After being robbed at gunpoint, while carrying, what can you do?

[ZX9RCAM]

Why yes, you may.....

 

[HippiePhd]

I imagine the scenario where I'm held up at gunpoint and mugged/robbed while carrying. Hopefully they don't injure me and I just hand over my stuff (not my handgun though), but what can I do once they start taking off? Easy answer if its night time since 9.42 says deadly force is allowable during the night, so long as the other requirements of the statute are met; but what if its early morning or mid day?

I guess as soon as they start taking off I would still be in fear of my own life, especially if I was in pursuit.


On the other hand, if me and a buddy of mine get held up at gunpoint I could pursuit and use deadly force in protection of his/her property, regardless of if its night or day, correct?

That last scenario happened (not to me) earlier today to a couple girls, and the crooks got away with birth cert., ss card, a purse, etc.

There have been many recent home invasions lately in Lubbock and more and more robberies... I'm not liking this one bit.

~Michael

You call the police and let them handle it. Regardless of what the law says you "can" do, consider the practical repercussions.

1. No one's life is worth any amount of "property". Most criminals are either mentally ill or crushingly desperate. Both of these cases are treatable. If they are no longer a physical danger to you, let them go and call the police. You may not feel it today, but years down the road, taking a life for 200 bucks will haunt you.

2. I can promise you that in a situation like this your case will go to trial, even if you will ultimately get off. No-bills don't usually get handed down unless it's a clear cut case of self defense in an effort to preserve life. A trial will cost you at least $10k. Did the thief take more than $10k worth of property?

3. What the law says and how it is interpreted by your DA, your judge and your jury will be different things. It doesn't matter what it says in the books, what matters is what people agree on that it means. Texas loves putting people down for murder. Don't roll the dice for any amount of "property".

I'm a CHL instructor and I teach many different laws and rules (both written and unwritten). At the end, most reasonable persons can usually live by these two guidelines and be protected by the law and keep their psychological well-being in tact:

- Only use your firearm to preserve human life.

- Only shoot to stop the threat. Nothing more, nothing less.

In court, if you can prove that you acted because you believed a life was in danger, you will most likely be okay. If you have to prove that you "acted in accordance with the letter of the law" by taking life to protect property... let's just say I wouldn't want to be in your shoes that day.

 

[TheDan]

Most criminals are either mentally ill or crushingly desperate. Both of these cases are treatable.

Those are some pretty thick rose colored glasses you've got on... For non-violent criminals I would agree with you that it's worth trying to treat them, but once someone makes the decision to harm someone in order to get what they want then they are no longer treatable. Violent criminals need to be dealt with violently.

 

[HippiePhd]

Those are some pretty thick rose colored glasses you've got on... For non-violent criminals I would agree with you that it's worth trying to treat them, but once someone makes the decision to harm someone in order to get what they want then they are no longer treatable. Violent criminals need to be dealt with violently.

I respect your opinion, of course. We all have choices to make and you're certainly entitled to yours.

I would, however, argue that someone who will harm another human being expressly for purposes of material gain is not "sane". Wealthy people don't go about knifing pedestrians for their pocket money - unless they are insane.

When Psychiatrists study the brains of habitually violent criminals, there are distinct features that differentiate them from non-violent persons, both chemically and structurally. People who act violently out of desperation do not display these pathological features.

I therefore conclude that the motivation for such an act is either desperate need or mental illness.

Of course, I do wear rose colored glasses on occasion, so this may be one of those times. In the end, it doesn't matter what I say or what science says. It all comes down to what you can justify to yourself, your jury and your maker.

 

[jocat54]

The insanity plea is BS.....IMO......

 

[Ol Zeke]

Wow! This is gettin’ complicated. I better take notes.

Track shoes – Check
Lawyer on retainer – Check
Psychologist’s card in wallet – Check

OK, I’m good-to-go…… oops, almost forgot

Kimber - Check

 

[Bithabus]

You call the police and let them handle it. Regardless of what the law says you "can" do, consider the practical repercussions.

1. No one's life is worth any amount of "property". Most criminals are either mentally ill or crushingly desperate. Both of these cases are treatable. If they are no longer a physical danger to you, let them go and call the police. You may not feel it today, but years down the road, taking a life for 200 bucks will haunt you.

2. I can promise you that in a situation like this your case will go to trial, even if you will ultimately get off. No-bills don't usually get handed down unless it's a clear cut case of self defense in an effort to preserve life. A trial will cost you at least $10k. Did the thief take more than $10k worth of property?

3. What the law says and how it is interpreted by your DA, your judge and your jury will be different things. It doesn't matter what it says in the books, what matters is what people agree on that it means. Texas loves putting people down for murder. Don't roll the dice for any amount of "property".

I'm a CHL instructor and I teach many different laws and rules (both written and unwritten). At the end, most reasonable persons can usually live by these two guidelines and be protected by the law and keep their psychological well-being in tact:

- Only use your firearm to preserve human life.

- Only shoot to stop the threat. Nothing more, nothing less.

In court, if you can prove that you acted because you believed a life was in danger, you will most likely be okay. If you have to prove that you "acted in accordance with the letter of the law" by taking life to protect property... let's just say I wouldn't want to be in your shoes that day.

Some of this is incorrect.

Here in Texas, clear cases of justified deadly force nearly always get no-billed regardless of whether the victim's life was threatened.

I believe you are injecting your personal agenda into your interpretation of the law.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Wait what? Treatable? Should I ask them to stop and examine their brain to make sure?

Frankly that entire discussion has no bearing on anything.

The reason someone is committing this crime is for them to think about. Stopping the crime from happening to me is my concern.

People kill each other out of "desperation" all the time. I'm not going to stop and examine their life and motivations in the middle of that situation. If you do then YOU have a mental illness.

 

[Wolfwood]

And you and I don't get to decide that.

Some of you act like you believe that taking a life is like stepping on a spider. You have no idea.

I understand what you are saying, and agree with you. It is a painful thing to live with for sure. i'm not going to dispute that fact at all.

 

[Wolfwood]

I respect your opinion, of course. We all have choices to make and you're certainly entitled to yours.

I would, however, argue that someone who will harm another human being expressly for purposes of material gain is not "sane". Wealthy people don't go about knifing pedestrians for their pocket money - unless they are insane.

When Psychiatrists study the brains of habitually violent criminals, there are distinct features that differentiate them from non-violent persons, both chemically and structurally. People who act violently out of desperation do not display these pathological features.

I therefore conclude that the motivation for such an act is either desperate need or mental illness.

Of course, I do wear rose colored glasses on occasion, so this may be one of those times. In the end, it doesn't matter what I say or what science says. It all comes down to what you can justify to yourself, your jury and your maker.

so dont shoot crazy criminals, just the poor ones?

lol

 

[lovemybabies]

Great discussion

 

[smtimelevi]

We're talking about being robbed by some one at gun point right? I can't say for sure what I would do in a situation like that. I sure wouldn't be sympathetic of the attackers sanity. Im pulling my weapon and going to work.

 

[lalonguecarabine]

You call the police and let them handle it. Regardless of what the law says you "can" do, consider the practical repercussions.

1. No one's life is worth any amount of "property". Most criminals are either mentally ill or crushingly desperate. Both of these cases are treatable. If they are no longer a physical danger to you, let them go and call the police. You may not feel it today, but years down the road, taking a life for 200 bucks will haunt you.

2. I can promise you that in a situation like this your case will go to trial, even if you will ultimately get off. No-bills don't usually get handed down unless it's a clear cut case of self defense in an effort to preserve life. A trial will cost you at least $10k. Did the thief take more than $10k worth of property?

3. What the law says and how it is interpreted by your DA, your judge and your jury will be different things. It doesn't matter what it says in the books, what matters is what people agree on that it means. Texas loves putting people down for murder. Don't roll the dice for any amount of "property".

I'm a CHL instructor and I teach many different laws and rules (both written and unwritten). At the end, most reasonable persons can usually live by these two guidelines and be protected by the law and keep their psychological well-being in tact:

- Only use your firearm to preserve human life.

- Only shoot to stop the threat. Nothing more, nothing less.

In court, if you can prove that you acted because you believed a life was in danger, you will most likely be okay. If you have to prove that you "acted in accordance with the letter of the law" by taking life to protect property... let's just say I wouldn't want to be in your shoes that day.

I respect your opinion, of course. We all have choices to make and you're certainly entitled to yours.

I would, however, argue that someone who will harm another human being expressly for purposes of material gain is not "sane". Wealthy people don't go about knifing pedestrians for their pocket money - unless they are insane.

When Psychiatrists study the brains of habitually violent criminals, there are distinct features that differentiate them from non-violent persons, both chemically and structurally. People who act violently out of desperation do not display these pathological features.

I therefore conclude that the motivation for such an act is either desperate need or mental illness.

Of course, I do wear rose colored glasses on occasion, so this may be one of those times. In the end, it doesn't matter what I say or what science says. It all comes down to what you can justify to yourself, your jury and your maker.

You know, while some of what you said about their brain chemistry may be true, it is absolute insanity to make someone try to consider if an armed person robbing them is in need of a freakin' hug or something.

If you are found on my property with a gun, I will assume my life is in danger and make sure I also have a gun in my hands.
If you're still outside, I'll just call the police and let them deal with the crook.
If I find you in my living room, and you have a gun, you are liable to be fired upon! I'm not saying this is my 100% rule, but what seems to be my most likely course of action as I type this in the safety of my currently secure living room.

As I have encountered a person on my property, and did not shoot him in the back even though he was less than ten feet away and obviously looking in a window, but instead secured myself in the house and called the police - I can say that I would most likely react the same way again.
I've never encountered anyone actually inside the house. And I hope I never do!

 

[HippiePhd]

I apologize for the miscommunication. I wasn't implying that criminals shouldn't be dealt with appropriately because they are "all mentally ill" (although my definition of "appropriate" is likely different from yours). What I'm saying is that it's not worth taking a life to protect property, particularly because the person taking your property isn't likely doing it because they are "evil". They are doing it either because they have no other choice or because there is something wrong with their brains. Hitler was by all accounts an evil bastard - but he also very likely had Syphilis which made him batshit crazy. Should he have been stopped? Absolutely. Was he categorically wrong in everything he did? For sure. Was it his fault that he was batshit crazy? Unlikely, unless you count sleeping with a hooker.

It's an extreme example, but it illustrates the point and begs the question: Can you judge a man by his actions if his actions are induced by external forces?

I realize the urge for retribution, justice, etc is strong in all of us - but it isn't how we affect real change in the world. I'm not trying to convince you to follow me into trying to make the world a better place by changing people for the better, even after they've made grave mistakes. I know that path isn't for everybody, particularly because turning the other cheek and forgiving your enemies leaves a bad taste in most people's maws.

I'm really only trying to make this point -

Taking a human life is the most final and terrible thing you can do. It goes against the natural order of things. It will affect you in ways that you can't fathom. If you choose to take a life to protect property, you will regret it in the end, even if there are no legal ramifications.

Make no mistake, however, if something goes bump in the night, you better believe I'm up with my gun - but it's not to protect my stuff. It's to protect my family from physical harm.

I have no reservations about defending life by taking life, but I will never defend property by taking life.

You will have to decide where you stand on your own and I will always defend your right to make that decision!

 

[HippiePhd]

Some of this is incorrect.

Here in Texas, clear cases of justified deadly force nearly always get no-billed regardless of whether the victim's life was threatened.

I believe you are injecting your personal agenda into your interpretation of the law.

I don't have any person agenda beyond fostering a civilized and compassionate society for everyone.

Also, I don't interpret the law. My point is that none of us can interpret the law. Not even an attorney can do that - they can only tell you how they might argue it based on their understanding of it or based on historical case precedent. They might even wager a guess on how strong their argument might be, but they can't tell you how it's going to play out.

The judge and the jury will interpret the law based on the arguments of the prosecutor and the attorney.

You are correct, that clear cases of justified deadly force nearly always get no-billed. But, that's like saying "80% of the time it works every time". Yes, once it has been decided that it is a "clear case of self defense" it is almost always no-billed. What is interpreted as "clear case", however depends on local community standards, the police report and you District Attorney. It also depends on who was involved in the incident, how much money they have, etc, etc, etc.

My point was that if you stick to the basic rules of only using your firearm to preserve life and only shoot to stop the threat, then you have the best chance of avoiding legal repercussions.

If you want to roll the dice, that's your business, of course.

 

[HippiePhd]

We're talking about being robbed by some one at gun point right? I can't say for sure what I would do in a situation like that. I sure wouldn't be sympathetic of the attackers sanity. Im pulling my weapon and going to work.

I agree with you.
If someone approaches me and does not produce a weapon but demands my belongings, I will likely just give them a puzzled look and keep walking.
If someone approaches me and produces a weapon in an aggressive manner, nothing else after that matters and I will defend myself by whatever means possible because I have to assume my life is in danger.

I believe, however, the OPs question was what he can do *after* being robbed at gun point. The threat to his personal safety has presumably passed.

At that point, I feel like I can afford myself the more philosophical debate of why the robbery occurred and if I should try to follow the letter of the law regarding what I think it says about my right to safeguard or recover property, or if I should consider that the man who robbed me may have done so out of desperation to feed his kids.

What might be technically legal isn't always what's right and, furthermore, the law often has precious little to do with justice. Everyone has to decide for themselves and be prepared to live (or die) with the consequences.

 

[Wabbit69]

If you are found on my property with a gun, I will assume my life is in danger and make sure I also have a gun in my hands.
If you're still outside, I'll just call the police and let them deal with the crook.
If I find you in my living room, and you have a gun, you are liable to be fired upon! I'm not saying this is my 100% rule, but what seems to be my most likely course of action as I type this in the safety of my currently secure living room.

As I have encountered a person on my property, and did not shoot him in the back even though he was less than ten feet away and obviously looking in a window, but instead secured myself in the house and called the police - I can say that I would most likely react the same way again.
I've never encountered anyone actually inside the house. And I hope I never do![/QUOTE]

I agree with you nearly 100 percent. The exception is the living room. I figure that if someone expended the effort to get it, knowing that the dwelling is occupied (or at least it's pretty obvious), their intentions are sinister, and their mere presence constitutes an immediate mortal danger, whether they're armed or not. The threshold of my exterior doors is the line in the sand. Fortunately, the layout of the house and our circumstances remove the need to go find him. I'll lay-in-wait and ambush from concealment. I don't think I'll hesitate to pull the trigger (agree that I hope to never find out), and keep pulling the trigger until the subject is no longer a threat. In the back, if that's the first sight picture that presents itself. No warning. No "I'm Armed" shout. No quarter.

Outside, 100 percent let the police deal with it.

 

[TheDan]

Can you judge a man by his actions if his actions are induced by external forces?

Uh, yeah... absolutely. Our entire lives are a reaction to external forces. How a person handles situations that are out of their control pretty well defines who they are.

 

[Bithabus]

I don't have any person agenda beyond fostering a civilized and compassionate society for everyone.

Also, I don't interpret the law. My point is that none of us can interpret the law. Not even an attorney can do that - they can only tell you how they might argue it based on their understanding of it or based on historical case precedent. They might even wager a guess on how strong their argument might be, but they can't tell you how it's going to play out.

The judge and the jury will interpret the law based on the arguments of the prosecutor and the attorney.

You are correct, that clear cases of justified deadly force nearly always get no-billed. But, that's like saying "80% of the time it works every time". Yes, once it has been decided that it is a "clear case of self defense" it is almost always no-billed. What is interpreted as "clear case", however depends on local community standards, the police report and you District Attorney. It also depends on who was involved in the incident, how much money they have, etc, etc, etc.

My point was that if you stick to the basic rules of only using your firearm to preserve life and only shoot to stop the threat, then you have the best chance of avoiding legal repercussions.

If you want to roll the dice, that's your business, of course.

Are you a Liberal Arts Professor?

 

[Tejano Scott]

The problem with this thread is half of you are arguing about how you would handle a robbery and the other half arguing how you would handle a theft.