We Need to Grow Up a Bit

[sugar land dave]

Peace

[Dave2]

Are they obligated to take a minimum-wage scut job?

No, but baring independent wealth, they are obligated to take a job, and sometimes the minimum-wage scut ones are all you can find. I've taken more than one gig in my life that I'd just as soon not have, but the job wasn't immoral, they were willing to pay me to do it, and I didn't have any other prospects at the time.

[speedsix]

..the following information posted above is not correct : "...The legislature could clarify this situation. They have not done so. Obviously they have had other priorities for the past few decades.
Look at the Texas Castle Doctrine bill of 2007. It applies only to a direct threat to the defender on his own property or in his own vehicle. It provides no defense for protection of a third party on property that the defender does not own."



...it's dangerous and misleading to quote part of a law to make a point...the link below tells us where the law says the Castle Doctrine applies(any lawful use of force covered in Chapter 9) and Chapter 9 says when/where we may defend a third party...good to read occasionally to make sure we have it right...

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00378F.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


...Chapter 9 specifically says that we are protected against criminal prosecution if we use deadly force to protect a third party if that person would have been allowed by Chapter 9 to use the deadly force themselves...which means the same places we can use it...including our/their place of employment ...spelled out in Chapter 9...
...SB378 specifically says if the deadly force is justified under Chapter 9, civil immunity applies....whether it is me protecting myself or legally protecting a third person...no case law is necessary to just plain read the law...it's not hazy or unclear.
...it still boils down to an individual making the choice of whether or not he should become involved...

[b322da]

Joe Horn was not a legal precedent; he was a successful lightning dodger.
- Jim

I hope there is no question in the minds of the readers but that Jim's comment here is quite correct.

The action or inaction of Joe Horn's grand jury or DA is legal precedent for nothing. If there are any more local legal experts here who think otherwise they are inviting a serious problem if they think they can be deputized into being an LEO by a neighbot.

While I sympathize with the Surveyor, with whom I agree strongly, for the way his thread was highjacked, it got highjacked so far away from reality that I just had to step in to give Jim a hand. There are simply too many people who think something is true because "But I saw it on the Internet."

Elmo

[RoyGBiv]

The thread that begat this one went off track when I asked the question...

"if a CHL holder was standing next in line, overheard the threat and shot the robber, would they be no-billed"
And the first reply to my query was "quit being Batman"... or something to that effect.

In addition to the OP's (this thread) desire to maintain adult level discourse on this forum, I'll add my desire for folks to reply to questions asked, and not to unstated inferences arising out of their own bias or intentionally off-base interpretation of the question asked. What I thought was a very clear and useful, factual question about TX law quickly became a discussion on whether the CHL holder should have acted at all given the circumstances.

Oh well... that's the way the internet works sometimes... Someone with a strong opinion taking a thread off on a tangent. I have NEVER done that myself ( ). I was more disappointed by what I thought was a useful question completely ignored than I was about someone I don't know, and who obviously had no knowledge of my reasons for asking the question, inferring that I was acting like a Superhero.

My question in that thread did get several relevant replies eventually.. so.. thanks.!

Cheers.

[lonewolf]

In my experience, folks are generally more likely to take the written word incorrectly more often than the spoken word. There is no tone or inflection to accompany the words, perhaps just an emoticon. There are no facial expressions or body language to associate with the message, such as a mischievious grin or a scowl.....I've received emails that sounded like I was being griped out if read one way, and were actually just informational, pointing out concerns if read in another way.

As far as "We need to grow up a bit"------if I find something someone writes that I disagree with, or uses words I don't agree with, I'll do one of a couple of things:

1) PM and request clarification
2) Respond to the thread requesting clarification
3) Ignore it altogether
etc, etc, etc.....

People use different words to get an idea across. We are all entitled to our points of view, and I appreciate it that you feel "We need to grow up a bit", but as a 46 year old veteran of 10 years in the Navy with three children, a happy marriage, a wonderful home life (although quite busy) I respectfully disagree. There are some that may need to grow up a bit, some that may need to think before they speak, and some that perhaps shouldn't speak at all, but not all of us, as I felt was implied in the posting, though I am also sure that it was not directed at everyone here (depending on how its read).

I hope everyone has a great day and enjoys a nice warm weekend...

[Oldgringo]

Shoot low boys, they're ridin' sheep.

[Keith B]

OK folks, keep this one civil or it will be locked too.

And, there have been several threads that have stooped to inferences and name calling lately. This is NOT tolerated on this forum. We haven't had to ban any users lately for blatant personal attacks, but it can happen if the rules of decorum are not followed for the forum.

And, lonewolf is totally correct. The written word can more easily be misinterpreted and posts can be read as targeting someone when in fact the statement can be innocently made in as a general statement and totally innocuous. As a forum member, you sometimes need to have a little thicker skin and not jump to conclusions that you have been insulted until a little more clarification has been made. Or, just ignore the comment and move on. The moderators watch these posts very heavily and if something is out of line, we will more than likely catch it and the poster will be warned. If you feel it was targeted at you, then don't respond but use the report button and let a the Moderators review it.

Overall, we have a great forum and wonderful members, and we appreciate the way everyone works together to make this the best forum on thee Internet. But, just remember, to keep that harmony, if necessary, we will boot those that don't play well with others in the sandbox.

[lonewolf]

"Hey you dang woodchucks; quit chucking my wood!!!"

One of the funniest commercials in recent history, IMHO!!

Keith, as always, you demonstrate the well balanced and well spoken thoughtfulness that epitomizes the term "moderator".

[jamisjockey]

We all make a personal decision as to what level of crime we are willing to stand by and accept. As it was put to me, a line in the sand. What are you willing to tolerate before you spring into action?
I used to think "how dare you, coward!" about people who insisted they wouldn't jump to help another. IMHO, part of the civilized society should be a willingness to not idly stand by while another is harmed.
However, we all make a personal decision based on our circumstances if and how we can take defense of ourselves into our own hands. While I may feel compelled to act on the behalf of a third person, I no longer feel obligated to do so.
I am not here to judge how they came to be in the situation that I may feel compelled to intervene in. I personally could not stand idly by while an innocent third person was beaten/stabbed/raped/shot. Remember, when you're a witness, you're also only seconds from becoming another victim. An armed robber with a gun pointed at a clerk's head and his finger on the trigger is only one heartbeat away from turning the gun on you.
However, my decision making will be jaded by the fact that the person is not myself or an immediate family member. Having as much of the fact pattern completed as possible before acting is CYA, but also the moral choice.

It would be easy to judge the "sheep", and condem them. But without knowing the "sheep", how can we? Do you in fact know that the gas station clerk is a single mom who can barely afford to feed her kids, is working two jobs, can't afford a gun, much less the expensive and lengthy CHL process? Or is underaged and unable to carry a gun? Reformed felon, church going christian, who volunteers at the homeless shelter and helps little old ladies cross the street?

And to flip the coin, it is terribly insulting when those who have made thier personal choice that they would likely not assist another, begin going off about "batman licenses". No, the CHL is not a Do-Gooder hall pass, entitling the holder to sweep crime from the streets. Urging caution and intelligent decision making is one thing; but the ridiculous assumption that everyone who says they'd help another is jumping into life with their gun out, a CHL sash and badge, and yelling "I'm a good guy!" is quite insulting.

Life is full of risks. If we weren't willing to take some risks and make adult decisions every day, we'd never set foot out of our homes.

[3dfxMM]

..the following information posted above is not correct : "...The legislature could clarify this situation. They have not done so. Obviously they have had other priorities for the past few decades.
Look at the Texas Castle Doctrine bill of 2007. It applies only to a direct threat to the defender on his own property or in his own vehicle. It provides no defense for protection of a third party on property that the defender does not own."



...it's dangerous and misleading to quote part of a law to make a point...the link below tells us where the law says the Castle Doctrine applies(any lawful use of force covered in Chapter 9) and Chapter 9 says when/where we may defend a third party...good to read occasionally to make sure we have it right...

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00378F.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


...Chapter 9 specifically says that we are protected against criminal prosecution if we use deadly force to protect a third party if that person would have been allowed by Chapter 9 to use the deadly force themselves...which means the same places we can use it...including our/their place of employment ...spelled out in Chapter 9...
...SB378 specifically says if the deadly force is justified under Chapter 9, civil immunity applies....whether it is me protecting myself or legally protecting a third person...no case law is necessary to just plain read the law...it's not hazy or unclear.
...it still boils down to an individual making the choice of whether or not he should become involved...

According to the link you posted, location is irrelevant if you are using deadly force against someone whom you believe to be in the act of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

[Oldgringo]

"Hey you dang woodchucks; quit chucking my wood!!!"

One of the funniest commercials in recent history, IMHO!!

Keith, as always, you demonstrate the well balanced and well spoken thoughtfulness that epitomizes the term "moderator".

As I said before, Keith is a pretty good all around hand. In the locked previous thread, someone played the "C" card and that's pretty much throwing down the gauntlet. We don't need that.

The belligerent "...shoot first, ask later; I know the law..." stance apparently taken by some does give one pause to wonder about several things. In our CHL class, taught by a mature former DPS trooper who had never fired his gun in anger, we were told that shooting people is the absolute last resort. I personally think that is good advice.

Have a nice and safe weekend everybody.

[Diesel42]

Big thanks to KeithB and Lonewolf.

FWIW, I spent years talking to folks before I broke down and bought a computer. I think many folks feel they personally know their friends on the forum and so, a little slack is expected. I agree to reread before I hit send. Let's all do that.

For the OP. I can not tell anyone what I would or would not do in a crisis. There are so many variables and I'm responsible for my actions. In my experience I have been threatened with several forms of deadly force. So, before my CHL I learned there ain't no fight I can't run away from. Now I have a CHL which gives me another option. But, I will only use that option if I'm convinced there is no way to avoid deadly force. I'm not a coward. I simply choose to place any human life above my pride. I do not treat people like TV characters. I evaluate each individual based on the actions I witness. I will not use deadly force unless I have clear evidence that a life is in danger. That's my personal choice, and I may get shot for it one day.

Y'all give me a lot to think about and it's often entertaining as well.
Thanks and Happy Trails! N

[speedsix]

...3dfxMM..."...According to the link you posted, location is irrelevant if you are using deadly force against someone whom you believe to be in the act of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery."

...the link I posted is SB378...the "Castle Doctrine"...it's passing amended Chapter 9:32 so that in (a)(2)(B) dealing with the action or (b)(1)(C) stating that the use is presumed reasonable, NEITHER requires any specific location for the use of deadly force against the named offenses BUT (b) (2) AND (3) have to be met for your actions to be presumed reasonable...every "and ", "or", and "when" mean something...just compare it to diagramming a sentence in English and follow it through step by step to get the right answer...the below link gives you Chapter 9 which you'll follow this out in...

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... m/PE.9.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[seamusTX]

I am sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings.

But not too sorry.

If you ever have the misfortune to be involved in a deadly-force encounter, the justice system is not going to care about your feelings. The justice system grinds up people like hamburger every day.

The justifcations in Chapter 9 of the Penal Code are defenses to prosecution.

Texas law has three levels of justification for conduct that otherwise would be criminal:

• exception—The action is not an offense at all.
• affirmative defense to prosecution—The action is justified to the extent that it should be prosecuted only in exceptional circumstances; and the prosecution must prove that the justification is not valid.
• defense to prosecution—You can be charged, indicted, and brought to trial, and you have to prove your innocence.

If you shoot at someone, you have committed the elements of aggravated assault. It he dies, you have committed the elements of homicide or manslaughter. You can be compelled to prove your justification.

If you have to ask a question, likely you are not sure of the answer. There's a saying among horse-racing fans (and probably other sports): If we knew which horse was going to win, we wouldn't bother running the race.

The same is true of grand juries. There is a fearsome assortment of subjective standards like "reasonable" and "immediately necessary."

A grand jury obviously is not going to be composed entirely of CHL holders. It is unlikely to be composed of white, middle-class, middle-aged, suburban NRA members. Do you see where I'm headed here?

Please don't be so confident that your reading of the statutes is definitive. Do what you think is right, but be realistically aware of the risks.

- Jim