TexasCHLforum.com

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

bdickens wrote:

rp_photo wrote:I hate to blame the victim, but she exhibited very poor judgement getting out of the car to confront them. And had she been carrying and shot any of them, I could see a lot of parallels to the Zimmerman case:

http://www.wpxi.com/news/news/woman-bru ... ys-/nZfFy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wow. So our society has now fallen so low that decent people are now obligated to tolerate not only rude behavior, but outright assaults?

There was a time when if kids were throwing bottles at someone's car, everyone within a block would have descended on the hooligans and corrected that behavior immediately. And harshly.

But now I suppose that good and decent folks are just supposed to bow their heads and meekly accept assaults on not only their dignity, but their very safety.

Disgusting.

I hate that you blame the victim, too.

What is your recommended course of action? I am not seeing where getting out of the vehicle (in the bottle throwing scenario) leads to a legal outcome. What is the intent of getting out of the vehicle?

I'm not sure what you mean. Getting out of a car to verbally confront someone who committed vandalism is a legal action and it does not rise to the level of provocation. (I renew my call to repeal TPC §9.31(b)(4) just to make sure.) Defending oneself against an assault by multiple attackers, even by the use of deadly force, is also a legal action.

The bottom line is this. The more we as a society tell honest, law-abiding people that they must sit back "and take it," the happier thugs and criminals will be to dish it out. Resistance may well have its price, but so does capitulation.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The bottom line is this. The more we as a society tell honest, law-abiding people that they must sit back "and take it," the happier thugs and criminals will be to dish it out. Resistance may well have its price, but so does capitulation.

Well said Charles.

Seems like some folks expect honest law abiding Americans to relinquish their backbone and allow themselves to be ran over by thugs and criminals. This will only lead to thugs and criminals taking over and nothing else. If you don't believe me, look at Mexico, the Middle East and other third world countries.

I find it interesting so many worry about the government taking our rights away but many are more than willing to relinquish their rights to achieve "world peace" among the common subjects.

I am not part of this group and I am not directing this at any particular poster but if the shoe fits...

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

bdickens wrote:

rp_photo wrote:I hate to blame the victim, but she exhibited very poor judgement getting out of the car to confront them. And had she been carrying and shot any of them, I could see a lot of parallels to the Zimmerman case:

http://www.wpxi.com/news/news/woman-bru ... ys-/nZfFy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wow. So our society has now fallen so low that decent people are now obligated to tolerate not only rude behavior, but outright assaults?

There was a time when if kids were throwing bottles at someone's car, everyone within a block would have descended on the hooligans and corrected that behavior immediately. And harshly.

But now I suppose that good and decent folks are just supposed to bow their heads and meekly accept assaults on not only their dignity, but their very safety.

Disgusting.

I hate that you blame the victim, too.

What is your recommended course of action? I am not seeing where getting out of the vehicle (in the bottle throwing scenario) leads to a legal outcome. What is the intent of getting out of the vehicle?

I'm not sure what you mean. Getting out of a car to verbally confront someone who committed vandalism is a legal action and it does not rise to the level of provocation. (I renew my call to repeal TPC §9.31(b)(4) just to make sure.) Defending oneself against an assault by multiple attackers, even by the use of deadly force, is also a legal action.

The bottom line is this. The more we as a society tell honest, law-abiding people that they must sit back "and take it," the happier thugs and criminals will be to dish it out. Resistance may well have its price, but so does capitulation.

Chas.

It is legal to get out of your vehicle-agreed.
Then what? Again, what is the exact purpose of getting out of the vehicle?

mojo84 wrote:Seems like some folks expect honest law abiding Americans to relinquish their backbone and allow themselves to be ran over by thugs and criminals. This will only lead to thugs and criminals taking over and nothing else. If you don't believe me, look at Mexico, the Middle East and other third world countries.

I find it interesting so many worry about the government taking our rights away but many are more than willing to relinquish their rights to achieve "world peace" among the common subjects.

I am not part of this group and I am not directing this at any particular poster but if the shoe fits...

Again, in this instance what is your plan man? I'm not trying to be confrontational here, but I haven't caught what you're arguing to do once you step out of the vehicle.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I'm not sure what you mean. Getting out of a car to verbally confront someone who committed vandalism is a legal action and it does not rise to the level of provocation. (I renew my call to repeal TPC §9.31(b)(4) just to make sure.) Defending oneself against an assault by multiple attackers, even by the use of deadly force, is also a legal action.

I see what the victim did as being similar to stepping in front of a speeding truck in a crosswalk and yelling "Stop!", which would be legal but unwise. Capitulation, which in this case would mean stepping back and waiting for the truck pass, might work out better.

I'm thinking that the victim underestimated the bad nature of the perps, which is a natural and noble instinct. We have had to learn reluctantly through one tragic report after another that kids often aren't what they used to be, as I'm pretty sure the victim has.

rp_photo wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I'm not sure what you mean. Getting out of a car to verbally confront someone who committed vandalism is a legal action and it does not rise to the level of provocation. (I renew my call to repeal TPC §9.31(b)(4) just to make sure.) Defending oneself against an assault by multiple attackers, even by the use of deadly force, is also a legal action.

I see what the victim did as being similar to stepping in front of a speeding truck in a crosswalk and yelling "Stop!", which would be legal but unwise. Capitulation, which in this case would mean stepping back and waiting for the truck pass, might work out better.

I'm thinking that the victim underestimated the bad nature of the perps, which is a natural and noble instinct. We have had to learn reluctantly through one tragic report after another that kids often aren't what they used to be, as I'm pretty sure the victim has.

A speeding truck isn't comitting assault or vandalism against someone. Two different things entirely.

CPD, I don't know what my plan is until I'm in the situation. However, I am confident I wouldn't just let them throw bottles at my car. Then once they begin assaulting me and there's a disparity of force, I would have to make my decision then.

Tucking tale and running would not be my first inclination. I also do not believe in mandatory retreat laws. Do you?

rp_photo wrote:I see what the victim did as being similar to stepping in front of a speeding truck in a crosswalk and yelling "Stop!", which would be legal but unwise. Capitulation, which in this case would mean stepping back and waiting for the truck pass, might work out better.

Right. Cause that's worked so well so far that we now have thugs throwing bottles at cars, feeling free to give a beat down to a "creepy-*** cracker", and shooting someone just for fun.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

RottenApple wrote:

rp_photo wrote:I see what the victim did as being similar to stepping in front of a speeding truck in a crosswalk and yelling "Stop!", which would be legal but unwise. Capitulation, which in this case would mean stepping back and waiting for the truck pass, might work out better.

Right. Cause that's worked so well so far that we now have thugs throwing bottles at cars, feeling free to give a beat down to a "creepy-*** cracker", and shooting someone just for fun.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

EXACTLY!

mojo84 wrote: CPD, I don't know what my plan is until I'm in the situation. However, I am confident I wouldn't just let them throw bottles at my car. Then once they begin assaulting me and there's a disparity of force, I would have to make my decision then.

OK lets go with this.
1. They've already thrown bottles at your car.
2. You get out of your car. (Make sure its in park first! )
3. Then what?

You jumped to them assaulting you. What if they don't? What if to quote Monty Python they just break wind in your direction?

I thought originally that they were throwing glass bottles at the car but the video says it was a pop bottle so I'm assuming it was plastic? In that case I'd just drive on and use my Bluetooth to dial 911.

Glass bottles would certainly change things for me.

CoffeeNut wrote:I thought originally that they were throwing glass bottles at the car but the video says it was a pop bottle so I'm assuming it was plastic? In that case I'd just drive on and use my Bluetooth to dial 911.

Glass bottles would certainly change things for me.

if it were glass what would you do CF? (the 911 idea looks good to me)

RottenApple wrote:Right. Cause that's worked so well so far that we now have thugs throwing bottles at cars, feeling free to give a beat down to a "creepy-*** cracker", and shooting someone just for fun.

This is happening in part because George Zimmerman stood his ground legally and they didn't agree with the verdict.

And in this case, if the victim had ended up shooting one or more of the confronted attackers, and everyone was of the "right" race, the race baiters would have their "Zimmerman 2.0" at just the right time, and so the cycle of violence and revenge would continue to spiral.

When I was about 6yrs old, I thought it would be cool to toss a handful of pebbles a passing car. And it was the first couple of times. Something about the angle that the pebbles deflected back onto the street after hitting the cars fascinated me. When the third car passed & I tossed my handful it wasn't so much fun anymore. The driver stopped, backed up, got out, and confronted me. That confrontation included a pretty good belt-whipping, followed by the same from my step-dad, and then another from my mom. I didn't find tossing pebbles at cars nearly so appealing after that. This was about 1978 or so.

In 35-some odd years we've come a long way..... backwards.

RottenApple wrote:All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Good man George Zimmerman tried to do something and ultimately prevailed, but at a great social cost, and just about everyone would be better off if he had stayed back as advised.