Gotta Love Those Texas Women.

[LS-208]

A woman was called in front of a Texas grand jury for manslaughter
after she shot a mugger 6 times in the back as he was running away with her purse.

When he grabbed the purse and ran, she had her hand on the gun in it,
and was left with the revolver in her hand.

When asked by the grand jury why she shot the man 6 times in the back
as he was running away, she replied under oath:
"Because when I pulled the trigger the 7th time it only went click."


Let the record show that she hit him 6 out of 6 times.



True Story!:haha:

 

[TinkerBang]

She is my hero. I would have done the same thing. My theory is don't stop till you hear the click. He had no right to take HER purse.

 

[cgnavarro]

I may be crazy, but I don't recall when purse snatching was declared a crime punishable by death, other than in those countries we tend to regard as "barbaric".I don't see how we can condemn people who stone women to death for showing too much skin in public, yet applaud the actions of this woman. I thought that those of us who carry firearms for protection had been taught to only use our weapons (to quote Massad Ayoob) in the gravest extreme. Unless I've misconstrued the teachings and wisdom of every firearms instructor I've ever heard, it seems to me that shooting someone; even a criminal scumbag, is even more heinous an act than the theft itself. Am I completely off base here?

 

[NDS]

I may be crazy, but I don't recall when purse snatching was declared a crime punishable by death, other than in those countries we tend to regard as "barbaric".

Sorry, this is not a valid parallel. Had he survived he still should be prosecuted and, if convicted, sent to jail. What transpired in the time immediately surrounding the crime and while the woman was scared for her safety should only determine her culpability (if there is any).

I don't see how we can condemn people who stone women to death for showing too much skin in public, yet applaud the actions of this woman.

Still has nothing to do with protecting oneself during the commission of a crime.

I thought that those of us who carry firearms for protection had been taught to only use our weapons (to quote Massad Ayoob) in the gravest extreme. Unless I've misconstrued the teachings and wisdom of every firearms instructor I've ever heard, it seems to me that shooting someone; even a criminal scumbag, is even more heinous an act than the theft itself.

Y'got me. None of the instructors I have studied with or discussed this topic with ever said that. I also believe that everyone (it's been a long time since I read M Ayoob) will tell you that each situation is unique and can't really be planned ahead of time. You train to be ready to face the worst possible. I guess this criminal should have picked his victim more carefully--but it's moot now.

Am I completely off base here?

I believe so.


This woman acted in the confusion and heat of the crime. If the criminal wanted to be safe he should have chosen another line of work. You, however, may feel sympathy for him all you please. My sympathies lie with the poor woman who felt she had to shoot to protect herself and will have nightmares for the rest of her life because criminal scum wouldn't leave her alone.

 

[cgnavarro]

Don't get me wrong, I don't sympathize for the criminal, but I also don't think he should be dead as a result of a theft. A woman who when asked why she shot someone six times in the back who responds "Because when I pulled the trigger the 7th time it only went click." doesn'tsound like someone who was confused about what was happening, she sounds like someone who was sorry she didn't have a 7th round. You don't shoot unless it's to save your life. Is it hard to tell when your life is in danger? Yes, I suppose that line can get muddled in; as you say, "the heat of the crime". But, I hope a Texas Grand Jury will find that it's not when a mugger is running away from you with his back turned, if for no other reason than if they don't, this will be come just another argument for the gun grabbers as to why people can't be trusted to make sound decisions under stress, and thus shouldn't be allowed to carry guns for their own defense. If her response was taken out of context, that's one thing (and it should be taken into account in sentencing), but if it's not, then this was just wrong.

 

[CathyInBlue]

What if it turned out that the woman was medication-dependent and her entire medicine supply was in that purse? In that case, though she's in a very real manner merely using deadly force to recover material possessions which she is entirely capable of replacing, but she's also in another very real manner using deadly force to sustain her life by recovering or retaining the means to keep herself alive which may not be replaceable in the timeframe in which she may next require a dose.

Even if it's not a matter of medical life and death, what if the purse was full of the woman's life's savings and she's on her way to pay for a new home and without that money, she's literally homeless, so what this jaggoff is stealing isn't truly her purse and pocket change, but he's stealing her home. Would that be worth killing to defend or retain?

I do believe in proportionality, but I also believe that if you commit a violent crime against a person who may be armed, you have no right to be surprised when, instead of making your escape, you suddenly find yourself staring at a pair of pearly gates and a surly angel demanding your name.

 

[HK4U]

Remember this is Texas. In our state the law abiding citizen has more rights than the BG. She was within her rights. However her statement might not have been the smartest thing to say.

 

[cgnavarro]

You have a point there HK4U. The Peoples Republic of Kalifornia has a way of messing with your head. :biggrin:

 

[RedThunder94]

one less BG to deal with. no sympathy whatsoever for him. if he woulda got away with this who knows what other crime he may graduate to, rape, murder, who knows? but one things is for sure he won't be doing anything anymore. :to_pick_ones_nose:

 

[cgnavarro]

So much for "all life is precious" I guess.

 

[RedThunder94]

when someone is attacking my family or myself, no way is the BG's life more precious than that of ours.:yu:

 

[cgnavarro]

But that's exactly my point. At the time this man was shot, he was attacking no one. He was running away with his back turned. The story says nothing about him threatening to come back and kill her or her family if she turned him in or retaliated or even brandishing a weapon. Can the argument be made that she prevented him from victimizing someone else in the future? Yes, but this isn't Minority Report and we don't punish people based on the crimes they might commit. We punish them based on what they have done, unless they are denied due process by being shot to death. Didn he deserve to be punished for his crime, yes. Did he deserve to die for it is clearly a question that is up in the air, much to my dismay.

 

[CathyInBlue]

When in the heat of the moment, one's fears are allowed to reign freely. You are not required to have precrime knowledge that this person either will or will not do you injury in the future, near or far future. You're entirely free to have the panicked impulse that he's immediately about to come back and pull a knife or a gun, or an atomic weapon on you and kill you. There must be a serious period of time separating the violent crime against you and your employment of lethal force. The crime victim would also have to leave a safe area in order to pursue the criminal for the administration of the coup de grace. In my book, both of these conditions would have to be met for a case of unjustified homicide to be sustainable against the crime victim of the nature of the OP's story.

 

[RedThunder94]

But that's exactly my point. At the time this man was shot, he was attacking no one. He was running away with his back turned. The story says nothing about him threatening to come back and kill her or her family if she turned him in or retaliated or even brandishing a weapon. Can the argument be made that she prevented him from victimizing someone else in the future? Yes, but this isn't Minority Report and we don't punish people based on the crimes they might commit. We punish them based on what they have done, unless they are denied due process by being shot to death. Didn he deserve to be punished for his crime, yes. Did he deserve to die for it is clearly a question that is up in the air, much to my dismay.

he had her pocket book and probably the car keys house keys and her id everything he would need to come back and visit her at her house and possibly kill her entire family, i stand by what i posted earlier, one less criminal off the street left to wander about and victimize other defenseless people. crime doesn't pay. eventually they will figure it out one bullet at a time.

 

[cgnavarro]

And this is where we must agree to disagree, as having the opportunity to do harm is not the same as doing it. No one should die for what they might do.

 

[RedThunder94]

your right but he was killed in the process of committing a crime, its not like she asked him to hold her purse for a minute, the bastidge was victimizing her. i guess if the same happened to you, you would prolly give him a tip for robbing you, saying here you go guy, take everything you want i'll look away while you do your little thing. lol.:wacko:

 

[cgnavarro]

Yes, he was in a commission of a crime that is not punishable by death in any state in this country. No, I don't think I would tip him. I would report the incident to the police, and hopefully not shoot someone in the back who was not immediately threatening my life. If I had, I should punished.

 

[Boomboy007]

I understand you, cgnavarro.

While I would agree that predatory criminals deserve little sympathy, as we all on this forum know, the specific circumstances of when deadly force is authorized is very clear: Only when your life (or serious injury) or the life of another is in immediate jeopardy, or to stop a forcible felony.

This particular case is definitely NOT an example.

Be careful, lest your teenage son or daughter be shot while attempting to steal a beer at the local Kwik-E-Mart.

 

[RedThunder94]

Yes, he was in a commission of a crime that is not punishable by death in any state in this country. No, I don't think I would tip him. I would report the incident to the police, and hopefully not shoot someone in the back who was not immediately threatening my life. If I had, I should punished.

you're missing the point, BG's who are killed in the commencement of a crime deserve absolutely zero sympathy, i work an 8-5 job 5 days a week and support my family, this dirtbag would still be alive if he had chose a different lifestyle, i.e. working a regular job just like anybody else, but instead he was lazy and chose a life of crime, so he is responsible for making the decision that ultimately cost him his life. think of it as a job hazard. what makes him so special that he deserved to be rewarded with everything in this poor lady's purse? :sarcastic:

 

[CathyInBlue]

The problem with your logic, cgnavarro, is that you would have to wait until the enemy's bullet has left the gun before you could predict that he would shoot at you. You would have to wait until the enemy's knife has pierced your skin before you could predict that he would stab you. In fact, since we all know that many gun shot, stabbing, and bludgeoning wounds are not fatal, you'd have to wait until the nerves are obliterated or the arteries are severed to know with metaphysical certainty that he means to do you LETHAL injury before you would be justified in returning LETHAL force upon him.

You are justified, in most sane jurisdictions that I know of, in visitting deadly force upon a person if you can invoke the reasonable person standard. In otherwords, you can show that your thought processes AT THAT MOMENT were such that a metaphorical reasonable person would agree with the decision to hit, stab, shoot, etc. the person.

If you have to wait for that iron clad guarantee that you're about to be attacked, you're already dead, and that iron cladding is going on your casket. I could and would claim that I believed that at any moment, that purse snatcher was going to wheel around, aim a gun at me, and since the criminal at that moment was still in my presence, it's reasonable, and so I am justified in ending that threat with a .357MAG between the shoulderblades. If the criminals falls down and stays down before I can realign for a second shot, cool, I get to conserv ammo in case he has an accomplice. If he's still up, well, then, the threat hasn't ended, has it?

That is, if I'm operating on enough of my rational mind, or the training has taken over. But, if I'm operating instinctually out of fear, I might just be pulling the trigger until I hear click instead of boom, and that too would be reasonable.

In the end, the incident was one of the criminal's making, not the self-defense shooter. If he didn't want to get shot in the back, there was an easy way for him to accomplish that... don't be a criminal that day.