911 Call Reveals Woman's Struggle With Purse Thief

[skippythwndrdog]

911 Call Reveals Woman's Struggle With Purse Thief
Woman Held Suspect At Gunpoint Until Police Arrived

http://images.ibsys.com/2005/0217/4209295.mp3 For a copy of the 911 call.

http://www.channeloklahoma.com/news/4208817/detail.html For a link to the story.

As the struggle moved down the street, a neighbor -- whom Theresa Gesell identified as "Hershall" -- stopped to help. Theresa then grabbed her .45-caliber pistol and continued running after Campbell -- despite the dispatcher's plea for her to drop the handgun.

"I am going to go get my .45 ... you all are too slow," she said.

As the call continues, the dispatcher asks Theresa to get rid of the weapon. However, after the suspect tried to escape along a creek bed, Theresa and Hershall used the pistol to make sure he didn't leave.

"You can go put that gun up now," the dispatcher said.
"No sir," Theresa replied. "We have the gun pointed at him ... he must have been a city fellow because he didn't know anything about the woods."

[-..__...]

1. But...

where there any children or innocent bystanders in the area while this was going down? That's what the ant-gun folks will weep about.


This..



.vs this...



Oh boo-hoo-hoo... "Get rid of the weapon".

The POS will be out in a year robbing other pensioners.

[solinvictus]

2. Score One for the Good Guys!!

You mean he didn't take it from her and shoot her with it? That's what the Brady Bunch and the Million Mommies alway say.

[iverglas]

3. oh look, a vigilante posse

Never draw your firearm unless you are prepared to use it; isn't that the rule?

So I give up; was this a "defensive use of a firearm"? Maybe somebody can explain to me what was being defended against ...

[Squatch]

4. That's the South for you...

people down here are itchin' to whip out their hoglegs and chase down a crook.

What would peple here be saying if the woman shot the fleeing suspect?

[alwynsw]

23. Who's next?

I see that the stereotype machine is on and running smoothly.

[aikoaiko]

6. I don't see a vigilante posse....

... she involved the police as soon as they arrived. She exacted no revenge. They did not shoot at the suspect as he was fleeing. Her stated goal was not let the "bastard get away" if I remember correctly.

As a general rule, Iverglas is correct, that pointing a loaded weapon at a fleeing suspect who is not an apparent threat is not a good idea, but they did right by arming themselves as they chased the suspect (IMHO). After all, they had good reason to worry that the suspect may turn on them. Chasing the suspect is good citizenship behavior.

Where did this happen? Anyone know?

[iverglas]

7. "not a good idea"

... pointing a loaded weapon at a fleeing suspect who is not an apparent threat is not a good idea ...

Damn. I kind of thought it might be something rather more than "not a good idea". I kind of thought it might be something like against the law.

... but they did right by arming themselves as they chased the suspect (IMHO).

And if your humble opinion happens to be that something that is illegal is "right" ... well, obviously your opinion is worth more than all the reasons why the law might have been enacted.

Chasing the suspect is good citizenship behavior.

Perhaps so. I still suspect that chasing anyone while threatening him/her with a firearm is illegal. For a number of rather good reasons.

Need a list?

[aikoaiko]

8. What, exactly, is illegal about....

...arming oneself before chasing a criminal suspect from the scene of a crime. Perhaps you know of the state laws in question in more detail than me, but in a state like mine (Georgia, USA) I could legally arm myself and chase. Arming oneself is not the same thing as pointing a weapon at someone.

As far as pointing a weapon at a fleeing suspect goes, I referred to it as "not a good idea" because the legality of the action might be called into question. Although a reasonable jury might let someone who had just been attacked point the weapon to prevent the suspect from reattacking them as they were rightfully chasing them. I think it would be a matter for jury to decide whether the law had been broken in that case.

As far as the "don't pull your weapon unless you are going to shoot the person" rule goes, police often violate that rule in order to keep a person under control. I believe in some states you are allowed to force to control a person if you have direct knowledge a crime having been committed. I think the issue is debateable.

But as always, I speak with only limited knowledge and I look forward to hearing what you and others have to say. This is, after all, a discussion board.

[davepc]

9. worst the woman would face is a brandishing charge

And I'm not even sure thats a felony in Florida.

[iverglas]

11. uh ... so?

I don't recall raising any issue as to whether the individual might want to risk criminal charges, i.e. as to how serious the charges might be and whether it was advisable, from her standpoint, to take her chances. That's entirely a matter of personal taste, not something that particularly concerns me when I look at somebody doing something illegal.

Illegal is illegal. But heck, I dunno; maybe not in Florida.

[davepc]

12. yup. illegal is illegal, circumstances be damned!

[iverglas]

13. gee

I guess I must have said that.

Oh no, look! It was you!

[davepc]

15. foiled again by a Master Debater!

[iverglas]

10. wa'l shoot, pardner

What, exactly, is illegal about....
...arming oneself before chasing a criminal suspect from the scene of a crime.

I guess in your neck of the woods there wouldn't be anything at all illegal about it.

The thing is, we were actually talking about somebody who had pulled a firearm on the person being chased, so that's kinda what I thought we were talking about.

I guess one might well "arm one's self" before taking off in pursuit of a criminal suspect solely for the purpose of "self-defence", but it just strikes me as more of a "good idea" not to put one's self in the position of being at sufficient risk of harm from said criminal suspect that one might be wanting to pull a firearm, if one were that concerned about not coming to any harm. Fuckin duh. So ... "good idea"? I'm still thinking "not".

... a reasonable jury might let someone who had just been attacked point the weapon to prevent the suspect from reattacking them as they were rightfully chasing them.

Now, of course, guessing about what any jury, reasonable or otherwise, might do is rather a far cry from stating what the law is.

If I were on said jury, nonetheless, I might just find it a little hard to figure out whether, if the suspect in question "reattacked", s/he was doing so out of natural born nastiness, or maybe in an attempt to avoid being shot by an excited stranger claiming to be aiming a firearm at him/her to avoid being reattacked but liable to do dog knows what, for all s/he knew, when all s/he wanted to do was run away ...

[aikoaiko]

22. you're so cute iverglas

You would rather the assaulted woman retreat into her house rather than help the police apprehend the criminal while also armed? Unbelievable.

Fuckin duh? I think not.

[iverglas]

24. fuckin duh?

I think so.

You would rather the assaulted woman retreat into her house rather than help the police apprehend the criminal while also armed? Unbelievable.

Unbelievable indeed. I never do cease to be amazed at what people can see through those funny specs.

I wonder why they need to put question marks at the end of what they see, though. Surely if it's that clear, they could just come right out and tell us what they see, and not have to hedge with those little squiggly punctuation things.

[Redneck Socialist]

5. My favorite line...

"... he must have been a city fellow because he didn't know anything about the woods."

A heartwarming tale of a granny with a gun, but chuckles aside, pursuing a fleeing criminal probably isn't the smartest plan in the world.

[davepc]

14. Flordia Statute:

http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?Mode=View%20Statutes&Submenu=1&Tab=statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES

Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE


776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102.

Title XLVI
CRIMES

Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

776.031 Use of force in defense of others.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1189, ch. 97-102.

Title XLVI

Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

776.08 Forcible felony.--"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 4, ch. 75-298; s. 289, ch. 79-400; s. 5, ch. 93-212; s. 10, ch. 95-195.

So, you can use force to prevent a forceable felony. A forceable felony can be robbery; burglary; aggravated assault; aggravated battery...etc etc etc.

Now, after the suspect turns and runs with the victims property and attempts to escape, are you allowed to follow the suspect and detain them until police arrive by use of force?

Title XLVI
CRIMES

Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

776.07 Use of force to prevent escape.--

(1) A law enforcement officer or other person who has an arrested person in his or her custody is justified in the use of any force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody.

(2) A correctional officer or other law enforcement officer is justified in the use of force, including deadly force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape from a penal institution of a person whom the officer reasonably believes to be lawfully detained in such institution under sentence for an offense or awaiting trial or commitment for an offense.

History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 7, ch. 95-283; s. 1193, ch. 97-102.

Perhaps one could argue that the victim was placing the suspect under "arrest" until the arrival of the police. Florida has no provisions for a 'citizens arrest' and the only statues that talk about detentions are reference to corrections officers, law enforcement officers, and retail merchants. Except the statute refers to "other persons". So who and what are "other persons" and when do they have the ability to 'arrest' someone for a reasonable time period before they transfer the detainee to law enforcement?

[iverglas]

16. sooooo

776.012 ... irrelevant.

776.031 ... irrelevant.

776.08 ... irrelevant a fortiori.

Perhaps one could argue that the victim was placing the suspect under "arrest" until the arrival of the police.

Perhaps one could.

However, given that the statute says (emphasis added):

A law enforcement officer or other person
who has an arrested person in his or her custody

I might submit that it would be rather difficult to argue that, when what one was doing was chasing someone who was in no one's custody at all.


Except the statute refers to "other persons". So who and what are "other persons" and when do they have the ability to 'arrest' someone for a reasonable time period before they transfer the detainee to law enforcement?

Perhaps they don't, this being what would seem to be the case if, as you say, there is no provision in Florida law for arrest by anyone other than a law enforcement officer.

It is conceivable that someone could be in the lawful custody of someone other than a law enforcement officer, one might suppose, after being arrested by a law enforcement officer.


Now, after the suspect turns and runs with the victims property and attempts to escape, are you allowed to follow the suspect and detain them until police arive by use of force?

Me, I'd say not. I mean, I'm not seeing anything in what you have presented that would suggest I could. (In Canada, I may arrest someone whom I "find committing" an indictable offence, but I'd say that once I've done that and s/he has got away, I no longer find him/her committing an indictable offence.)

There really are reasons for not endowing members of the public with the power to enforce laws, y'know.

[skippythwndrdog]

17. Dave, Iverglas...the incident happened in OKLAHOMA CITY.

[MrSandman]

19. That explains the irrevelance...nt

[iverglas]

25. hmm, is that like Kansas City?

Kansas City, Missouri ... Oklahoma City, Florida ...

Nonetheless, I'd be surprised if Oklahoma's laws are much different. As I noted, Canadian laws are very similar, except we do have that bit about "citizen's arrest" (which of course can be effect by non-citizens just as properly):

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec494.html
-- and actually, it's more extensive than I'd been thinking:

Criminal Code
PART XVI COMPELLING APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED
BEFORE A JUSTICE AND INTERIM RELEASE

Arrest without Warrant and Release from Custody

Arrest without warrant by any person

494. (1) Any one may arrest without warrant

(a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence; or

(b) a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes

(i) has committed a criminal offence, and
(ii) is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person.

Arrest by owner, etc., of property

(2) Any one who is

(a) the owner or a person in lawful possession of property, or

(b) a person authorized by the owner or by a person in lawful possession of property,

may arrest without warrant a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property.

Delivery to peace officer

(3) Any one other than a peace officer who arrests a person without warrant shall forthwith deliver the person to a peace officer.

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec2.html

"property" includes

(a) real and personal property of every description and deeds and instruments relating to or evidencing the title or right to property, or giving a right to recover or receive money or goods, ...

So up here, it would indeed have been perfectly proper for anyone to pursue the purse-snatcher, and to keep doing so if someone had caught him and lost him. Just not to use a firearm for the purpose.

[anonymous44]

18. lmao

that guy will be a prison bitch for sure now

[alwynsw]

21. Wonder how he'll look with tits tattooed on his back.

I've seen it done to punks. One of the more interesting memories from working at a penitentiary.

[alwynsw]

20. Is it just me, or

does anyone else who listened to the tape think the 911 dispatcher is a total idiot?

on edit: Correction. My wife says "fucking idiot." I concur.