TexasCHLforum.com

flintknapper wrote:I'm just glad there wasn't a PitBull involved.

Would it be a pit bull with lipstick?

KBCraig wrote:

flintknapper wrote:I'm just glad there wasn't a PitBull involved.

Would it be a pit bull with lipstick?

Is there another kind?

mr.72 wrote:Here is the problem with this logic, Liberty-

The summary of most of the comments is like this:

<snip>
This whole situation is way too biased, and too many people are breaking their arms patting themselves on the back for how much better they are than the dad who was arguing with the coach. I can tell you from direct experience, arguing with the coach is routine in kids' sports, whether you want to admit it or not. Sure, maybe you are one of the parents who does not argue with the coach, and maybe you are right that the other parents shouldn't do it and it makes them look like a fool. But it still happens, with regularity, and people do it who are not cowardly jerks or otherwise those whom we can easily castigate. Most of the time they are just regular people who get too excited and emotional when they think their child has been treated unfairly, and most of the time they think the coach is the one on some kind of power trip trying to exercise some unfair advantage over certain kids for no good reason. Sometimes they are right, and the coach is the one who is the power-tripping jerk. So they get too excited and get in arguments, big deal?

I beg to disagree. I learned that if you start an argument, you have forfeited the right to defend yourself unless you first walk away from the encounter or at least announce that you intend to. That's very important, and I didn't know it before. I agree with the other poster that if we wait until all the data is in, we will never discuss these issues nor learn from them. In fact, ALL the facts are never known, not even by the jury, not by anyone... ever (excepting possibly one of the participants or another eye-witness if they saw it all, which is doubtful). So, I guess we should just close all threads and have no case studies in any field, because after all, we don't want to pre-judge anyone or speculate.

And I'd offer that if you are ripping on a coach of a kids sports team, maybe you should get a life. If they abuse or molest your kid, you should deal with them accordingly. On the other hand, if they have your kid playing outfield instead of pitcher when you KNOW your kid should be playing pitcher, you should shut up and get over it. If you don't like it, be the coach next year--there are always openings. Maybe the coach is on a power trip... so what? A power trip of making his kid the pitcher does not mean you should worsen the situation by showing your lack of ability to deal with the situation as an adult.

And to wrap up all the topics on this thread... if any of you guys (or ladies) want to pull over and change a flat for me (I'm a guy), I promise not to be offended.

Bravo......

SlowDave wrote:I learned that if you start an argument, you have forfeited the right to defend yourself unless you first walk away from the encounter or at least announce that you intend to.

Are you really saying that if you yell at a panhandler he can physically assault you and you're not allowed to defend yourself?

SlowDave wrote:
And to wrap up all the topics on this thread... if any of you guys (or ladies) want to pull over and change a flat for me (I'm a guy), I promise not to be offended.

Just so you don't get home too late for dinner, you might want to go ahead and get started on that tire. I will pull over a lane and slow down, so I don't strafe you as I drive buy.

I agree with the rest of your post.

KBCraig wrote:

flintknapper wrote:I'm just glad there wasn't a PitBull involved.

Would it be a pit bull with lipstick?

Speaking of pit bulls. I don't guess i will ever understand your line of thinking. You were ready to hang a cop who shoots a dog that is threatening his child, but here you are defending a guy who pulled his weapon on a human being that simply gave him a push.

aardwolf wrote:Are you really saying that if you yell at a panhandler he can physically assault you and you're not allowed to defend yourself?

Well, I'm not saying it, but as far as I can read, PC 9.31 a.2 and 9.31 b.4. are saying it.
"9.31
(a) Except as povided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when.... [The use of force] is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
<snip>
(a.2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used and
...
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
---
(b.4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(b.4.A) the actor abandons the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(b.4.B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(b.5)..."

Probably clearer to go read it in context, but that's the gist.

p.s. I've gotta find a PC source that I can copy and paste from!

p.p.s. So, I guess I'm not the only one that learned this from this thread!

03Lightningrocks wrote:

SlowDave wrote:
And to wrap up all the topics on this thread... if any of you guys (or ladies) want to pull over and change a flat for me (I'm a guy), I promise not to be offended.

Just so you don't get home too late for dinner, you might want to go ahead and get started on that tire. I will pull over a lane and slow down, so I don't strafe you as I drive buy.

Gotta tell you, I'm not feeling the love!

Just so as not to irritate (further) the original female poster with concerns of sexism, if I pull over to help you change your tire, please just inform me politely that you think I'm a sexist pig and I'll apologize and let you change your own tire without further interference. No harm, no foul. And I mean this without any sarcasm. I don't fully understand your point of view, but I will comply with your wishes in these kinds of matters.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

KBCraig wrote:

flintknapper wrote:I'm just glad there wasn't a PitBull involved.

Would it be a pit bull with lipstick?

Speaking of pit bulls. I don't guess i will ever understand your line of thinking. You were ready to hang a cop who shoots a dog that is threatening his child, but here you are defending a guy who pulled his weapon on a human being that simply gave him a push.

My line of thinking is that I don't assume that either the dog was threatening, nor that there was a "simple push" involved.

I sometimes wonder if you're able to read anything, without reading something into it that isn't written.

SlowDave wrote:

aardwolf wrote:Are you really saying that if you yell at a panhandler he can physically assault you and you're not allowed to defend yourself?

Well, I'm not saying it, but as far as I can read, PC 9.31 a.2 and 9.31 b.4. are saying it.
"9.31
(a) Except as povided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when.... [The use of force] is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
<snip>
(a.2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used and
...
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

You conveniently skipped:
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

Thus, verbal provocation does not legitimately provoke the use of force, and would not invoke (a)(2)

The horse is bloated and things are starting to squirm under the skin.

Anygunanywhere

SlowDave wrote: And I'd offer that if you are ripping on a coach of a kids sports team, maybe you should get a life.

If by "you", you mean me specifically, then you are barking up the wrong tree. Read some more of my posts.

If by "you" you mean the "collective you", then I still think you are wrong. If your kids are on a sports team, and you are paying for their participation, you are buying equipment and sacrificing time to get them there, then you have every right to expect the coach to treat them fairly. If you don't understand that, then you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

OK folks, there are a lot of 'you' comments flying here. Do not put this thread into a personal finger pointing session on other members or it WILL be locked.

Discussion and disagreements are fine and healthy, but keep them civil.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

KBCraig wrote:

flintknapper wrote:I'm just glad there wasn't a PitBull involved.

Would it be a pit bull with lipstick?

Speaking of pit bulls. I don't guess i will ever understand your line of thinking. You were ready to hang a cop who shoots a dog that is threatening his child, but here you are defending a guy who pulled his weapon on a human being that simply gave him a push.

To which of us are you speaking?