TexasCHLforum.com

I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

Sec. 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;

(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and

(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:I have a LTC to protect me and mine. If in the course of protecting me and mine I can assist you and yours, I will. As someone said above, a LTC is not a LEO.

Do I take it from your statement that you feel only a LEO has a duty to protect innocent people? I haven't worn a badge in many years, but I still have a Christian duty and a moral duty not to stand by and do nothing.

I realize that others disagree and that's their decision to make. They make great New Yorkers and I pray my family is never in need in front of such people.
Chas.

As a rehabilitated New Yorker (escaped when I was 17), I laughed out loud in agreement, reading that over breakfast this morning.

There are some good folks in NY, but most of them live too close to Canada for my liking. Brrr.

Txtension wrote:

May the strongest survive and let the weak perish. That's the American and Chrsitian way.

These two sentences seem to contradict each other, can you expound? As a nation of laws, I thought rule of law was to protect the weak.

Try reading it with the heavy dose of sarcasm that was obviously intended.

mojo84 wrote:

Txtension wrote:

May the strongest survive and let the weak perish. That's the American and Chrsitian way.

These two sentences seem to contradict each other, can you expound? As a nation of laws, I thought rule of law was to protect the weak.

Try reading it with the heavy dose of sarcasm that was obviously intended.

tone of voice is hard to determine when typing online... now if you had said it and added a " " it would be more distinguishable that it was sarcasm. lol. like saying "yeah we should just waltz on by and let innocent people die "

Grundy1133 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Txtension wrote:

May the strongest survive and let the weak perish. That's the American and Chrsitian way.

These two sentences seem to contradict each other, can you expound? As a nation of laws, I thought rule of law was to protect the weak.

Try reading it with the heavy dose of sarcasm that was obviously intended.

tone of voice is hard to determine when typing online... now if you had said it and added a " " it would be more distinguishable that it was sarcasm. lol. like saying "yeah we should just waltz on by and let innocent people die "

Thanks for the online posting lesson.


Sometimes sarcasm is so obvious pictures aren't necessary. Especially, when considered in context of my other posts in the thread.

mojo84 wrote:

Grundy1133 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Txtension wrote:

May the strongest survive and let the weak perish. That's the American and Chrsitian way.

These two sentences seem to contradict each other, can you expound? As a nation of laws, I thought rule of law was to protect the weak.

Try reading it with the heavy dose of sarcasm that was obviously intended.

tone of voice is hard to determine when typing online... now if you had said it and added a " " it would be more distinguishable that it was sarcasm. lol. like saying "yeah we should just waltz on by and let innocent people die "

Thanks for the online posting lesson.


Sometimes sarcasm is so obvious pictures aren't necessary. Especially, when considered in context of my other posts in the thread.

yeah... but some people need the visual aid lol.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:I have a LTC to protect me and mine. If in the course of protecting me and mine I can assist you and yours, I will. As someone said above, a LTC is not a LEO.

Do I take it from your statement that you feel only a LEO has a duty to protect innocent people? I haven't worn a badge in many years, but I still have a Christian duty and a moral duty not to stand by and do nothing.

I realize that others disagree and that's their decision to make. They make great New Yorkers and I pray my family is never in need in front of such people.
Chas.

My answer is much the same as Mr. Cotton's.
I haven't worn a badge since 1979, but the training and instincts are still there. I am the eternal sheepdog standing between the wolves and the sheep. I will be there until I am either too weak to continue or I am dead. It is hardwired into my being.

RoyGBiv wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:I have a LTC to protect me and mine. If in the course of protecting me and mine I can assist you and yours, I will. As someone said above, a LTC is not a LEO.

Do I take it from your statement that you feel only a LEO has a duty to protect innocent people? I haven't worn a badge in many years, but I still have a Christian duty and a moral duty not to stand by and do nothing.

I realize that others disagree and that's their decision to make. They make great New Yorkers and I pray my family is never in need in front of such people.
Chas.

As a rehabilitated New Yorker (escaped when I was 17), I laughed out loud in agreement, reading that over breakfast this morning.

There are some good folks in NY, but most of them live too close to Canada for my liking. Brrr.

My apologies to my enlightened and reformed New Yorker friend.

Chas.

PS: As a New Yorker, you probably know the incident that was the basis of my comment. Sadly, as time passes, fewer and fewer people do.

Grundy1133 wrote:

Abraham wrote:LTC does not equal LEO...

so if you had a kid at school where a shooting was going on and you were there waiting to pick him/her up you mean to tell me you wouldnt go in and try to neutralize the threat?

This is a completely different situation.

I would go in to make sure my kid got out of there safely. Once I was 100% certain that was achieved, I would possibly seek to neutralize the threat.

By contrast, if I was driving by a bar and saw several 1% bikers beating on a biker in a different jacket, then no, I'm not going in. I will call 911 though and will also try to get a good description of all involved. My likelihood to intervene is very dependent on the situation.

Exactly! What Soccerdad97 said.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:I have a LTC to protect me and mine. If in the course of protecting me and mine I can assist you and yours, I will. As someone said above, a LTC is not a LEO.

Do I take it from your statement that you feel only a LEO has a duty to protect innocent people? I haven't worn a badge in many years, but I still have a Christian duty and a moral duty not to stand by and do nothing.

I realize that others disagree and that's their decision to make. They make great New Yorkers

Naw. People who legally carry guns make bad New Yorkers.

On the other hand, people who disarm so they can shop somewhere with a 30.06 sign might make good New Yorkers. The majority of Texans over 21 who don't have a LTC make even better New Yorkers.

If they don't think their lives are worth defending, who am I to disagree?

This: "My likelihood to intervene is very dependent on the situation."

Abraham wrote:This: "My likelihood to intervene is very dependent on the situation."

My point exactly!

BBYC wrote:
On the other hand, people who disarm so they can shop somewhere with a 30.06 sign might make good New Yorkers. The majority of Texans over 21 who don't have a LTC make even better New Yorkers.

If they don't think their lives are worth defending, who am I to disagree?

I would love to be able to carry 24/7. But I go places my gun can’t, it’s called life. For example, I’m not skipping all my kids school events cause I am glued to my gun. Statistically I will never need my gun, statistically I am at far greater risk driving to a store than shopping without my gun. But I still drive. I ride motorcycles, I eat off taco trucks, I swim in Oceans with sharks, I take reasonable risks. And reasonable precautions including going armed when I can.

I agree with most on the thread topic. Situationally dependent, I will protect innocent lives when threatened if I can, I won’t try to stop a simple robbery.

mojo84 wrote:

Txtension wrote:

May the strongest survive and let the weak perish. That's the American and Chrsitian way.

These two sentences seem to contradict each other, can you expound? As a nation of laws, I thought rule of law was to protect the weak.

Try reading it with the heavy dose of sarcasm that was obviously intended.

My sarcasm meter is kinda like Y2k, if you use too much, it'll wrap around and be registered as {Tone;Serious}.

On this topic, I've thought about it for hours trying to arrive at a truth. My best reduction is "it depends."

But I think the answer that everyone really expects is "Without Hesitation." And that's my answer if the situation is clear, and unambiguous.