TexasCHLforum.com

govnor wrote: So what if it happened in an alley somewhere? I've told my fiance that if I ever have to kill anyone and there's any question about self defense...we're leaving them there if there are no witnesses. Yeah, that means I'm not calling the cops and I'm going home and destroying whatever weapon I was using. You might find a piece in Joe Pool lake, you might find a piece in the Trinity river...you might even find a piece in the gulf of Mexico. Don't worry, the barrel would be flattened first.

Seems like a patently bad idea.

I beg you to reconsider.

Good advice above.
Also need to remember that the antis monitor our boards too.

neal6325 wrote:Alright....here is an interesting one. Can you believe they do not take someone with a gun seriously initially?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b87_1180747715

OMG, that is such a ridiculous incident! I hope that wasnt Texas!

First, they dont take him seriously.

Then the clerk pulls his own gun and waits for the BG to grab it before he deciding to actually use it?

What a retard! ( no offense to those mentally challenged )

PS-The BG assumes no one else had a weapon either. He's lucky i wasnt in there.

govnor wrote: So what if it happened in an alley somewhere? I've told my fiance that if I ever have to kill anyone and there's any question about self defense...we're leaving them there if there are no witnesses. Yeah, that means I'm not calling the cops and I'm going home and destroying whatever weapon I was using. You might find a piece in Joe Pool lake, you might find a piece in the Trinity river...you might even find a piece in the gulf of Mexico. Don't worry, the barrel would be flattened first.

worst idea evar!

longtooth wrote:Good advice above.
Also need to remember that the antis monitor our boards too.

Eh, I don't care about the antis. Of course they can't take a joke. I'm only halfway joking though, since I still wipe down my cartridges :)

This is why those two border patrol agents are in jail - they shot someone and did not report it.

austin wrote:This is why those two border patrol agents are in jail - they shot someone and did not report it.

From what I heard it was because they picked up the cartridges (tampering with evidence) but still reported that they shot someone. They also shot him in the ass and he ran back across the border, after he shot at them. So they picked up the cartridges like any good sportsman would do.

Those border agents going to jail is a slight against every American. They should be given medals instead of the desecration that they've endured.

Due process is there to protect everyone involved. Federal Officers need to follow it just like the rest of us.

neal6325 wrote: I wonder if the DA or police would have treated the shooter any different had it been a man. It seem the justice system interprets you ability to defend yourself without lethal force with a double standard.

I'm female. In my experience, unless a male is disabled, if I let him get within arms length of me, he can pretty much do what he likes to me unless I am willing to respond with potentially lethal force. I don't see why the standard involving reasonable fear of death or serious injury shouldn't take that into account.

To the extent that this is untrue for a man (and I express no opinion on that; I have no idea) I suppose there is a double standard.

Are you complaining that the standard for women is too lenient or that the standard for men is too strict?

swiven wrote:
I'm female. In my experience, unless a male is disabled, if I let him get within arms length of me, he can pretty much do what he likes to me unless I am willing to respond with potentially lethal force. I don't see why the standard involving reasonable fear of death or serious injury shouldn't take that into account.

To the extent that this is untrue for a man (and I express no opinion on that; I have no idea) I suppose there is a double standard.

Are you complaining that the standard for women is too lenient or that the standard for men is too strict?

Dh & I are roughly the same size, yet while wrestling, he can still pin me down. (Don't ask me how I know that.)

A man w/o a weapon can still be a serious threat to a female that isn't very well trained in martial arts.

Venus Pax wrote:
Dh & I are roughly the same size, yet while wrestling, he can still pin me down. (Don't ask me how I know that.)

A man w/o a weapon can still be a serious threat to a female that isn't very well trained in martial arts.

Actually, a man w/o a weapon can be a serious threat to anyone. Most folks don't realize the extent of injuries that a bare-knuckle bar brawl can engender, but it isn't uncommon for the fighters to end up needing medical attention. If he has any martial arts training, he becomes even more dangerous.

As to why men are stronger than similarly sized women, it's the testosterone. It gives us denser and stronger muscles pound for pound than women of a similar size generally have. You can test it with a "tweener" if you know one... get him before the testosterone overload we call puberty kicks in, and you'll be a match for him. Get him afterwards, and you can forget it...

swiven wrote:

neal6325 wrote: I wonder if the DA or police would have treated the shooter any different had it been a man. It seem the justice system interprets you ability to defend yourself without lethal force with a double standard.

I'm female. In my experience, unless a male is disabled, if I let him get within arms length of me, he can pretty much do what he likes to me unless I am willing to respond with potentially lethal force. I don't see why the standard involving reasonable fear of death or serious injury shouldn't take that into account.

To the extent that this is untrue for a man (and I express no opinion on that; I have no idea) I suppose there is a double standard.

Are you complaining that the standard for women is too lenient or that the standard for men is too strict?

Maybe complaining is an appropriate description of my commentary but was not the intended purpose. I was attempting to create dialouge based on my observation and experience.

I was not suggesting that the standard for a woman is too lenient, only that the same standard does not usually apply to a man unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a physical handicap or a substantial size difference and at times that does not matter either.

I believe the law leaves too much ambiguity as it relates to “reasonable.� That word leaves ones defensive actions up to a very subjective standard.

At 5’6� I am not that tall for a male and would likely benefit from that double standard. On the other hand I have a cousin that looks like he could play linebacker in the NFL. At over 6’5� and pushing 300 pounds we would be treated drastically different in a self defense situation due to his size. What I am suggesting does not just apply to gender, that was just the observation I took from the video referenced which featured a woman in the defensive position. Had my cousin been the one behind the counter I think he would have been handled differently than the woman ultimately was (no charges were filed). I personally believe the threat would have been the same either way and while the end result may have been no charges filed in the hypothetical reference above as well, he certainly would have had a much tougher time proving that he believed he was at risk than someone of lesser stature or female. He would have the burden of proving his threat while someone else may benefit from the presumption that they were less able to defend themselves. At the very least the legal cost would be lower, worst case scenario he cannot prove his fear was justified.

Neal,
I appreciate your reasoning. If it were the threat of robber's fists vs. your gigantic cousin, I can see where he would have a difficult time proving himself justified.
However, the robber's threat of a weapon, despite it's absence, is a threat to anyone. A 300 lb. man can die from a bullet wound as much as a 120 lb. woman. Especially with a video to back up his story, I think it would be the rare jury that would sentence him for defending himself against what he thought was an immediate threat to his life.

If that common sense were always applied then the subjective standard would not be bad, unfortunately that is not always the case. And to your point a jury may see that his actions were justified but the fact is that in that scenerio he would likely face a jury which could be financially devastating.

I would agree with your assesment regarding an act in which no weapon is involved or the absence of the "threat" of a weapon.