TexasCHLforum.com

Bitter Clinger wrote:You realize that I have no self control...

That boy would take a finger off.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

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!

Alrighty then. We can just leave that Atta-Boy in the bank for future uses. You post a lot of good stuff so it wont take long to use that one up.

If you decide to teach some punks a lesson, be prepared they might teach you one.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

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?

I am with you on this. This story made me think and rethink. If you were able to get so that they could here you calling Law enforcement, maybe that would stop the torture and if they decided to attack or threaten you, it seems that you have not verbally provoked them. The youts just eavesdropped on you phone call. (even if you had to pretend a few times so that they did hear) I like you would not, could not stand by, knowing what was happening. Then if they were slow-thinking enough to attack you, you would be defending yourself and not the turtle. Like I tell my students, "I have never heard of one of my students ever having to use their firearm to defend their selves, I pray that they never will, but if they do and they are not prepared, this class and license will be of no use to you.".

The Annoyed Man wrote: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?

I think those of us who take carrying a firearm seriously, by which I mean basically everyone on this forum, tend to err on the side of caution when it comes to the whole provocation thing. Sometimes I think we may even take it for something it isn't. The carrying of a firearm does not legally prevent us from speaking our minds or saying things that others may not like to hear. It does not prevent us from admonishing those we see doing something wrong. It does not prevent us from having arguments. It doesn't even prevent us from getting angry and shouting at someone. We can do all of these things and not give up our justification for defending ourselves, because none of these things constitutes provoking someone to violence. Starting a confrontation, saying things like "why don't you make me" or "come at me, bro," spewing racial slurs, threatening violence, these types of things are inciting violence and would keep you from being justified in acting in self defense. Telling some thugs to stop torturing a turtle and saying you're calling the cops is not inciting violence. Calling them thugs and berating them is not, to the best of my understanding, cause for losing your right to defend yourself if they attack you. Basically, if your speech is not in and of itself unjustified, hate speech, or inviting violence, I think you are okay defending yourself should the need arise.

I'm not advocating against deescalation. I've been practicing deescalation for much longer than I've been carrying a firearm. Talking people down and just taking myself out of bad situations has served me very well for my whole life, and I'm not about to change tactics. Carrying a gun isn't a license to be a jerk. However, it doesn't preclude our intervening verbally if we see something bad happening. I'm sure some armchair lawyer will point out that the law doesn't define just what constitutes provocation or something about fighting words or crusading DAs, but I think a plain reading of the law supports my view. I also haven't seen any case law to support the idea that exercising your 2nd amendment rights means giving up your 1st amendment rights. As always, though, I'm not a lawyer, and I'm often wrong about a variety of things. I wouldn't say what I'm saying if I didn't think it had value, and I'll admit I'm wrong if I am conclusively shown to be.

I didn't realize there were so many PETA members on this forum. They're eager to grab a gun and confront somebody torturing a turtle, which is reprehensible but not illegal in Texas. Meanwhile, human babies are tortured and ripped from their mother's womb every day in Texas. Also reprehensible but not illegal in Texas. When they do nothing to save the babies but insist they couldn't stand by while a turtle suffers, I conclude they value reptiles more than humans.