt, showing a firearm, the other guy motioned for quiet, and they turned and walked out of the store.

It doesn't say they threatened anyone, or even spoke to the man, and made no threatening moves. He just said basically, I got a gun, be quiet, I REALLY want this cat okay?

Sure it would be nerve racking, but was he in imminent danger of death? Obviously not. Would it have helped to "show him yours" and escalate an otherwise non lethal situation into a lethal one? Causing who knows what to do down? Sometimes you have to use your judgement. Its not always necessary to jerk that pistol and go to work gunslinger.....:rolleyes:

joab
January 15, 2006, 11:11 AM
A clerk walked over to assist the two and the older suspect raised his shirt displaying a handgun.The second suspect motioned for the clerk to be quiet It doesn't say they threatened anyone:rolleyes:

Tim Burke
January 15, 2006, 01:49 PM
So if someone approaches me on the street, says "Give it up, man" and lifts his shirt, displaying a gun, that isn't a threat to shoot me if I don't comply, and he isn't committing armed robbery?
Are you suggesting that in such a case, before I can justify the use of deadly force to defend myself I must wait for him to take some further action?
If so, where do you draw the line, what's your "GO" signal? When he reaches for the gun? When he grips it? When he pulls it out of his pants? After all, so far he's merely "brandished" the weapon. Do you wait until he points it in your general direction, until he aims it at you, until he fires it, or until he shoots you? Where is your line?
I am not questioning whether or not it would have been a good idea to draw on the armed cat thief; I'm questioning whether or not it is legally justified. I say it is, you seem to be saying it isn't. If it isn't, I'd like to know where you draw the line.

IndianaDean
January 15, 2006, 07:52 PM
Displaying a firearm in that fashion is brandishing, and brandishing is a crime.

Capt Charlie
January 15, 2006, 10:09 PM
I am not questioning whether or not it would have been a good idea to draw on the armed cat thief; I'm questioning whether or not it is legally justified. I say it is, you seem to be saying it isn't. If it isn't, I'd like to know where you draw the line.
It is legally justified. Armed robbery is just that: Armed robbery. There is no stipulation that the weapon be deployed. If you are armed when you commit a robbery, you've committed armed robbery... period. You can be charged with such even if the weapon is a toy.

No reasonable and prudent person would expect you to wait for a suspect to draw, resulting in an old West gunfight. His intent to use it is implied, the moment he displays it in the commission of a crime.

If you want to dig through the law books (I don't), there is substantial case law supporting this.

LICCW
January 15, 2006, 10:38 PM
Derius T: In my state, pistol license holders may interfere and use deadly force, to stop rape, sodomy, arson, robbery, burglary, physical violence to license holder or another person, among others. This is a case of armed robbery and would meet the defense of justification criteria. So, in my stete at least, the license is not specifically for self defense.

Derius_T
January 17, 2006, 10:40 AM
I understand what you all are trying to say. That just the brandishing alone contitutes a threat. I agree. But the fact is that he turned and walked away. No one got hurt. If you would have drawn on him, maybe you or some innocent kid looking at bunny rabbits with his mom dies. All I'm saying is sometimes a gut check is required to see if you honestly believe the man is going to use this weapon, or if its just bluster to get out without a confrontation. You escallate (sp?) what would have otherwise been non-lethal, and you can be held responsible It has happened. You just have to use your head and instincts and feel out the situation.