TexasCHLforum.com

Liberty wrote:

Keith B wrote: One thing everyone here (including me) has been doing to this point is assuming. Without the details, statements from the parties involved, witnesses, etc. we really know NOTHING. We also do not know how the legal/court system will play this out with any testimonies at the hearing and/or trial.

Best thing we can do now is sit back and wait for more information and see how this turns out for all parties involved.

Perhaps but there just might be a lot to learn from all of this and there are some fascinating facts that actually have come out of this discussion. Which is why its been such an active thread.

One interesting fact that came out of this discussion is that Drawing a weapon is force. Not Deadly Force.

A slightly different perspective changes things considerably.

A legally justified shooting isn't always a morally just shooting.

deescalation can prevent a situation from turning into a nightmare.

Excellent points.

I wish this event had not happened. However, it has become a great learning tool for all of us and it may prevent some of us from suffering similar problems in the future. Right or wrong, legal or illegal, moral or immoral, the bottom line is two guys are facing criminal charges over a soccer game.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: the bottom line is two guys are facing criminal charges over a soccer game.

Absolutely!

Someone on another forum posted about "CCW Zen", and referred to the way carrying a gun can change your behavior in subtle ways. One way it should change one's behavior is to pick your battles much more carefully; or put differently: if you can pick, have no battles, just like it says in Romans 12:18. Better than Zen.

Liberty wrote:

Keith B wrote: One thing everyone here (including me) has been doing to this point is assuming. Without the details, statements from the parties involved, witnesses, etc. we really know NOTHING. We also do not know how the legal/court system will play this out with any testimonies at the hearing and/or trial.

Best thing we can do now is sit back and wait for more information and see how this turns out for all parties involved.

Perhaps but there just might be a lot to learn from all of this and there are some fascinating facts that actually have come out of this discussion. Which is why its been such an active thread.

One interesting fact that came out of this discussion is that Drawing a weapon is force. Not Deadly Force.

A slightly different perspective changes things considerably.

A legally justified shooting isn't always a morally just shooting.

deescalation can prevent a situation from turning into a nightmare.

I totally agree. Please don't think I was trying to squelch discussion, that is what this forum is about. We just need to realize there can be a 1000 different directions this can turn and we are all speculating and assuming. However, relating our real life experiences at kids sporting events, we can all picture ourselves in this scenario and how we might handle it. Again, each of us would do something different. Just gonna be a hot one to follow. Hopefully full details will come out on it and we can get good information as it proceeds.

As Charles said, bottom line these guys escalated a small argument escalate into something criminal by letting their machismo get out of control.

Mr. 72,

Your point on CCW Zen is spot on. I have a friend that is a CHL holder and you can tell by his mannerisms when he is or isn't carrying. When he is armed, his attitude is way more laid back and level than when he is not. I think it comes from not wanting to come across as having any kind of attitude if something should come up.

Well the consequences for being an obnoxious jerk can be deadly if you are carrying a concealed handgun.

In this situation at least one of them (and most likely both) forgot rule 23:

Your number one option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.

txflyer wrote:In this situation at least one of them (and most likely both) forgot rule 23:

Your number one option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.

from Napoleon Dynamite:
Rex: "I'm Rex, founder of the Rex Kwon Do Self-Defense Sysetem. After one week with me in my dojo, you'lle be prepared to defend yourself with the strength of a grizzly, the reflexes of a puma, and the wisdom of a man. Come down today for your free trial lesson!"

Rex: "Now, watch this, everybody. Grab my arm. The other arm. My other arm. Okay, now watch this. I'm just gonna break the wrist and walk away. Break the wrist, walk away."
Kip: "Geez!"
Rex: "Okay, it was just that simple."

txflyer wrote:In this situation at least one of them (and most likely both) forgot rule 23:

Your number one option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.

This illustrates how this whole situation doesn't fit the normal "rules".

You can't avoid, deter, or de-escalate a conflict that you, yourself have instigated.

Rule #1 has to be "don't instigate a conflict". Then you don't find yourself in the precarious position of trying to avoid, deter, or de-escalate your own conflict.

However it is not illegal to instigate a verbal conflict. There is nothing illegal about confronting your kid's soccer coach, be it a male, female, or Air Bud, even with harsh words, four-letter words, or other inflammatory language. That makes you an obnoxious jerk, but not a criminal, and it does NOT justify a physical-force response by any third party, even including the spouse of the coach!

Now, you may choose, based on your own moral compass, not to critique your child's coach in public, or in private. You may choose not to ever criticize, with clam or aggressive language, any woman (other than Hillary Clinton), out of some chivalry. You might find it offensive or obnoxious for a parent to confront their 7 and 8 year old's soccer coach, but just because you don't like it does not make it illegal!.

However, once someone, including the woman's husband, intercedes into the situation and employs physical force, then the instigator of the physical force has broken the law. You may think it is chivalrous or otherwise acceptable for a husband to defend his wife who is receiving a tongue-lashing by pushing or hitting the obnoxious jerk, but chivalrous or acceptable does not make it legal.

So our standards of acceptable conduct in this case may be at odds with what constitutes legal conduct.

At this very point in time, I think the only public information we have is that an obnoxious jerk instigated a perfectly legal verbal conflict with the coach, and then the husband stepped in and escalated that conflict with a physical assault. Then perhaps, depending on facts which we do not yet know, the obnoxious jerk may have responded with an unlawful use of force by drawing his weapon.

While I am never claiming that the obnoxious jerk in this case was right to confront the coach (I have no idea, since I did not witness the confrontation), but it wasn't illegal.

I am going to stop posting on this now until we have more detail.

I cannot remember what the charges would be, but I believe there is a criminal charge for creating a public ruckus with your mouth. My company runs criminal back ground checks before hiring and we had an applicant about a year ago with a misdemeanor conviction for the charge. When we asked him about it, he told us he had gotten into a shouting match in public with someone and was arrested for it. He told us that several of the people involved were arrested with him.

Maybe one of the lawyer types can help me out here. I might be remembering the issue incorrectly.

mr.72 wrote:However it is not illegal to instigate a verbal conflict. There is nothing illegal about confronting your kid's soccer coach, be it a male, female, or Air Bud, even with harsh words, four-letter words, or other inflammatory language.

IANAL, but my reading of 42.01 says it can be illegal:

§ 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
(1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

It seems to me that if Burke had been using vulgar language he could be in trouble under this statute. And that would have cost him his CHL. So even if Burke hadn't pulled his gun and the husband shoved him, then Burke may still gone to jail along with the husband.

IMHO, the husband should have remembered rule 23 and politely asked Burke to please refrain from his current actions. That is part of being a mature adult. If he didn't stop and as long as Burke was not being physical, call the police and let them deal with it. They are better trained and equipped to deal with the jerks of the world. I firmly believe that is what I would have done.

txflyer wrote:

mr.72 wrote:However it is not illegal to instigate a verbal conflict. There is nothing illegal about confronting your kid's soccer coach, be it a male, female, or Air Bud, even with harsh words, four-letter words, or other inflammatory language.

IANAL, but my reading of 42.01 says it can be illegal:

§ 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
(1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

It seems to me that if Burke had been using vulgar language he could be in trouble under this statute. And that would have cost him his CHL. So even if Burke hadn't pulled his gun and the husband shoved him, then Burke may still gone to jail along with the husband.

IMHO, the husband should have remembered rule 23 and politely asked Burke to please refrain from his current actions. That is part of being a mature adult. If he didn't stop and as long as Burke was not being physical, call the police and let them deal with it. They are better trained and equipped to deal with the jerks of the world. I firmly believe that is what I would have done.

You posted this just after I made my post about the same issue. That sounds familiar to what the charges the applicant had. We ended up not hiring the guy after checking his references. He had a long history of running his mouth and creating trouble.

txflyer wrote:
IANAL, but my reading of 42.01 says it can be illegal:

§ 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT.

The guy was not charged with disorderly conduct.

It would be outrageous to charge a parent who is having an argument with a soccer coach with disorderly conduct.

I guess anything is possible. It is therefore possible that the guy was indeed uttering such speech as to constitute disorderly conduct, and the police have not charged him with it. I seriously doubt it.

I believe the assault charge is a felony so it's possible that the charges will be pled down to a disorderly. Or the DA can decide to charge with a lesser offense in the interest of justice. A disorderly can be used for brandishing a firearm. That's (a)(8) of 46.01.

It would be outrageous to charge a parent who is having an argument with a soccer coach with disorderly conduct.

Its outrageous that this moron was shouting at a youth soccer game. Doesnt matter if he was charged with it. What he did was illegal too. Yelling at someone can be abusive. He was in public and he was yelling at a coach. Its all open to interpretation. If the lawyer and judge and jury think he was being abusive he is gonna get charged. So yes it is can be illegal to 'confront your kids soccer coach' in the manner that he did. Bottom line the guy was an idiot to yell at the coach of a youth soccer team and was a moron for drawing his weapon how and where he did as he is just bringing more pain on himself. As I previoulsy stated he was not aware of his surroundings as he had other safer avenues of approach to this issue.

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:What he did was illegal too. Yelling at someone can be abusive. He was in public and he was yelling at a coach.

I didn't realize you were a witness.

Nobody knows the nature of his argument with the coach. But I guess we like the 2nd Amendment, but not so much the 1st? Or in this case, neither.

mr.72 wrote:You can't avoid, deter, or de-escalate a conflict that you, yourself have instigated.

I have to disagree with you there. "I'm sorry. I let my emotions get the better of me for a moment there. Let's start this discussion over without being so riled up." Yes, it's too late to avoid, if you started it, but it's never too late to man up and say, "I'm sorry. I was wrong." Some people are just too macho to do so.

mr.72 wrote:Rule #1 has to be "don't instigate a conflict". Then you don't find yourself in the precarious position of trying to avoid, deter, or de-escalate your own conflict.

I could not agree with you more there. "Don't start none, there won't be none." Don't remember where that quote came from, but it often works. Most of the time, the only trouble around is the trouble I brought with me. (But I carry because of the rare instances that trouble finds me on its own!)