TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle wrote:

In my reading of that story, it's not altogether certain that his weapon would have helped him. Situational awareness ...

Of course you have to recognize the threat to deal with it...

Unless his church or the recording studio was posted, I didn't see anything in the info provided that said he could not have legally had is gun with him for the evening. So, presuming that he saw future threats as unlikely, he left the gun at home, perhaps? I would suspect that reversing the order a bit might have helped; i.e. just the action of putting on the gun might have subconsciously triggered his threat radar a bit.

Excaliber wrote:

The guys sticking guns in the ribs of people in parking lots are the vicious sociopaths like the one who gunned down the two young men outside a DFW area Christian music studio a couple years ago for two dollars and a set of car keys. When one of them was later asked during a videotaped post arrest interview what he had to say to the families of the victims who were devastated by the loss, he said "F@$# 'em."

I think Excalibur is referring to (what I think of as) the Garland killings. One of the men killed had a CHL -- but he wasn't carrying at the time. His mother (also a CHL'er) said he normally carried all the time -- in fact, she told the police that her son's killers must have taken his gun, because the police did not find it on his body. But it was later found at his home.

This is an account of the incident: http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/2008 ... ng-us.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This is a letter by the CHL instructor of the young man: http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/2008 ... myers.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This is the interview of the one of the killers that Excalibur refers to: " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One of the killers (Broadnax, the one who gave the interview) got the death sentence. I cannot determine what happened to the other one (Cummings).
Update: The Facebook page of one of the victim's family members says Cummings will face trial in early 2011. Don't know why so much later -- Broadnax was tried in 2009.

Frankly, I do not believe that once a criminal, particularly a violent one, has reached adulthood, that there is much liklihood of reform, at least until he is much older (like at least 50). Once his psyche/moral system has formed to a certain degree, it is very hard to break. If he is basically honest and peaceful, then great. If not, we are in for a lot of trouble until he gets too old to act out or just loses the compulsion (or is dead).

I know everybody can cite at least one "success" story, but they are notable for rarity. Recidivism rates consistently run in the 70-80 percent range or higher, no matter what programs get applied.

I do believe that if you can intervene earlier, in the early and mid-teens, you have a chance to turn a kid around. A teen's psychological state is still malleable enough to allow for some large changes. This malleability can go either way --- he (or she) falls in with the gang/drug culture, he can easily be led to extremes, and we get these vicious kill-without-remorse types that scare the daylights out of cops (and everyone else). If he or she can be put in a structured setting, with close supervision and straightforward rewards and punishments, that same malleability allows him to be brought back. Normally you would depend on parents to provide this environment ("Train up a child in the way he should go, and even when he is old he will not depart from it...") but there are a lot of parents these days that can't manage their own lives, nevermind their children's lives.

There is a national non-profit organization (AMIkids.org) that deals with this, and they have had some pretty good successes. (I am on the board of one of its Texas programs). It started in Florida back in the 60s in Miami and focused on teenage boys, but includes girls now, and has about 50 programs in several states (including Texas). It takes teenage offenders, gets them out of the usual juvenile prison system, and runs them through a program of behavioral modification, study (towards HS diploma or GED), usually some vocational training, and some "life skills."

Some programs do slightly better than others, but the national average is 70-80 percent success rate. Success being defined as once graduated from the program, the youth does not re-offend within three years. If you know anything about recidivism rates for adults, you recognize this as an amazing success rate. Teens are screened for the programs, they don't just put anyone in it, but the teens are not all minor offenders either. Some do not graduate, but most do, and they usually stay out of trouble. It is pretty amazing to me how well the programs do.

But as I said above, I think the prognosis for an adult offender is pretty dim, regardless of what goodies you throw his way to help him change. Despite all the opportunity given, most seem unwilling to take them or stick to them.

seamusTX wrote:I think of tactics as planned movements. For example, we often discuss what to do when someone is trying to get into your occupied residence. That's what I consider tactics.- Jim

Ah. I see. Of course, there are tactics for being bushwhacked too.

seamusTX wrote:I was mainly responding to the discussion of how many rounds are in someone's magazine and how many to use per attacker.

- Jim

My put is "as many as possible" and "as many as needed and that is probably more than I would like." I think planning for two rounds per BG is not terribly "tactical." Neither is planning to have to reload to deal with more than one or two, or planning for his buddies to run away.

Switching back to this specific incident: One of the anti-gunner arguments against being armed is "the bad guy will take your gun away from you and use it against you." When Cramer's "The Armed Citizen" was still online ( ) he ran some stats after about 4000 incidents. IIRC, there were a dozen or more instances of a gun being taken away and used against the "owner" -- and the "owner" was always the bad guy.

suthdj wrote:This is one of those stories where you need to think "What could I have done" he was unarmed and did not have a choice of weapons single stack or double, we are not, so would you draw, run and draw, allow them to get control of your weapon etc.... It makes me wonder what can you do when they have the drop on you and your weapon is covered under a shirt. I see best option as taking a zig zag flight while drawing and seeking cover maybe even pop off a couple rounds into the ground while running away to draw attention. So WWYD?

Suarez in particular, as well as others, has several courses devoted to these questions...

http://www.suarezinternationalstore.com ... urses.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

seamusTX wrote: This was not any kind of tactical situation. It was a hand-to-hand struggle that ended up with the robber shot. It could easily have gone the other way.

So why is a hand-to-hand struggle not "tactical?" Apparently you have a different definition in mind. Me, loading and unloading the gun at home and cleaning it is "administrative;" fighting for my life with the gun (or anything else) is "tactical."

seamusTX wrote:Which gives me an opportunity to repeat the principle that one should do anything possible to avoid being taken captive or hostage. It rarely ends well, and the experience of being captive for hours or perhaps days, tied up, beaten, and almost certain raped in the case of women is extremely traumatic.

This I understand and absolutely agree with.