TexasCHLforum.com

Oldgringo wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

LAYGO wrote:A comment from the YT video (an hour ago, one of you's guys?):

Let me show you the future:
Serves 'em right, by golly. (nobody is gonna' see this, hehe)


Gentleman yall know better than this profanity even if it is quoted from another sourse.

I know, I was just watching how long this would be up before it was censored. We don't need no profanity here. There's enough on TV and in the school yard without it also being on this family oriented gun forum.

I apologize. I'm not sure what I quoted now.

I would sure like to read about several of those thugs death.

Oldgringo wrote:We don't need no profanity here. There's enough on TV and in the school yard without it also being on this family oriented gun forum.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/intended-kno ... oots-back/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This goes back to an article originally linked here. It's about a writer documenting "black mob violence". Seems a lil racially charged, but there's a lot of video seeming to support that stance.

It's getting crazy out there . . .

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/1 ... phia-area/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

3 attacks in Philly.

philip964 wrote:http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/1 ... phia-area/

3 attacks in Philly.

Wow!

What would possibly happen if one gets attacked from behind, doesn't go down but shoots the attacker in the back? I can imagine a legal challenge,

And as predicted it actually happened. The attacker was just wounded though!

http://beforeitsnews.com/crime-all-star ... 47690.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Knockout attacker gets shot twice by CCW permit holder:
http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/201 ... _brut.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Other stories indicate the attacker got a year in jail. In a twist on the usual game, the attacker was using a stun gun, but it failed to work, apparently unlike the "six or seven times" the attacker and his buddies had used it before. Maybe he ran the batteries down.

That attacker ended up writing a letter of apology to the guy who shot him.

As a side note, another story indicate the guy who got attacked got some big clues he was being sized up for something, but didn't think he had any enemies...
http://capitolcityproject.com/concealed ... kout-game/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (includes interview with attacker, and video of other knockout attacks, which are brutal to watch.)

I saw this on local news just yesterday.

From the videos shown here, most victims seemed to be knocked out cold or at least stunned enough they couldn't react.

If these guys miss their target and don't get a clean knock out or come up against someone with a strong jaw who is also armed, they are in trouble.

As others have said, I'd hate to think about what my dad would have done to me had I been involved in something like this growing up. No doubt in my mind he'd have known about it as he seemed to know everything I did then...

Reading the story on the second link I picked up on a comment made below it. The person commented that in their state, one could only shoot in the torso area and below or they would be in trouble for trying to "shoot to kill". Is this for real?

bmwrdr wrote:What would possibly happen if one gets attacked from behind, doesn't go down but shoots the attacker in the back? I can imagine a legal challenge,

Dunno, but I don't think I'd feel particularly inclined to shoot someone who's clearly running away. Here in TX, if it happens at night, the law gives you some extra room because it's harder to see what the BG is doing. I guess it comes back to that "legal vs moral vs wise" discussion that pops up whenever we start talking about edge conditions.

Man, every time I think I'm getting paranoid for looking over my shoulder so much, something like this makes headlines again...

(And I'm probably still not looking enough.)

03Lightningrocks wrote:Reading the story on the second link I picked up on a comment made below it. The person commented that in their state, one could only shoot in the torso area and below or they would be in trouble for trying to "shoot to kill". Is this for real?

Can't imagine it would be. I can't tell what state the commenter is referencing but our government spent a considerable amount of money teaching me to shoot center mast. I can't believe they did that with the intent I would be "shooting to wound". Sounds like nonsense to me...

03Lightningrocks wrote:Reading the story on the second link I picked up on a comment made below it. The person commented that in their state, one could only shoot in the torso area and below or they would be in trouble for trying to "shoot to kill". Is this for real?

Dunno, but it sounds fishy to me... And in pretty much any situation in which I'd try for a head shot (active shooter w/body armor and no police on scene comes to mind), I've already decided that I'm willing to take the stand and explain to a jury, "It was either shoot them in the 'wrong' place or let them [keep|start] killing. What would you have done?"

I hear of crazy self defense laws in other states all the time that just blow my mind. It would not surprise me for one of the socialist leaning states to have such a dumb law but would like to know which one it is. Every day I wake up and thank God I live in the greatest country in the world, Texas!