TexasCHLforum.com

i personally hate being called a civilian by someone who is not active millitary. police use this way too much in a derogatory way when they are ones themselves. :)

speedsix wrote:...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;

I am not having any difficulty reading the statutes. The latest link you posted also supports what I said. Perhaps you could try explaining what it is you are thinking and what it is you think I am getting wrong.

Thanks

alvins wrote:i personally hate being called a civilian by someone who is not active millitary. police use this way too much in a derogatory way when they are ones themselves. :)

Depends on your definition...
From Dictionary.com

ci·vil·ian   
[si-vil-yuhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.
2.
Informal . anyone regarded by members of a profession, interest group, society, etc., as not belonging; nonprofessional; outsider: We need a producer to run the movie studio, not some civilian from the business world.
3.
a person versed in or studying Roman or civil law.

...not thinking that you got it wrong...as far as you went...but in the second set of addresses...for the first (1) to cover you, you must also meet (2) and (3)...meaning you have to read all the way through or you'll be left hanging out there...just like in the CHL prohibited carry places, where if you stop reading when it mentions churches and hospitals...if you don't read a good ways past that...you've gotten the wrong answer....

Ok. I see what you were getting at. I wasn't missing that part. I was just responding to the comments that justification was based on the person being in their home or car.

...I'm just an OOF who would probably explode if he had to answer Yes or No...but I was trying to help...I've been told that I'm full of things to say(but I don't know how long I have left to say them)

seamusTX wrote: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

Absolutely spot on correct!

Good job, Jim.

PS:

LT is okay too.

mr surveyor wrote:I think as "adults" that have the right to carry firearms, we (collectively) need to grow up and act and speak more like adults. We may need to think a little before we speak (or type) on some subjects. A recent thread brought out a worn out statement (paraphrased) along the lines of "I have my CHL to defend me and mine and I have no responsibility to protect the 'sheep'". It may just be me, and I may have just taken it the wrong way (or just flat tired of seeing the same statement regurgitated), but I find it to be offensive, disingenuos and at the very least, for the lack of a better word, ignorant (as in not well informed of details). Many of these so called "sheep",

I never liked Psalm 23 either.

I don't know what the other posting said...didn't get to read it. I do understand the sensitivity of the topic and many folks' dislike of certain terms. For ME, I would have to think before getting into some situation not directly a threat to me or mine simply due to my lack of training. By that I mean, I am NOT a combat soldier or LEO, nor have I ever been given any real training of that nature. I'm not even a high-volume competition shooter, just grew up in the country with firearms and I make range trips when I can. While in the Air Force, I fixed aircraft. I feel pretty confident to do mechanical tasks because of that training and experience. But I am certainly nowhere near as confident to take on a gang of marauding thugs, for instance. Now, I try to educate myself on self-defense and firearms matters. But that only goes so far. Every situation would have to be taken on its own merits. But, I might do more harm than good...I just wouldn't want to make a blanket statement, one way or the other. I think a lot of folks would like to feel they'd do the right thing if push comes to shove, and that it would make a difference and I'm sure some would be able to. I can't and am not speaking for anyone else on this. Each person, it seems, would have to make that call if and when they were in one of those situations. Knowing the laws helps...but so does knowing your own limitations. Just my two cents worth, of course.

alvins wrote:i personally hate being called a civilian by someone who is not active millitary. police use this way too much in a derogatory way when they are ones themselves. :)

One of my coworkers does that and it annoys me to no end....




.....we're security guards

sjfcontrol wrote:

alvins wrote:i personally hate being called a civilian by someone who is not active millitary. police use this way too much in a derogatory way when they are ones themselves. :)

Depends on your definition...
From Dictionary.com

ci·vil·ian   
[si-vil-yuhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.
2.
Informal . anyone regarded by members of a profession, interest group, society, etc., as not belonging; nonprofessional; outsider: We need a producer to run the movie studio, not some civilian from the business world.
3.
a person versed in or studying Roman or civil law.

clip
2    /klɪp/ Show Spelled [klip] Show IPA noun, verb, clipped, clip·ping.
–noun
1. a device that grips and holds tightly.
2. a metal or plastic clasp for holding together papers, letters, etc.

3. cartridge clip.

4. an article of jewelry or other decoration clipped onto clothing, shoes, hats, etc.
5. a flange on the upper surface of a horseshoe.
6. Also called lug. Shipbuilding . a short length of angle iron connecting and maintaining the angle between two members or surfaces.
7. Archaic . an embrace.

Maybe they mean a real clip like for a Garand... not one of those extended 31 round clips for Glock "bullets". Excuse me while I go give someone "verbal" notice that they are trespassing because I think they are about to have an "accidental" discharge.

I really like this video and the way he explains the terminology of the words or labeling of people.
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=OW8BZ7pRt28[/youtube]

Reading statutes is kinda like reading the Bible, everyone thinks they know what it means. Truth of the matter is it's all interpretive, ask five pastors from different denominations get five very differing opinions, present to five different juries and get anywhere from a hung jury to not guilty to 25 years at the Huntsville Hilton. The only sure thing about the law is it's there and it is NOT black and white.

Life experiences give everyone a unique point of view that's why everyone has a different opinion and expresses it as a fact, because it is to them.

jamisjockey wrote: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.

I agree. The "Batman License" comment is as insulting and as childish as the "Sheeple" comment. I also have thought a lot about the "Sheepdog" mentality and it only makes sense if the protected are sheep, so it's a more subtle insult but an insult all the same.

Bart wrote:

jamisjockey wrote: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.

I agree. The "Batman License" comment is as insulting and as childish as the "Sheeple" comment. I also have thought a lot about the "Sheepdog" mentality and it only makes sense if the protected are sheep, so it's a more subtle insult but an insult all the same.

Would a "Green Hornet" license be insulting too?