TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:

WTR wrote:

Lambda Force wrote:

A woman was walking her toddler around a pond at Wedgewood Apartments and told police she saw three men torturing a turtle.

I doubt it was a sea turtle if it was living in a pond at an apartment complex, so unlikely to be a federal offense.

What difference does that make?

It makes no difference to the turtle, but it could make a BIG difference to the defendants, based on whether or not there are federal charges involved for torturing an endangered species.

I realize the criminal penalties would be different. However, there should be no difference as to one's response to torture of a life.

WTR wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

WTR wrote:

Lambda Force wrote:

A woman was walking her toddler around a pond at Wedgewood Apartments and told police she saw three men torturing a turtle.

I doubt it was a sea turtle if it was living in a pond at an apartment complex, so unlikely to be a federal offense.

What difference does that make?

It makes no difference to the turtle, but it could make a BIG difference to the defendants, based on whether or not there are federal charges involved for torturing an endangered species.

I realize the criminal penalties would be different. However, there should be no difference as to one's response to torture of a life.

Agreed.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

LucasMcCain wrote:I see kids torturing an animal, I'm going to tell them to stop and give them a lecture on our responsibilities as good stewards of the creation with which God has entrusted us. I would not assume that they would turn their violence on me. If they do, they will find themselves regretting that poor life decision. Regardless, calling the cops first and getting the entire interaction on video are good ideas that might or might not occur to me in the moment of shock that I would experience upon finding children torturing something as defenseless and nonthreatening as a sea turtle. I would most definitely not involve my firearm in the conversation unless attacked.

You're absolutely right when it comes to children. But these perps were 16, 18, and 23. Maybe the 16 year old gets some slack from me, and the 18 year old, if he immediately acknowledges the wrong and stops. But the 23 year old? That's a broken toy with a bent soul, and absolutely a dangerous personality. When my son was 23, he had already bought his first house, was a reliable employee, and got himself married. Now, my son had a stable home life growing up, with two parents committed to their marriage. I'll grant that this guy might have had a rough background or some other excuse, but hey....... at 23, you ARE old enough to know better. If you're torturing animals at age 23, you need a psychiatric evaluation and some meds. That makes you a dangerous person.

That's why after reading the article, I thought about the legalities of drawing first and then ordered them to stop, versus simply having my hand near my gun. I know the legalities would have been at best marginal, but I compare it to stumbling upon a mountain lion in the woods. Maybe the cat backs off and leaves; maybe it stands its ground, bluffs you, and lets you back off and leave; or..... maybe it decides to charge you. I don't want to wait to draw my gun until it begins its charge because then it's too late. That dude was like a wild predatory animal.

I understand what the law says. I was more interested in what y'alls reactions would be......whether your instincts would be the same as mine, or if you would be less "engaged" I guess is the word I'd use.

I missed that one was 23. I was in a hurry and just skimmed the article. I thought they were all teens. Not that teens shouldn't know better as well, and not that there aren't plenty of teens that could easily take me in a fight, especially 3 to 1. I still don't think I would draw on them first, but my hand would probably be on my gun. Come down to it, I really don't know if I would try to intervene or just be a good witness. As someone else mentioned, if I came on the scene when they were beating the vet, I would not hesitate to become involved, and it would probably involve shooting.

Thanks for bringing this case up. It's useful to think about situations where someone might be doing something morally reprehensible but not necessarily illegal, or even something illegal but not bad enough to justify use of deadly force. The more we go through these what-ifs in advance, the better our chances of reacting the right way if thrown into a similar situation.

george wrote:Three kids kill a turtle, and you guys are talking about drawing your pistols?

Seems like.

DELETED

Alf wrote:

george wrote:Three kids kill a turtle, and you guys are talking about drawing your pistols?

Seems like.

Y''all didn't read the whole thread, OR my opening post. It's not about drawing on kids for killing a turtle. It's about (possibly) drawing on kids who attack you because you interfered with their torturing an animal (which just happened to be a turtle).

How did you score on reading comprehension back in the day?

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Alf wrote:

george wrote:Three kids kill a turtle, and you guys are talking about drawing your pistols?

Seems like.

Y''all didn't read the whole thread, OR my opening post. It's not about drawing on kids for killing a turtle. It's about (possibly) drawing on kids who attack you because you interfered with their torturing an animal (which just happened to be a turtle).

How did you score on reading comprehension back in the day?

The Annoyed Man wrote:DELETED

Good on you. I have had to delete a post (not on this thread) and know how hard it is to do. Well done sir.

Alf wrote:

george wrote:Three kids kill a turtle, and you guys are talking about drawing your pistols?

Seems like.

Sounds like CNN

Mxrdad wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:DELETED

Good on you. I have had to delete a post (not on this thread) and know how hard it is to do. Well done sir.

Thank you, but I hate to disappoint you......... I deleted it because it was a duplicate post.

Sorry!

A lot depends on how and what was said to the boys torturing the turtle. Could it be construed as verbal provocation? If so, you have lost a lot, if not all of your justification of use of force. A turtle's life is not worth the life of another human. Like I said, it would depend on what and how it was said when the protector approached the boys. (and the ability to prove such)

twomillenium wrote:A lot depends on how and what was said to the boys torturing the turtle. Could it be construed as verbal provocation? If so, you have lost a lot, if not all of your justification of use of force. A turtle's life is not worth the life of another human. Like I said, it would depend on what and how it was said when the protector approached the boys. (and the ability to prove such)

That's beginning to stray into what was my area of concern. How do you verbally and non-threateningly intervene in such a situation, and in such a way as to not surrender your right to self-defense if it gets ugly.

It seems like there's only two ways to view torturing this turtle in a way to defend the turtle's tormentors: (A) I'm only torturing a turtle, it's not like it was your dog or child or something; or (B) it's not really torture because it is only a turtle. It either (A) requires the perp to admit that it is torture, but not a big deal; or (B) requires the perp to redefine torture. Either way, it has the same stink as justifying the torture of a class of children because they have special needs.....and so they are "other".

We struggle and agonize in the public square as a nation about deciding whether or not water boarding a known terrorist constitutes torture, and whether or not torturing that terrorist by means of water boarding is acceptable if it means the preservation of innocent lives. (I am NOT answering that here.) But we are ambivalent whether or not it is torture to abuse a defenseless animal? I don't have ANY trouble answering that question. The turtle was being tortured, and that torture served no other purpose than the sick amusement of some psychopaths. That leaves me, as an observer present at the scene, having to answer this question: "what kind of man am I, if I will countenance the torture of an innocent animal without any kind of possibly exculpatory purpose like medical research, and solely for the amusement of a psychopath?"

I would HAVE to say/do something. NOT doing anything is out of the question for me. The only question is, how do I do something in a way that protects ME from legal liability, while still effecting relief for the tortured animal?

A consideration / possible *safer* solution : If you had the ability to drive within speaking distance, I would say approach in your vehicle. You can still exit to talk to them (probably honking the horn right before exiting), but keep your vehicle between you and them such that you know you can get back in before they can reach your door. Demand they stop, inform them police are en route, and then get back in the vehicle (perhaps honk again for good measure ). Would be good to have your phone or dashcam recording from inside the vehicle before you got out, if possible. In fact, telling them they are being recorded might even been the extra bit to make them run instead of attack. However, If they actually start looking to smash windows in, then that pistol is coming out.

You realize that I have no self control...