TexasCHLforum.com

Good American taking care of his fellow citizen as it should be. If a Society turns it's back on each other that Society wont be a Society very long. I imagine a Society like that would soon be living in a bizarre era where the Law was turned upside down and the Police would be hunted in the streets for stopping criminals and the criminals would be doing whatever they wished. Sort of like now.

Perhaps our Society is really not a Society after all...

jmra wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:

jmra wrote:Fortunately this individual did not believe a batman license was necessary in order to intervene on behalf of someone in need.
Some people are wired to intervene and some are not, but to use the "batman license" thing as a excuse suggest that those who are wired to intervene are somehow wrong for doing so. That stance is getting pretty old.

They don't pay me to intervene in domestic disputes, that is why I pay taxes to the city and state. I let the professionals handle it.

Didn't say that you had a responsibility to intervene, but your "batman license" comment suggests that someone who was willing to intervene shouldn't. That suggestion is simply inaccurate and IMHO, inappropriate.
If two infants fell into a public pool and the paid lifeguard could only get to one would you do nothing and let the infant drown because your tax money was paying a "professional to handle it"?

Apples and Oranges.

Right2Carry wrote:

jmra wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:

jmra wrote:Fortunately this individual did not believe a batman license was necessary in order to intervene on behalf of someone in need.
Some people are wired to intervene and some are not, but to use the "batman license" thing as a excuse suggest that those who are wired to intervene are somehow wrong for doing so. That stance is getting pretty old.

They don't pay me to intervene in domestic disputes, that is why I pay taxes to the city and state. I let the professionals handle it.

Didn't say that you had a responsibility to intervene, but your "batman license" comment suggests that someone who was willing to intervene shouldn't. That suggestion is simply inaccurate and IMHO, inappropriate.
If two infants fell into a public pool and the paid lifeguard could only get to one would you do nothing and let the infant drown because your tax money was paying a "professional to handle it"?

Apples and Oranges.

Only because your "taxpayer" logic is flawed to begin with. If you don't want to get involved that's fine, just don't hide behind some lame "batman license" excuse.

jmra wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:

jmra wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:

jmra wrote:Fortunately this individual did not believe a batman license was necessary in order to intervene on behalf of someone in need.
Some people are wired to intervene and some are not, but to use the "batman license" thing as a excuse suggest that those who are wired to intervene are somehow wrong for doing so. That stance is getting pretty old.

They don't pay me to intervene in domestic disputes, that is why I pay taxes to the city and state. I let the professionals handle it.

Didn't say that you had a responsibility to intervene, but your "batman license" comment suggests that someone who was willing to intervene shouldn't. That suggestion is simply inaccurate and IMHO, inappropriate.
If two infants fell into a public pool and the paid lifeguard could only get to one would you do nothing and let the infant drown because your tax money was paying a "professional to handle it"?

Apples and Oranges.

Only because your "taxpayer" logic is flawed to begin with. If you don't want to get involved that's fine, just don't hide behind some lame "batman license" excuse.

It's not flawed only your poor attempt at an analogy is flawed. See below as I am not the only one who thinks this type of intervention is not encouraged. Nothing in the article suggests that a 911 call wouldn't have achieved the same result. If you want to argue with the experts I am sure the Southlake police department will be happy to entertain your phone call.

“While we commend this citizen's willingness to get involved in order to protect a victim of crime, the Southlake Police Department does not encourage the public to expose themselves in such a manner,” Mylett said. “Instead, we strongly recommend” that people who witness a crime call 911.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/news/local ... rylink=cpy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Right2Carry wrote:

jmra wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:

jmra wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:

jmra wrote:Fortunately this individual did not believe a batman license was necessary in order to intervene on behalf of someone in need.
Some people are wired to intervene and some are not, but to use the "batman license" thing as a excuse suggest that those who are wired to intervene are somehow wrong for doing so. That stance is getting pretty old.

They don't pay me to intervene in domestic disputes, that is why I pay taxes to the city and state. I let the professionals handle it.

Didn't say that you had a responsibility to intervene, but your "batman license" comment suggests that someone who was willing to intervene shouldn't. That suggestion is simply inaccurate and IMHO, inappropriate.
If two infants fell into a public pool and the paid lifeguard could only get to one would you do nothing and let the infant drown because your tax money was paying a "professional to handle it"?

Apples and Oranges.

Only because your "taxpayer" logic is flawed to begin with. If you don't want to get involved that's fine, just don't hide behind some lame "batman license" excuse.

It's not flawed only your poor attempt at an analogy is flawed. See below as I am not the only one who thinks this type of intervention is not encouraged. Nothing in the article suggests that a 911 call wouldn't have achieved the same result. If you want to argue with the experts I am sure the Southlake police department will be happy to entertain your phone call.

“While we commend this citizen's willingness to get involved in order to protect a victim of crime, the Southlake Police Department does not encourage the public to expose themselves in such a manner,” Mylett said. “Instead, we strongly recommend” that people who witness a crime call 911.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/news/local ... rylink=cpy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You consider police departments "experts" as to whether we have a moral duty, as well as a legal right, to protect the innocent? I disagree. If you wouldn't aid someone else then don't, but stop trying to defame those who care enough for others to do so. "Batman license" is becoming the battle cry of those who would let Kitty Genovese die all over again.

Chas.

jmra wrote:

Salty1 wrote:I saw this and the video on 5 News and was torn regarding the legality of threatening deadly force in this situation. Granted the man was hitting the woman but does this warrant drawing down on the guy? I would be more inclined to try to break it up rather than pull my gun which in itself could constitute deadly conduct. This seems to be one of those gray areas and depending on the PD and DA could land somebody in a pile of trouble facing serious charges and expenses. I am interested in what the LEO's thoughts on this would be and how their department would address this type of situation.

Not a gray area at all. Use of force was justified to stop the physical abuse. If use of force is justified, then the presentation of a firearm is legal. Pulling the trigger takes it to a whole different level. That would require justification for use of deadly force.

Correct, per Tex. Penal Code §9.04.

Chas.

TPC §9.04 wrote:Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

By all means dial 911 instead of intervening. After all, when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

I certainly hope if one of my daughters is ever in trouble a select subset of this group is nearby and the other subset isn't anywhere around.

Chivalry is not dead neither is the fact that bullies exist. I'm not saying draw and I am definitely not saying shoot, but step the heck up!

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Edmund Burke

LDB415 wrote:By all means dial 911 instead of intervening. After all, when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

I certainly hope if one of my daughters is ever in trouble a select subset of this group is nearby and the other subset isn't anywhere around.

Maxwell wrote:Chivalry is not dead neither is the fact that bullies exist. I'm not saying draw and I am definitely not saying shoot, but step the heck up!

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Edmund Burke

Thought provoking thread.

Good citizen pulls gun and fighting does not stop. What does he do next? Or what if bad guy pulls a gun? This can all turn into a much worse scenario than was bargained for and just like the woman beaten in the elevator by her football player husband who she loves and adores (and who brings home the paycheck) she will stand by her man. I vote for letting the cops handle this one.

rotor wrote:Good citizen pulls gun and fighting does not stop. What does he do next? Or what if bad guy pulls a gun? This can all turn into a much worse scenario than was bargained for and just like the woman beaten in the elevator by her football player husband who she loves and adores (and who brings home the paycheck) she will stand by her man. I vote for letting the cops handle this one.

This was exactly what was going through my mind but I don't think I could just stand there and watch. I'm really torn on this one

*Edit for grammar and stupid iPhone auto correct*

It sure is a thought provoking thread.

rotor wrote:Good citizen pulls gun and fighting does not stop. What does he do next? Or what if bad guy pulls a gun? This can all turn into a much worse scenario than was bargained for and just like the woman beaten in the elevator by her football player husband who she loves and adores (and who brings home the paycheck) she will stand by her man. I vote for letting the cops handle this one.

I'm not sure I would draw either. Police are quite often killed in domestic violence situations. If professionals can't always diffuse the situation, I'm not sure I could either. If it's a tussle, both hitting or screaming at each other, most likely I will not intervene. I will call 9-11 for sure in all situations. I will not be a part of another Kitty G. tragedy. If he is all out killing her, then yes, I believe I would intervene. If she says she does not know him, yes, I would intervene.

On another note...

It would seem the police had no issues determining who was the good guy and who wasn't. The anti's love to spin creative yarns about how the police would just show up and shoot anyone they see with a gun.

Based on the video...clearly not the case!

Everyone saying DV calls have a high rate of violence toward the first responders are correct but the police only get one side of the story over the phone and they haven't a clue as to what they're walking into. However If I'm witnessing a whoopin with my own two eyes then I think my chances of a successful intervention are a little higher than walking into an unknown. Every situation is different but I know that if I was getting my face smashed in I would want someone to help me out.