TexasCHLforum.com

Nah...

Channeling le femme Nikita...

An anti would not have used those scenarios or words at all. A veiled anti's post would be all about what would happen if you shot in such-and-such really iffy scenario and it accidentally killed this child or something else that would look really bad to respond with, "Oh well! It's legal!" Then when people were saying it would be an iffy shoot and unwise, the anti would come back and try to trap the posters into the intended "Oh well!" response by changing details, exaggerating, and reinforcing the whole sad puppy dog type thing.

This is just a guy who got really poor instruction. He's clearly been reading a few back posts since he referenced the state fair thread, saw some of the hypothetical scenarios that are played through here, and jumped in with his own poorly formed scenario due to his poorly formed training, which was not something he was really aware of. The difference in what he was taught and what other classes are taught only came to light after the fact, highlighting the disparity and therefore the difference in knowledge base.

Now he knows. I'm sure someone can recommend some training in the Dallas area for him where he can spend some time with people who like to shoot...safely and legally.

How'd I do with being a profiler? I think I could be on TV!

A person can learn a lot from the TXchlforum! I came away from the CHL class with only a very basic understanding of the laws and procedures. This forum has been like a series of courses, and I still learn something (or two somethings) everyday.

For instance, did you know you can't carry while drinking in the restroom at the post office?

glock27, I commend you for asking questions. That's what this forum is all about.

You should definitely consider taking one of the generous offers to sit in on a class.
I think doing that can benefit any CHLer.

It would be a great opportunity to focus solely on the legal and possibly moral aspects that come with
the responsibility of carrying (and using) a deadly weapon. You've got nothing to lose and everything to gain.

drjoker wrote:Call the Texas Workforce Commission and file a complaint

mctowalot wrote:For instance, did you know you can't carry while drinking in the restroom at the post office?

One thing they didn't cover in class. Can your open carry dog drink from the toilet at the post office?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I'm not going to discuss the shoot-no-shoot issue, but I don't want people to get the wrong idea about the result of certain unintended consequences mentioned in some of the posts.

If one is justified in using deadly force against someone and in doing so he injures or kills an innocent 3rd person, the shooter will not be charged with murder. He may or may not be charged for recklessly injuring or killing the innocent person. "Recklessness" is not an easy standard for the prosecution to meet, as statutorily defined.

If a round goes through the BG and hits an innocent person, there is virtually no chance of being prosecuted, unless you were using AP rounds, or a 50 BMG.

Not every unintended injury or death is the result of recklessness.

We all need to be responsible, not merely legal, but let's not overstate the risks.

Chas.

Thanks Chas, for clearing that up for me. I thought that is what was said in my class, but some of the other posts had me second guessing.

Not to deviate to much here, but I need someone to let me know if this is a smart way to handle this situation...
My instructor told us that in the event that you have stopped the threat and LEO's are on the scene, the first thing you should tell them is that you want to press charges against the person you "stopped" (even if you believe the BG to be deceased).
I'm just wondering if this is the best way to handle the situation. The OP got me thinking on this and now I'm curious if this advice is sound. It seems sound to me, but IANAL and any advice on the subject would be greatly appreciated.

Beiruty wrote:Are you serious? Wasn't this topic disscussed at your CHL course?

Hint:
1) Do not flee the scene.
2) Call 911 ask for an Ambulance
3) Disarm when LEO on scene
4) Corrporate withe LEO and ask for a Lawyer.

5) Don't field dress the BG or call the taxidermist

mctowalot wrote:A person can learn a lot from the TXchlforum! I came away from the CHL class with only a very basic understanding of the laws and procedures. This forum has been like a series of courses, and I still learn something (or two somethings) everyday.

For instance, did you know you can't carry while drinking in the restroom at the post office?

I agree... with the first part anyway.
Jim

pbwalker wrote:

AndyC wrote:

glock27 wrote:what are the steps to be taken when law enforcement arrives at the scene after your heroic shooting?

After your what?

wow...I didn't even catch that. It's got to be a troll...

Bingo. Bait . . . hook.

Just sayin'.

I think Glock is asking legit questions. maybe he is asking the wrong way but i wouldn't flame him just because his CHL education is lacking some major points. At least he is eager to learn here.


...I mean, that's why i joined too.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: If one is justified in using deadly force against someone and in doing so he injures or kills an innocent 3rd person, the shooter will not be charged with murder. He may or may not be charged for recklessly injuring or killing the innocent person. "Recklessness" is not an easy standard for the prosecution to meet, as statutorily defined.

If a round goes through the BG and hits an innocent person, there is virtually no chance of being prosecuted, unless you were using AP rounds, or a 50 BMG.

Not every unintended injury or death is the result of recklessness.

We all need to be responsible, not merely legal, but let's not overstate the risks.

Chas.

In regards to your point about over penetration, we were taught that you are responsible for every round that leaves your weapon, and anything it hits, and if you hit an innocent bystander, you are responsible for that person, up to and including their death.

We were also taught that if a person is committing armed robbery of a 3rd person, and you shoot the BG, and they pull the trigger as a result, that you are not responsible for the injured/killed person that was shot by the BG's weapon, legally anyways (morally is on your own shoulders).

Was I taught incorrectly in my CHL class?

When I took my class, obviously I had no basis for comparison being my first CHL class, but I thought the instructor did a good job based on his presentation of the information, and how the information related to the laws. After doing a bunch of reading (after my class) i have only found one instance (aside from these two) that was contradictory to the actual law, and that was he stated that there is a "zero tolerance" law for alcohol when carrying, though reading the law itself does not state that. That is, however, for another topic, just has me questioning the overall quality of instruction if wrong information is taught.

NOS wrote:My instructor told us that in the event that you have stopped the threat and LEO's are on the scene, the first thing you should tell them is that you want to press charges against the person you "stopped" (even if you believe the BG to be deceased).

I have read this in Massad Ayoob's articles. I can understand Ayoob's "rational" for saying this - establishing that you are the victim. Personally, I don't think it would matter one way or another. In the event of a shooting, it is going to be the DA bringing charges, not the CHL. I think it just sounds hokey, especially if he is dead. IANAL

fecnik wrote:I think Glock is asking legit questions. maybe he is asking the wrong way but i wouldn't flame him just because his CHL education is lacking some major points. At least he is eager to learn here.

I don't think that Glock27 was being flamed. I don't blame people for not knowing something, even if it is was "supposed to be covered in class." If one wants a helpful answer, it is important to carefully word the question. It is difficult to respond to a post that asks multiple open-ended questions. I think that he got some very good advice from many Forum members.

fecnik wrote:...I mean, that's why i joined too.

That is why I joined, too. But there are people who joined the forum for the express purpose to troll and disrupt our discussions. That is why the Moderators and members are on a constant vigil to protect the integrity of forum.