TexasCHLforum.com

The situation is not so binary. These cities are allergic to handguns and firearms in general. Bear spray, walking sticks, socks filled with coins, and other such unclassified weapons are legal (Massachusetts seems to have a problem with pepper spray).

Also, the equivalent of shoot, shovel, and shut up in these places is shoot, duck, run, and shut up.

- Jim

Lazy Boy?

C-dub wrote:

Fangs wrote:Taser? I personally wouldn't have felt too threatened by a chair, they're not as easy to wield as a bat, but I can definitely see why a cornered female officer would feel the need to defend herself using deadly force.

Taser won't go through a chair.

http://www.taser.com/products/law/Pages/TASERXREP.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just load a breaching round first to make a hole for it

The OP said the officers were females.

I've read that female officers, being genrally smaller and weaker than males, have to resort to firearms in situations where males would not.

Now, I realize that some female officers may be as big as Matilda the Hun, and some male officers would make Barney Fife look like a real he-man, but maybe in this case engaging in hand-to-hand with a perp swinging a chair would be entirely unreasonable.

HankB wrote: I've read that female officers, being genrally smaller and weaker than males, have to resort to firearms in situations where males would not.

Stereotypes work both ways. Men get all macho and resort to force while women talk their way through it. Or sometimes women try to prove themselves and be tougher than any man by going to force right off. People are people, everyone is different.

When I was on the force we had a lady LEO who was about 5'2" and was a tough as nails. She could scrap with the best of them, but was a better negotiator than most of the male officers. So, as Bullwhip stated, stereotypes are just that and totally invalid.

Keith B wrote:When I was on the force we had a lady LEO who was about 5'2" and was a tough as nails. She could scrap with the best of them, but was a better negotiator than most of the male officers. So, as Bullwhip stated, stereotypes are just that and totally invalid.

We had a small male whose initials were H. D.. We called him Heavy Duty. He could hold his own.

HankB wrote:The OP said the officers were females.

I've read that female officers, being genrally smaller and weaker than males, have to resort to firearms in situations where males would not.

I would bring up Massad Ayoob's line of reasoning and logic (and case law). What might be seen as excessive force against her male counterpart may well not be seen as such against the female officer. Society has the image of the female being proportionately smaller and weaker than her male counterpart. This generally gives them more latitude to use lethal force. I have to say, however, that the female LEOs I have run into could probably rip my head off, and would if given the right reason. I say this as a 6 foot one and one-half inch, 265 pound, relatively strong man. Those gals will rip your nads out if they have to.

I understand that these officers have fallen victim to the same laws and societal outlook that victimizes the honest citizen, but that does not mean they should pay the price just because other people have to. That is kind of a skewed logic.

BTW, this is my first post. Really glad I found this place since I live in Texas and will be taking my CHL class this Saturday. I really appreciate all the effort and knowledge you all put into these forums. The above, of course, is just my opinion...but it is 54 years of opinion, so please don't take it lightly.

RJ

City coughed up $100,000 to the deceased's relatives.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/broo ... xNASFJ6hwL" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm sure they'll put it to good use.

Legal issues with the officers have not been settled.

- Jim