TexasCHLforum.com

Ameer wrote:

mojo84 wrote:there may be people at risk that had nothing to do with the decision to post 30.06 or 30.07 signs.

"she who goes unarmed in Paradise should first make sure that's where she is" - Thurber

Wow! I haven't heard a Thurber quote in decades! Very apropos.

Here's another good one:
"Man has gone long enough, or even too long, without being man enough to face the simple truth that the trouble with man is man." James Thurber

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

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.

I do. Andy's sig line is a frequent reminder.

Apologies are appreciated but not necessary. I feel pretty much the same as you on that subject.

Of course, as has been said a trillion times, it depends on the situation. Certainly if my child were in a school building and a shooter was firing, I would go in, acknowledging the extreme danger I would be in when the SWAT team rushed in a few seconds later and saw me standing there with a firearm in my hand. Even other school personnel in the building might not recognize that I wasn't the shooter ("That's him! That's him!"). Very nasty situation.

What if your child is NOT in the school building, but you just happen to be standing nearby?

On the other hand, suppose you see an armed robbery through a window, or taking place 100 feet away. Assuming it IS an armed robbery, are you going to do a Dirty Harry, or turn around and finish your day normally?

These kinds of scenarios have been discussed before. Another one that often comes up is a mall shooting. You're strolling down the mall and suddenly it sounds like Iwo Jima, as shots echo through the building. Turn and head for the exit?

You can't save the world, you know.

It... just... depends.

My personal rules of engagement are morally strict. I try to know the law, of course, but I'm guided by my inner compass.

I make fun of things like my moral strength, but much more than my trigger finger, that is my safety. It could also well be the imperative to act.

If so, I'd be thinking a lot more about right and wrong than statutes I probably don't remember that well, anyway.

The Andy Griffith show taught me everything I needed to know about when to disregard the law. If you see a no swimming sign and you see someone drowning do you obey the sign or help the person?

In my humble opinion, violating a gun law in order to stop a greater crime should be "cancelled out".

Richbirdhunter wrote:The Andy Griffith show taught me everything I needed to know about when to disregard the law. If you see a no swimming sign and you see someone drowning do you obey the sign or help the person?

I love this analogy, I may have to steal it and use it.

Flightmare wrote:

Richbirdhunter wrote:The Andy Griffith show taught me everything I needed to know about when to disregard the law. If you see a no swimming sign and you see someone drowning do you obey the sign or help the person?

I love this analogy, I may have to steal it and use it.

That has stuck with me though out the years

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.

I have no love of New Yorkers. Every one I have had business dealings with was an arrogant blowhard. However, in the case you are referencing, I will have to cut New Yorkers some slack. After watching a documentary ( with Kitty's younger brothers participation) it seems that even to her brother ( who idolized his sister) the incident is a a case of urban myth. The case was built with yellow sensationalizing journalism and shoddy police response. I do, however, agree with your underlying sentiment.

WTR wrote: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.

I have no love of New Yorkers. Every one I have had business dealings with was an arrogant blowhard. However, in the case you are referencing, I will have to cut New Yorkers some slack. After watching a documentary ( with Kitty's younger brothers participation) it seems that even to her brother ( who idolized his sister) the incident is a a case of urban myth. The case was built with yellow sensationalizing journalism and shoddy police response. I do, however, agree with your underlying sentiment.

I saw that "documentary" also and was not impressed. There were so many flaws in the "evidence" and conclusions drawn as to make it useless. I admit that it's been quite a while, but I vividly remember thinking "where's the evidence of that" numerous times. I also recall interviewing people who lived in the apartment 50 years later and asking them "did you see Kitty being stabbed?" What a joke.

Remember also that no one denied the story when it was all over the news. The one thing that did strike me as interesting was a claim that one call did come into the NYPD, but no officer was dispatched. If I recall correctly, it was unclear when the call went in to the NYPD. Remember also that she was attacked and stabbed, then the attacker left. He came back some minutes later and finished her off.

This is purely my opinion, but I think the documentary was nothing more than a New Yorker's attempt to remove a stain from the City's history.
Chas.

rotor wrote:I am not an attorney but I have sat on a jury and unless you have had that wonderful experience yourself you have no way to fathom why a DA prosecutes a case that I would have thought would not be prosecuted and believe me, juries don't always come to logical conclusions. Don't assume that you will not have legal consequences even if you are a hero. Do what you think is right though but be prepared...

I realize I'm late to this conversation. I would not proffer the sacral spine and biceps femoris of the Rattus norvegicus which signs were up. I fear God more than I do man and would not want to answer for standing by and letting something like that go down. In my work I have violated protocols where someone's life hung in the balance and faced potential, life altering consequences for those choices. Before LTC I have acted in similar, potentially violent situations. The LTC hasn't changed anything nor does the fear of leagal consequence.

My $.02

NNT wrote: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.

If you're not willing to carry to protect your kids, why do you expect some stranger to shoulder that responsibility?

Dragonfighter wrote:

rotor wrote:I am not an attorney but I have sat on a jury and unless you have had that wonderful experience yourself you have no way to fathom why a DA prosecutes a case that I would have thought would not be prosecuted and believe me, juries don't always come to logical conclusions. Don't assume that you will not have legal consequences even if you are a hero. Do what you think is right though but be prepared...

I realize I'm late to this conversation. I would not proffer the sacral spine and biceps femoris of the Rattus norvegicus which signs were up. I fear God more than I do man and would not want to answer for standing by and letting something like that go down. In my work I have violated protocols where someone's life hung in the balance and faced potential, life altering consequences for those choices. Before LTC I have acted in similar, potentially violent situations. The LTC hasn't changed anything nor does the fear of leagal consequence.

My $.02

I like your rat's anatomy description. As I said, do what you think is right. Doesn't mean you won't be going to court.

I would rather defend what I did in court than defend what I didn't do come judgement day.

Pawpaw wrote:I would rather defend what I did in court than defend what I didn't do come judgement day.