FRANKLIN — Ohio police say a woman with a concealed carry permit used her gun to stop a purse snatching suspect.
http://limaohio.com/news/24763...ected-purse-snatcher

quote:

Franklin police say an 84-year-old woman was walking into a business around 11 a.m. Monday when a man grabbed her purse and took off running.

Mary Moore says she was driving by and saw the victim running after the man. Police say Moore pulled out her weapon and ordered the suspect to drop the victim’s purse.

While my emotional reaction is to cheer for her, I really have to condemn her actions. In Ohio you have a duty to retreat unless you are in your home or car and you can only use deadly force to protect life, not property. Had the bad guy decided to attack her and she shot him, she would most likely be facing charges since she would be considered to have escalated the situation.

On the television news I saw last night they interviewed her and she stated that when she told the guy to drop the purse he just ignored her. That is when she pulled her gun and put the laser on his forehead. That was her second dumb move, talking to the news before talking to a lawyer. If they do decide to press charged, they basically have her bragging about committing a felony.

http://www.fox19.com/story/355...tops-purse-snatching

I think she made only ONE mistake, and that was talking to the press.

quote:

Originally posted by synthplayer:
I think she made only ONE mistake, and that was talking to the press.

To each his own, but I carry to protect my life, the lives of my family, and maybe the life of someone else if I can be pretty sure who the bad guy is and who the good guy is. I'm not going to risk my life or freedom for another person's purse.

quote:

Originally posted by RichN:

quote:

Originally posted by synthplayer:
I think she made only ONE mistake, and that was talking to the press.

To each his own, but I carry to protect my life, the lives of my family, and maybe the life of someone else if I can be pretty sure who the bad guy is and who the good guy is. I'm not going to risk my life or freedom for another person's purse.

This is pretty much my mantra as well. In this instance I'd just try to get a good description of the mutt and pass that on to the cops.

Jim

I think she could have shot him if he attacked her, but she is not allowed to shoot him as you stated for theft.

Stupid laws which protect criminals aside, if one burgles it's one thing. It's a different thing to prey upon and rob, especially the weak and elderly, like this. These thugs should be put down. As with burglars with intentions of identity theft.

Double-check the laws in Ohio (I don't know what they are). She didn't use deadly force, she held a robber who she witnessed committing the robbery at gunpoint. The law in OH may provide for citizen's arrest being legal for crimes committed in your view. OR has such a law.

If he would have attacked her, only then would self-defense, use of deadly force law and any duty to retreat provisions kick in.

That said, whether her actions were legal or not, I wouldn't choose to insert myself in a situation where nobody is at risk of harm, just someone else's property being stolen. She was also dumb to talk to media, but then nobody got hurt so I doubt she'll b charged with anything.

quote:

Originally posted by Strambo:
Double-check the laws in Ohio (I don't know what they are). She didn't use deadly force, she held a robber who she witnessed committing the robbery at gunpoint. The law in OH may provide for citizen's arrest being legal for crimes committed in your view. OR has such a law.

If he would have attacked her, only then would self-defense, use of deadly force law and any duty to retreat provisions kick in.

That said, whether her actions were legal or not, I wouldn't choose to insert myself in a situation where nobody is at risk of harm, just someone else's property being stolen. She was also dumb to talk to media, but then nobody got hurt so I doubt she'll b charged with anything.

Ohio generally has good concealed carry laws, but there are a couple of poison pills in it, as outlined in the Attorny General's Concealed Carry Handbook.

Condition 1: Defendant Is Not At Fault
First, the defendant must prove that he was not at fault for creating the situation. The defendant cannot be the first aggressor or initiator.

However, in proving the victim’s fault, a defendant cannot point to other unrelated situations in which the victim was the aggressor. Remember, the focus is on the specific facts of the situation at hand.

If you escalate a confrontation by throwing the first punch, attacking, or drawing your handgun, you are the aggressor. Most likely in this situation, you cannot legitimately claim self-defense nor would you likely succeed in proving your affirmative defense.

Condition 2: Reasonable and Honest Belief of Danger
Second, the defendant must prove that, at the time, he had a real belief that he was in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm and that his use of deadly force was the only way to escape that danger. Bear in mind that deadly force may only be used to protect against serious bodily harm or death. The key word is “serious.”

In deciding whether the bodily harm was serious, the judge or jury can consider how the victim attacked the defendant, any weapon the victim had, and how he used it against the defendant. Minor bruises or bumps from a scuffle probably do not meet the legal definition of “serious.” In court cases, rape has been determined to be serious bodily harm, as has being attacked with scissors. Serious bodily harm also may result from being struck with an object that can cause damage, such as a baseball bat or a wooden club.

The defendant’s belief that he is in immediate serious danger is important. The defendant’s belief must be reasonable, not purely speculative. In deciding if the belief was reasonable and honest, the judge or jury will envision themselves standing in the defendant’s shoes and consider his physical characteristics, emotional state, mental status, and knowledge; the victim’s actions and words; and all other facts regarding the encounter. The victim must have acted in a threatening manner. Words alone, regardless of how abusive or provoking, or threats of future harm (“I’m going to kill you tomorrow”) do not justify the use of deadly force.

Condition 3: Duty to Retreat
A defendant must show that he did not have a duty to retreat or avoid the danger. A person must retreat or avoid danger by leaving or voicing his intention to leave and ending his participation in the confrontation.

If one person retreats and the other continues to fight, the person who left the confrontation may later be justified in using deadly force when he can prove all three conditions of self-defense existed. You should always try to retreat from a confrontation before using deadly force if retreating does not endanger yourself or others.

If the person can escape danger by means such as leaving or using less than deadly force, he must use those means. If you have no means to escape the other person’s attack and you reasonably, honestly believe that you are about to be killed or receive serious bodily harm, you may be able to use deadly force if that is the only way for you to escape that danger.

But is there a citizen's arrest law/statute? That is what she was doing, not drawing a CCW for self-defense.

By example here is OR law:

ORS 133.225

(1) A private person may arrest another person for any crime committed in the presence of the private person if the private person has probable cause to believe the arrested person committed the crime. A private person making such an arrest shall, without unnecessary delay, take the arrested person before a magistrate or deliver the arrested person to a peace officer.

(2) In order to make the arrest a private person may use physical force as is justifiable under ORS 161.255 (Use of physical force by private person making citizen's arrest). [1973 c.836 §74]

ORS 161.255

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a private person acting on the person’s own account is justified in using physical force upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to make an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person whom the person has arrested under ORS 133.225 (Arrest by private person).

(2) A private person acting under the circumstances prescribed in subsection (1) of this section is justified in using deadly physical force only when the person reasonably believes it necessary for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force. [1971 c.743 §31; 1973 c.836 §339]
_______

It doesn't give example of physical force, is drawing a gun going too far? Is it unreasonable? Don't know...but...LE routinely does this when making arrests so it would seem reasonable to me (in a legal sense) that drawing a CCW to gain compliance when making a citizens' arrest for a violent crime like robbery would be "reasonable" in the legal sense of the term.

Again, I wouldn't do it, heck I never made any "Citizen's arrests" when I worked as a security guard either, I always let the cops handle it.