Good Sam Stops Purse Snatching

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Double Naught Spy

New member
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/04/134172-armed-good-samaritan-stops-purse-snatching-next-even-better/

Neat story. I don't think I would have done this for various reasons, but a good sam saw a purse snatching, intervened and held the robbers at gunpoint until cops arrived, went through that process, bought candy for his kids, and left.

Why would I have not intervened with a gun? Too much to go wrong for what was going on. The intended victim could have simply relinguished her purse and the snatchers would have been gone, not that she should have to lose her purse, but that would have been the quickest way for her and her children to be out of danger in this situation.

Note that when the police arrived, they did order the Good Sam to the ground and undoubtedly disarmed and detained him for a short while until matters were settled sufficiently.
 
Last edited:
I can't say whether the good guy did the smart thing. I believe he did a righteous thing but not necessarily the right thing. I certainly won't criticize his actions without knowing more about the situation. At least the bad folks are in jail now so the story ends well this time.:)
 
So, is the article stating that the Good Samaritan bought candy for his own kids? If so that seems like a very good reason not to intervene. I’m not sure I would have taken a chance on my children being injured over a property crime. However, I wasn’t there and I’m glad everything worked out.
 
I agree with all of you. I'm not entirely sure I would have done it but kudos just the same. Well done. I even note that the GG has his finger very well and clearly indexed off the trigger as he holds the BGs.
 
I just saw a story today about a man who intervened to protect a woman who had been stabbed .He ran after the BG who immediately stabbed the GG to death !! :mad:
These events are not games , they can be very dangerous .Don't try being a hero without thinking !
The story I saw -it would have been better if the man saw to the injured woman and let police find the perp.
 
The biggest thing that stood out to me was that he held the BGs at gunpoint until police arrived. But I see a big problem with that: If the BGs got up (unthreateningly) and ran away, I can't imagine the GG would have been justified in shooting them.

I know Texas has more liberal self-defense laws than most states, but does that mean the GG would have been justified to shoot if the BGs had attempted escape? If not, then holding them at gunpoint was a bad idea. Me, I would never shoot someone who tried escape after committing a petty crime like that, whether or not it's legal.

I suppose the GG was also holding them at gunpoint to make sure they didn't get up and try to attack him, but it still seems like a bad idea. What do you guys think?
 
Holding them at gunpoint is not illegal. Shooting an unarmed perp while attempting to leave is illegal. The perps either didn't know this... or they were afraid the GG didn't know. Had one of them attacked the GG then it would have been a more complicated matter unless he/she was also armed. In this case it doesn't matter. The perps are in jail and no one was hurt... this time.
 
What do you guys think?
Click to expand...

The way I see it, all your points are valid but as long as the BGs don't take the chance, it's no problem.

In other words, if they THINK you can and/or would shoot them, they are unlikely to run. So long as they don't run, no problem.;)

If they do run, you've pretty much got to let them go... if they don't, you caught 'em.
 
Excellent points.

"Holding" someone at gunpoint pretty much depends on their fear that you will (even if not justified) shoot.

Not only is Mr. Texas Samaritan not justified in shooting. Neither is (in pretty much any case) Mr. Texas LEO.

The idea of "holding" someone at gunpoint is pretty much always very iffy and a bad idea.

I seriously doubt that there are a significant number of LEOs who would try it.

W.
 
So, is the article stating that the Good Samaritan bought candy for his own kids? If so that seems like a very good reason not to intervene. I’m not sure I would have taken a chance on my children being injured over a property crime. However, I wasn’t there and I’m glad everything worked out.
Click to expand...

Didn't say his kids were with him. I bought stuff at the store for my kids last week and they were in school at the time! ;)

The idea of "holding" someone at gunpoint is pretty much always very iffy and a bad idea.

I seriously doubt that there are a significant number of LEOs who would try it.
Click to expand...

Better to hold both at gunpoint than to try to manhandle detain them until the cops arrive. Proximity equates with risk. If you are in contact with the bad guys, your risk is much higher. He can hold at gun point and if they don't run, things are fine. If they do, no harm to him.

Cops do hold people at gun point if they have no way to secure them or until backup arrives. What else are they going to do when outnumbered?

Funny how this is pretty much always iffy and a bad idea and yet the example above had it work just fine. Every circumstance is different.
 
I can't say whether the good guy did the smart thing. I believe he did a righteous thing but not necessarily the right thing. I certainly won't criticize his actions without knowing more about the situation. At least the bad folks are in jail now so the story ends well this time.
Click to expand...

He did the right thing. Often times, doing the right thing will cost you dearly ..... Doing the right thing despite your fears of the possible consequenses is the definiton of courage, in my book.

By your implied definition of "the smart thing", the smart thing is to surrender the streets to the cops and robbers .... it is unadulterated selfishness, and the cops are totally gonna lose if we all just flee everytime evil rears it's ugly head, for all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing ..... doing nothing is a losing strategy for protecting you and yours in the long run.
 
By your implied definition of "the smart thing", the smart thing is to surrender the streets to the cops and robbers
Click to expand...

LOL, he didn't imply that at all. Sometimes it is best to lose the possession of a material item than to end up in a shoot out (robbers could have been armed) whereby the Good Sam, the purse-snatched woman, or her kids could have been wounded or killed, not to mention (but will) the potential legal costs that might be endured by the Good Sam for his actions if things did not go well.

As noted, he did a righteous thing, legal thing, but maybe not the smart thing in this case. The woman's safety could have been achieved had she let go of her purse.
 
jimbob86... That wasn't my point at all. Had that situation escalated to a gun fight then many folks could have been injured or killed. I completely agree that we must stand up and defend what is right... but to do so despite putting others in danger... that is a selfish act to satisfy our own personal ideals. If others were in imminent danger then that's another ball-o'-wax.
 
Just to be clear: I wasn't advocating doing nothing.

I would have done the best I could to stop the attack, at least to the point of stopping the dragging of the victim.

I would have stopped there.

If the two perps decided to beat feat and go over the hill, I would have let the LEOs do the chasing.

After reading here, however, perhaps it wouldn't have done any harm to try "holding" (verbally, anyway).

But no way am I chasing them down to do so.

W.
 
The woman's safety could have been achieved had she let go of her purse.
Click to expand...

So you are advocating "giving it up" in every case?

To do so in every case subsidizes the behavior by positive reinforcement. There will be more of it. In the long run, it's a losing proposition, because the only thing keeping the idea of property rights alive is the threat of force fo violating it- if nobody enforces the idea, unless they are a policeman, then whenever there is not a cop around, it's the law of the jungle on one side and a give in mentality on the other.

"If you want more of a thing, make it cheaper, safer and more convenient. If you want less of a thing, make it more expensive, hazardous and difficult."

Do the right thing, as you see it at the time.
 
Any time you carry a handgun on your person and go out in public, you are under-taking a huge responsibility. Chances are for the vast majority, they'll never have the chance to use it.

If you use a firearm in public to protect yourself or your loved ones, that's one thing, vs. interjecting yourself into a situation involving others and using it.

Using a firearm and having the outcome turn out to be a positive one, can be a real crap shoot. It can and has completely destroyed the lives of some with good intent.
 
jimbob86... Had it been me and my wallet snatched I'd have held on too. A lot of us would have. You seem to think some folks are recommending a cowardly or lazy reaction. That's not true at all. What others here are saying is it's better to lose some property than to endanger your children or other people. Thieves enrage me too but I'll not selfishly risk others' lives to defend my personal manhood. Again, yes, we must stand up against abusive/bad/dishonest behavior... but sometimes it's not the wisest option to take drastic action that could end in disaster for others. Common sense, man. Common sense and concern/respect for others' lives.

How would you feel if a well-meaning person pulled a firearm to detain some thieves and that resulted in a gunfight during which your child was shot and killed by a stray bullet?
 
When I was a kid my Grandmother had two fingers broken because she held her purse after a snatch. She was dragged for several yards. She won in the sense that she kept her purse, but she never left the house alone again.

That having been said I'd rather diffuse a bad situation and provide responding police with great perp descriptions than hold anyone at gunpoint. There is just too much that could go wrong.
 
Amazing... It seems like there are maybe one or two people with the courage to get involved and do the right thing. That does not automatically translate into a firearm being displayed. What would it take before you would say enough is enough?

Did the badguys know this gentleman was just a good neighbor, or could he have been off duty? The badguys could have fled on foot, but that would mean leaving their car behind. Then, be a good witness, and give the responding officers what they need. But don't stand by and engage in meaningful hand wringing. Do something.:cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top