Would a CCW have made a difference

Sir William,

How are the two women in the back seat of the car going to jerk the steering wheel, slam the transmission in park, or turn off the ignition in the split second it takes for the driver to juice the accelerator... All the while being confronted by the lady's son at the open back door of the car? It was a confused and panicked state at this point.

Was letting this petty thievery escalate to violence or even murder neccesary? No, it wasn't.

There is no guarantee that the content of your wallet is all you are going to lose.
Click to expand...

Quite the contrary, in this situation the thief was fleeing with the cash. If left alone that's all that would have been lost. Nowhere did I read in the initial post that the perp threatened the lady or even laid a hand on her. He saw cash in her hand, grabbed it, and fled. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
 
Is there an update I am unaware of? One thief, one homicidal driver and three accomplices who have not surrendered or cooperated with police manhunts is what information I have to go on. All 5 deserve death, if caught, tried and convicted in a court of law. All five.
 
Unless those in the back seat come forward very quickly and spill their guts, then I must assume they are guilty. Now I'm not suggesting we adopt a Soviet style 'turn in your friends and family for all crimes against the state' mentality, but this is murder for God's sake.

Shawn
 
I wouldn't shoot anyone over $50, CCW or not. If I was careless enough to present myself as an easy target and the BG had the gonads to take it from me then they get the money and I get a lesson in what NOT to do in the future. I'd have given chase but never gotten in front of the car, in the car, or behind the car.
Click to expand...


If you've already determined that you would not shoot this person, why would you give chase? Giving chase could very likely put you in the position of having to shoot this person: what if they turned around as they reached the car, and produced a handgun and pointed it at you and possibly began firing?

If you were not giving chase with the intent of doing something to physically stop this robber, why would you bother giving chase at all?

Anyway, when you talk about this BG having "gonads," it sounds almost as if you are tipping your hat to him, saying, "Hey, bro, you're pretty badass; you earned that fiddy!" I can't think of any other way to interpret what you said. It's as though anyone brazen enough to SNATCH your $50 bill is ENTITLED to it because he's so bold! :barf:


BGs exist. We know this. It's nothing new, and it's no trend that will go away. If everyone had a gun events like this would be few and far between.
Click to expand...

First you say that no one should be defending their $50, because it's just money, not a child. Then you say this trend of robbery by BGs is never going to go away. Then you say that if everyone had a gun this would be rare...

Well, which is it? Because certainly, you are implying that we would be using guns to stop robbers from taking what is ours. But tracing back, you said that money isn't worth defending with a gun.

I don't think you've made up your mind. Why not do that before posting?

-blackmind
 
23Skidoo wrote:
To my knowledge only Texas has such a clause. And even then it is circumscribed.
Click to expand...
Al. Art II Sec 2: All men are created equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; amongst which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation;

Ar. Art. II sec 2: All men are created equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation,

Ca. Art I sec. 1: All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property,

Co. Art II sec 3: Inalienable rights. All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property;

Fl. Art I sec 2: All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property;

Id. Art I sec 1: All men are by nature free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property;

Ia. Art I sec 1: All men and women are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights--among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property,

Ky. Sec 1 clause 5: The right of acquiring and protecting property.

La. Art I Sec 4: Every person has the right to acquire, own, control, use, enjoy, protect, and dispose of private property.

Ma. Art I (as amended): All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property;

Me. Art I sec 1: All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property,

Mt. Art II sec 3: All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights. They include the right to a clean and healthful environment and the rights of pursuing life's basic necessities, enjoying and defending their lives and liberties, acquiring, possessing and protecting property,

ND. Art 1 Sec i: All men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation;

NM. Art II Sec 4: All persons are born equally free, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, among which are the rights of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property,

Nv. Art I sec 1: All men are by Nature free and equal and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting property

NH. Art I Sec 2: All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights - among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property

NJ. Art I Sec 1: All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property,

Oh. Art I Sec 1: All men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property

Pa. Art I Sec 1: All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation,

SD. Art VI Sec 1: Inherent rights. All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring and protecting property

Ut. Art I Sec i: All men have the inherent and inalienable right to enjoy and defend their lives and liberties; to acquire, possess and protect property;

Vt. Art I: That all persons are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent, and unalienable rights, amongst which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property,

It seems only 22 of the 50 states allow one to protect their property by Constitutional means. I'm actually humbled, as I thought there would be more states that allowed such. On the bright side, I live in one of those!

If so you are setting yourself up for a murder charge.
Click to expand...
Sorta depends on the State and case law, doesn't it?

This all too universal idea that we shouldn't protect our property only results in more crime. The crooks count on it. The cry "Let's roll!" on United Flight 93 rendered passé the doctrine of nonresistance to criminality.
 
Would a CCW have made a difference?
Click to expand...
No. A gun is no match for a car, even in the best of circumstances. If you have a car coming at you, a bullet will not change it's direction.

Training might have made a difference though, gun or no gun.
 
§ 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
§ 9.43. Protection of Third Person's Property
A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides w
Click to expand...

That is the actual Texas statute on deadly force.

Here is Tennessee's, which is pretty close to the common law so shared by other states:
[http://198.187.128.12/tennessee/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0]39-11-611. Self-defense.

(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The person must have a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury must be real, or honestly believed to be real at the time, and must be founded upon reasonable grounds. There is no duty to retreat before a person threatens or uses force.

(b) Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within the person's own residence is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury to self, family or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
Click to expand...

Notice the phrase "death or serious bodily injury." This is as opposed to protection of property.
 
understand. I really detest blaming the victim. In this instance though, there is no way around it. If the dead victim had kept her composure, realized that there was video, realized that her family valued her more than a Pepsi and $50.00, realized that some people are willing to kill for $50.00, realized that she was in imminent danger of great physical harm or death and if she had stayed inside the gas station and called 911, she would be alive. Her impulsive action caused her ultimate death. The fact is, if she had pulled a legally licensed CCW and begun shooting, she would be guilty of a more serious crime than robbery. That is sickening. Her death offends me more so, it didn't need to be. Just do it is only an advertising slogan
Click to expand...

I have to disagree, her death was caused by a criminal committing a criminal act, she is in no way to be blamed. I do not know the laws of the State she was in, but at least here she would not have been committing a crime if she had pulled a legally licensed CCW and begun shooting. Not only would she have not committed a crime, she would have done us all a service, and I wager would still be alive.
 
Would a CCW have made a difference?

No. A gun is no match for a car, even in the best of circumstances. If you have a car coming at you, a bullet will not change it's direction.

Training might have made a difference though, gun or no gun.
Click to expand...

Well, that presupposes that the gun would not have come into play well before the thief got into the car, wouldn't it, XavierBreath?

I mean, you're proceeding from an arbitrarily arrived-at point of "the perp is already in the speeding car."

I think that's specious.

-blackmind
 
Anyone want to disagree with the notion that a crime victim who kills her attacker is doing society a service?

I agree with that statement.
These people are like pernicious weeds, and the more of them are removed from our midst, the better off we all stand to be.

-blackmind
 
I'm reading a lot of "she shoulda done this" or "she shoulda done that, and implied "she shoulda trained under Jeff Cooper" or trained for street survival, or taken karate or thought "tactical" (I'm REALLY starting to hate that word) thoughts or..... ad nauseum :barf: . My gawd people! She was a 62 yr old women! Her "tactical" experience probably consisted of no more than booting her cat out the door with a broom. Of course she didn't know what or what not to do, but I have to give her a WHOLE lot of respect for guts, with or without the car involved! These guys chose to run down an old woman, unarmed and no match for either of them with or without the car, and it is, any way you look at it, flat out, cold blooded murder, and second guessing an old woman that made a mistake that cost her life is not only callous, but disrespectful of the tremendous amount of courage she showed. :mad:
 
Well, that presupposes that the gun would not have come into play well before the thief got into the car, wouldn't it, XavierBreath?
Click to expand...
At that point she would have been protecting property, not her life.

I think that's specious. ;)


These guys chose to run down an old woman, unarmed and no match for either of them with or without the car, and it is, any way you look at it, flat out, cold blooded murder, and second guessing an old woman that made a mistake that cost her life is not only callous, but disrespectful of the tremendous amount of courage she showed
Click to expand...
You are correct if analysis is done in a disrespectful fashion Charlie.
The mistakes of those who have died protecting their life, lives of others or property are often used as teaching/learning tools. Yes, she was a 62 year old woman, but so are some of our posters on this forum, and there is not an age limit to carrying a gun.

Tactical thinking for anyone in this situation would have been: "Gosh, he got my $50 and ran away. He might have a pipe in his sleeve. He might have three friends with a pipes around that corner. He might have three friends in a car. They might run me down. I might die. My life is worth more to me than $50."

Nobody (I don't think) is talking flying kicks ala Chuck Norris here, They are talking making wise decisions. Her decision to stand in front of a carload of criminals to try to stop them with her body was exceedingly unwise. Historically criminals do not respect the elderly, and historically human bodies will not stop automobiles. Is this relevant for discussion on this forum? I say yes it is.

CCW with no training is counting on luck and divine provinence to protect you. CCW with training is taking matters into your own hands. The lady did not need to travel to Gunsite, but if she were to CCW she should have made it to the range at least every month and ran some ammo through her gun. Many permit holders never shoot their gun after their CCW class.

I am not saying she is to blame. Obviously, the criminals are to blame. She did, however, decide to place herself in danger for $50. That may seem courageous to some folks. Others may call it becoming consumed with anger and temporarily losing your common sense. Again, this is where training comes in. Not training in some arcane form of Kung Fu or training at Massad Ayoob's School of Gunpacking Granny's, but training in how to think clearly under stress, confusion and anger and how to protect yourself from injury when a crime is commited. It's thinking tactically, not acting tactically. I mean her no disrespect, and her death is indeed a loss.
 
Would a CCW have made the difference? YES, Maybe, NO. In all these sorts of crime events, it may have been possible that a gun put into use could generate positive results for the good guys, in this case, the good grandmother. However, while the grandmother was not the cause of her own demise, she suffered from something many folks suffer from, target fixation. She was fixated on the robber with her money, lost all situational awareness (assuming she had any) and ended up getting run over unexpectantly.

It sucks, but sometimes it is best to take the loss and learn from the mistake that you don't stand in line with a $50 bill plainly visible.

23Skidoo, your argument as to the laws that pertain to stopping crime with lethal force would be a lot better and more relevant if you chose to cite law from the actual state in which the incident occurred, Minnesota, not Texas or Tennessee.
 
argument as to the laws that pertain to stopping crime with lethal force would be a lot better and more relevant if you chose to cite law from the actual state in which the incident occurred, Minnesota, not Texas or Tennessee.
Click to expand...
Good idea! Here's what I found:

609.06 Authorized use of force.
Subdivision 1. When authorized. Except as otherwise
provided in subdivision 2, reasonable force may be used upon or
toward the person of another without the other's consent when
the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably
believes them to exist:

(1) when used by a public officer or one assisting a public
officer under the public officer's direction:

(a) in effecting a lawful arrest; or

(b) in the execution of legal process; or

(c) in enforcing an order of the court; or

(d) in executing any other duty imposed upon the public
officer by law; or

(2) when used by a person not a public officer in arresting
another in the cases and in the manner provided by law and
delivering the other to an officer competent to receive the
other into custody; or

(3) when used by any person in resisting or aiding another
to resist an offense against the person; or

(4) when used by any person in lawful possession of real or
personal property, or by another assisting the person in lawful
possession, in resisting a trespass upon or other unlawful
interference with such property; or

(5) when used by any person to prevent the escape, or to
retake following the escape, of a person lawfully held on a
charge or conviction of a crime; or

(6) when used by a parent, guardian, teacher, or other
lawful custodian of a child or pupil, in the exercise of lawful
authority, to restrain or correct such child or pupil; or

(7) when used by a school employee or school bus driver, in
the exercise of lawful authority, to restrain a child or pupil,
or to prevent bodily harm or death to another; or

(8) when used by a common carrier in expelling a passenger
who refuses to obey a lawful requirement for the conduct of
passengers and reasonable care is exercised with regard to the
passenger's personal safety; or

(9) when used to restrain a person who is mentally ill or
mentally defective from self-injury or injury to another or when
used by one with authority to do so to compel compliance with
reasonable requirements for the person's control, conduct, or
treatment; or

(10) when used by a public or private institution providing
custody or treatment against one lawfully committed to it to
compel compliance with reasonable requirements for the control,
conduct, or treatment of the committed person.

Subd. 2. Deadly force used against peace officers.
Deadly force may not be used against peace officers who have
announced their presence and are performing official duties at a
location where a person is committing a crime or an act that
would be a crime if committed by an adult.


609.065 Justifiable taking of life.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not
authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting
or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes
exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or
preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of
abode.




Source of Statute information
 
609.065 Justifiable taking of life.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not
authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting
or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes
exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or
preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of
abode.
Click to expand...

00Spy, I quoted Texas' because that is the only statute I am aware of that authorizes deadly force to protect property. And even there the circumstances are carefully spelled out, which is why I quoted it. I quoted TN's because I am more familiar with it and its language is based on the language of common law, just as MO's is, as you see above.
My point in so doing was that others have made the claim that using deadly force to protect property is justified by state constitution. My view is that this is a quick ticket to the big house and that state statutes, like the ones quoted, are what determine a lawful shoot.
 
My view is that....... state statutes, like the ones quoted, are what determine a lawful shoot.
Click to expand...
good.gif
 
XavierBreath

*sigh* I'm glad that cooler heads (meaning yours) prevail. Looking at the whole thread in that light, you're right, of course, and is something I didn't do. :o That in itself both embarrasses and surprises me, since at work, I usually make a big deal out of doing a critique of raids, pursuits, or other major incidents, for exactly that reason. I reread each post again (this time, without emotion), and I can't really find anything that's truly disrespectful. Sorry guys, for the tirade. Exit, stage left, with egg on face :o .
 
In order for the occupants of the vehicle to be charged with murder, there's a thing called 'complicity' that needs to be satisfied.

This means that, prior to the actual theft, that the occupants knew what the thief was going to do. Or, after the fact, as he was running out, aided and abetted.

This is why the get-away driver of robberies turned murder-robberies are charged for murder too. Because they knew, going into the crime, that there was the chance of homicide. Thus, complicity.

So too with arsonists, when a firefighter is killed, are charged with murder because people die fighting fires and anyone not totally insane knows this, thus they know that people can be killed because of their actions.

Since there's no mention of the guy going into the store with the intention of committing a crime to the knowledge of the other occupants, and only the person who stepped on the gas was in a position to aid him after the fact, then only the person who instigated the incident that lead to the death (the thief) and the person who stepped on the gas (the driver) can be charged with murder.

It could even be argued that the driver was acting in the belief that the man (thief) was being pursued out of the store to be harmed, and was attempting to flee an attack. Seems lame in retrospect, but none of us were there and, depending on the lawyer they get, that just might be the very defense they'll use.

Can also be argued that the thief is a murderer for having instigated the incident that resulted in the death.

The other occupants were, to pardon the pun, only along for the ride.
 
23, yes I figured out why you cited what you cited, but since this sort of thing varies from state to state, then the citation of laws from another state are often not relevant or do not apply in the capacity being applied.

Folks here were talking all about the issue without actually talking about the relevant laws to the case. It would have been easiest that instead of citing information that didn't pertain to the actual case that you just cite the relevant law from the state where the event occurred. Given the search capabilities of the internet, this isn't much of a problem as noted by TheeBadOne who found them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top