Vigilante Who Fired Shots to Get Back Lady's Purse Is Stripped of Concealed Carry Rights

By Nicholas Phillips Wed., Sep. 16 2009 at 10:47 AM

Categories: Criminally Stupid

http://www.flickr.com/photos/joeshlabotnik/ / CC BY 2.0

Around 9 p.m. last Friday, 75-year-old Mary O'Neal shuffled out of a Price Cutter in Springfield MO. She had her purse and some cupcakes for her grandson. Soon she heard the footsteps of a young man sprinting at her. He did not want a cupcake.

The ne'er-do-well snatched her purse, hopped into a get-away SUV, and sped off. Little did he know that Charles R. Webb, a regular citizen, was watching. This regular citizen had a 9 mm.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jasonsansone/ / CC BY 2.0

Webb tore off after the SUV and began a chase that reached speeds of up to 80 mph (almost fast enough to travel back in time). At one point he boxed in the SUV at a motel parking lot, and convinced the perps to toss out the purse. Webb fired three shots, apparently trying to blow out their tires. But the perps escaped. Webb, however, did not.

He's been charged with felony unlawful use of a weapon, and his concealed carry endorsement has been revoked until his case is decided. Check out coverage by the News Leader and KSPR down in Springfield.

Now, is this fair? Check out some spirited online debate here, here and here. As you mull over the ethics of a normal citizen taking the law into his own hands, you may want to consult this video:

Tags:

Charles R. Webb, concealed carry, Price Cutter, Springfield, SUV

Write Comment

Email to Friend

Print Article

Related Content

More About:

Anybody hear of Citizen's Arrest? Best consult the police on this. Anyone can make an arrest on observance of a crime, and this includes some latitude in effecting the arrest. We have a law enforcement who reminds Americans that police cannot do things we cannot legally do, and they shoot out tires all the time. So, why the arrest? Fleeing suspect may be a felon or misdemeanor, and that makes a difference in detaining someone. With ID theft and other malicious interferences, when are they going to make Purse Sbacthing a crime? And when are they going to stop calling law enforcement by a citizen authority Vigilante? Vigilante operates outside of due process, and there was no such violation here, because anyone may effect an arrest. One of the best kept secrets in the gun control movement is the legal and moral latitude of what a citizen can do in absence of police.
To Stop Crime one Must Fight Crime! Or just give up! Officer in Texas for +20 years. The shooter should be given a box of 50 bullets and a State Renewal at no charge! Anti-Crime people deserive no protection from the law!
Be as it may, shooting out the tires is a good idea. We don't want them to get away, we want them to face the full force of the law. He should not be penalized heavily.
@J. Brad Hicks: The News Leader's blog report states that Webb apparently fired the shots to blow out the SUV's tires. A very dangerous action, true, especially since somebody could've caught a stray. But "murderous psychopath"? I'm not so sure.
In order to get his concealed-carry permit, he had to certify that he knew under what circumstances any citizen is allowed to use potentially deadly force: if it is the only remaining way to defend his own life, or the life of another, from imminent threat of death or grievous bodily injury. Period. The law does not permit you to shoot at someone to protect property. Period. The law does not permit you to shoot at someone to keep them from escaping. Period. The law does not permit you to shoot at someone because they were threatening someone with death of bodily harm, if they aren't doing so at the moment. Period. The law does not permit you to shoot at someone if there is some other way of escaping from, or protecting another person from, death or grievous bodily harm, such as escaping. Period. This is all settled law, going back thirty years or more, and Webb was alive when the court cases deciding this were all over the news. But even if he managed to miss it at the time, and even if he managed to never hear anything about this since then, as probably many of you haven't, it remains inescapably true that he couldn't get a concealed-carry permit without having been told these things. And he shot at the thieves anyway. Knowing it wasn't legal to do so. You know what that makes him? A murderous psychopath. A heck of a lot greater threat to the people around him than any purse-snatcher. He needs to have more than his concealed-carry permit taken away; he needs to be convicted of attempted homicide, to serve felony time, and to lose his right to ever have a gun in his hands ever again, before he shoots again. The next time he might actually kill someone. And given that he's already promised, on his application for a concealed-carry permit, not to do so, why would we accept anything less than that as a guarantee?
yeah, as much good as the guy was trying to do, even cops won't shoot a guy for stealing a pursh (as itchy as their trigger fingers are). even in the hands of police, the force this guy was using was way over the top, and i wouldn't want him hanging around if someone took my wallet. yeah, they're fucking up, but no, they don't deserve to get fucking shot.
I should probably add that I do think this guy should be charged, but with reckless driving and endangerment resulting from the chase, in which he no doubt put countless lives in direct danger. And I agree you can't bust a cap in every thief you come across, but it's a gray area.
He had good intentions. But you can't go shooting around like that, unless your defending someone's life.
I'm not exactly an advocate for unchecked vigilante justice, but I'm not quite sure how this qualifies as unlawful use of a firearm. If the thief pulled out a weapon as well, would it be the same charge? What if the old lady shot the guy in the back as he was running? No one's life was directly threatened by the robbery, but if you're going to allow C&C, you have to believe it was designed for scenarios such as this.