purse snatching

erkme73 said:
There's no winning that game. Then it'll turn out to be a toy gun. Or they were just trying to scare - they weren't really going to shoot. Then the argument will be "Just don't shoot to kill unless they've actually fired in your direction."

I know this is again going OT, but the stand your ground laws in Florida permit deadly force anytime the victim believes their life is at risk. That's such a subjective definition, that it really comes down to the investigating department and the DA whether they agree or not. Waiting for an assailant to make it abundantly clear that he intends to kill you is not a strategy I'd want to take - as by the time you figure that out, it's too late.

For example, if you're a 70+ y/o senior who is approached by a 30-something guy who is foaming at the mouth in anger and throwing things at you, do you wait for him to land the first punch? If so, at your age, such a punch may well be the end of you. Never mind not knowing the skill and training of the assailant. Keep in mind that's exactly what happened to retired TPD officer Curtis in the movie theater. He didn't wait for the escalation to come to blows (though he was hit in the dark with a cup of popcorn). The younger guy was climbing over the seats to engage. His wife was trying to hold him back when Curtis fired a single shot (through the wife's hand) into the guy's chest - killing him.

I'm not particularly fond of the police profession - but after watching the video of that shooting in the theater, I really have to side with Curtis. If he had waited, it may have well have had the opposite outcome.

It's not an easy decision, but choosing to be victimized and letting bad people walk all over defenseless victims is not the answer either.
Click to expand...
Curtis needs a new wife.
 
erkme73 said:
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't even play one on TV or the internet. But, from some of the FL criminal defense lawyer websites, the term "improper exhibition" (vs brandishing) is not cut and dry. Many states have a specific exclusion for displaying a firearm in a threatening manner while exercising self-defense. Florida does not. There have been successful defenses against the charge when there was a self-defense claim, but it's not guaranteed. IOW, if you're charged, you have the expense (time & $$) to prove you were justified in displaying your weapon.

If you call to report an incident, you are going on record as having displayed your firearm. Should the assailant claim you threatened him w/o any justification, it becomes a he-said she-said incident - which, without supporting evidence (security camera footage) or witness statements - and if you have a particularly anti-gun DA/prosecutor, you could find that self-report to be a very expensive call.

Again, I don't know what the answer is. But the legal system, IMHO, is too subjective and gray to trust the truth will prevail if you don't have substantial evidence in your favor.
Click to expand...
I would say pull your gun, then after they haul ass, put it away and leave. As long as they don't get a plate number or something from you and they are a criminal, which they likely are, it is VERY unlikely they will be calling the police to report you did anything. Thus bringing attention to themselves and then it's he said she said between you and some guys with mile long rap sheets.
 
hmjgriffon said:
Pulling out a gun to keep someone from attacking you is not brandishing and half the guys who teach CCW classes don't know what they are talking about, take legal advice from a lawyer not a cop, or an academy flunky.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've said. But, there are plenty of FL criminal lawyers who cite cases involved in exactly this kind of scenario - and without the statutes explicitly permitting exhibiting the firearm during self-defense - the misdemeanor charges for improper exhibition COULD stick. Just something to consider before publicly aiming a deadly weapon at someone and not pulling the trigger.
 
hmjgriffon said:
Curtis needs a new wife.
Click to expand...

No, I could have written that a bit more clearly. It was the assailant's wife who tried to stop her husband from climbing over the row of seats and bashing Curtis. She was pulling him back when she was shot through the hand. It was about as clear-cut stand your ground as it gets. Unfortunately for Curtis, and the 'cops get special privileges' meme (which I actually think happens), the system came down hard on him.

The County actually set up a website specific to his trial (which has still not happened)... It has autopsy reports, the video from within the theater at the time of the shooting (multiple angles), and all the other evidence collected.

There are two schools of thought. He should have just gotten up and moved, or he should be praised for standing up to bullies. I tend to be in the latter group - but that's easy for me to say being a little more than half his age.
 
In this particular case, I doubt brandishing would have been claimed or prosecuted. Clear intent, from her perspective to possibly do bodily harm, disparity of force (2 against one), and a forcible Felony. Though as others have mentioned, there will always be a gray area in these cases, and ultimately as also mentioned, the decision will be in the hands of the local department and DA.

One does not shoot to kill - ever. = with malice
Shoot to stop the threat = self defense
 
  • Like
Reactions: erkme73
Anyone here a USCCA member? Been seeing ads on Facebook lately where stories are told similar to what is being discussed here and how the CCW holder ends up in jail. They offer insurance basically to pay legal fees in a firearm involved incident. Starts at $147 a year for the basic plan. Might be worth it.
 
bigredfish said:
In this particular case, I doubt brandishing would have been claimed or prosecuted. Clear intent, from her perspective to possibly do bodily harm, disparity of force (2 against one), and a forcible Felony. Though as others have mentioned, there will always be a gray area in these cases, and ultimately as also mentioned, the decision will be in the hands of the local department and DA.

One does not shoot to kill - ever. = with malice
Shoot to stop the threat = self defense
Click to expand...

Exactly. If all was captured by camera then I'm 100% sure no charges would be filed had she drawn her weapon and they fled w/o a shot fired. The problem arises when the assailants flees, and witnesses - who saw only a woman pulling a gun and others running away - report a woman with a gun. At that point, there's little evidence that she was justified. Unfortunately, most people are so unaccustomed to seeing a gun, that if they see someone waving one, and others fleeing, their first instinct is to call 911 - which the dispatcher will promptly radio out as an active shooter situation.
There was a case a few years ago here in the Tampa area where a homeowner thought he was about to be robbed by a group of teens that approached his porch. He told them to get lost, and they got verbally aggressive. He went inside, grabbed his gun, held it up, and threatened to shoot them. The kids scattered, and he was charged with brandishing (or the equivalent). That has stuck with me.

I just don't trust a jury of my peers to think logically when it comes to displaying but not using a weapon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom