Leaving the car to confront troublemakers isn't smart

[E.Marquez]

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.

Please speak for your self.. I and no one I associate with would have been "better off" using your words.
Your free to believe that in your own personal opinion but please, only speak for your self.. I and many like me opine, your as wrong as can be.

[E.Marquez]

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;

The only poor judgment was the choice of words she used.... and that's just my personal opinion.. not a legal condemnation.

I see no issue in the victim asking the attacker what the problem is? I see no point that what she did as provocation.
And I see a clear case of use of force in self defense should that victim have chose to defend herself using what ever means required to stop the threat.
Driving down the road is neither illegal, nor provoking.
Stopping and reacting to a physical assault or act of vandalism is not provoking either best I can tell.

[TexasCajun]

I can't speak for chl classes anywhere else, but the class I took did include non-violent dispute resolution. That being along the lines of: "let the road-ragers get in front if one car length really means that much to them", "keep your middle-finger in the non-prominent position", "don't engage in swearing contests & name-calling", "be polite & respectful even when disagreeing", etc. I don't recall being told that I should or have to allow someone to assault me or vandalize my property as part of that section.

[Cedar Park Dad]

To confront the vandals verbally -- again, a perfectly legal act. The less resistance thugs confront, the bolder they will become. Your proposed non-response will actually make society more dangerous over time.

Chas.

OK. That I could see. And by that I now have this image of Charles as an dressed as a Lakotah Sioux with natives whispering "there goes 'Shakes His Fist at Hooligan Kids' again." I've caught myself doing that more than once. I was getting the distinct vibe there were posters advocating physically attacking the wrongdoers in some manner.

[Cedar Park Dad]

So you're advocating battery of a child? Strangely if their parent saw that they could righteously blow you away under our laws.

Do you really believe that!!?

Chas.

The aforementioned quote described a stranger beating a child not his own, with a belt.
If a stranger tries to beat my kids with a belt and I am there: 1) Wo unto them as my boy can bench press a buick and the girl carries mace; 2) I will consider that a self defense of child-being MINE- and act accordingly.

[mojo84]

It's funny how some people confuse what they would do with what should be done with what you recommend others should do with what is LEGAL.

If you don't want to confront someone that has wronged you, then don't. If you want to know what I would, throw a bottle at my car and we will both find out.

[mojo84]

To confront the vandals verbally -- again, a perfectly legal act. The less resistance thugs confront, the bolder they will become. Your proposed non-response will actually make society more dangerous over time.

Chas.

OK. That I could see. And by that I now have this image of Charles as an dressed as a Lakotah Sioux with natives whispering "there goes 'Shakes His Fist at Hooligan Kids' again." I've caught myself doing that more than once. I was getting the distinct vibe there were posters advocating physically attacking the wrongdoers in some manner.

An Obama style walk back of comments. Geez. Stick to your guns and don't be so wishy washy.

[Cedar Park Dad]

To confront the vandals verbally -- again, a perfectly legal act. The less resistance thugs confront, the bolder they will become. Your proposed non-response will actually make society more dangerous over time.

Chas.

OK. That I could see. And by that I now have this image of Charles as an dressed as a Lakotah Sioux with natives whispering "there goes 'Shakes His Fist at Hooligan Kids' again." I've caught myself doing that more than once. I was getting the distinct vibe there were posters advocating physically attacking the wrongdoers in some manner.

An Obama style walk back of comments. Geez. Stick to your guns and don't be so wishy washy.

Lets converse like adults, not children. Whats wishy washy?
Would I get out of my vehicle? Nope. I also lived where if something hit your car you kept going, because if you stopped you died.
Is it legal for Shakes Fist At Hooligans to do so? Don't see why not.
Is it prudent? That really depends on the situation doesn't it. I see the changces of that going really badly as not low.

[mojo84]

To confront the vandals verbally -- again, a perfectly legal act. The less resistance thugs confront, the bolder they will become. Your proposed non-response will actually make society more dangerous over time.

Chas.

OK. That I could see. And by that I now have this image of Charles as an dressed as a Lakotah Sioux with natives whispering "there goes 'Shakes His Fist at Hooligan Kids' again." I've caught myself doing that more than once. I was getting the distinct vibe there were posters advocating physically attacking the wrongdoers in some manner.

An Obama style walk back of comments. Geez. Stick to your guns and don't be so wishy washy.

Lets converse like adults, not children. Whats wishy washy?
Would I get out of my vehicle? Nope. I also lived where if something hit your car you kept going, because if you stopped you died.
Is it legal for Shakes Fist At Hooligans to do so? Don't see why not.
Is it prudent? That really depends on the situation doesn't it. I see the changces of that going really badly as not low.

Here you go.

http://i.word.com/idictionary/wishy-washy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have some synonyms I could use but they may hurt your feelings.

[Charles L. Cotton]

So you're advocating battery of a child? Strangely if their parent saw that they could righteously blow you away under our laws.

Do you really believe that!!?

Chas.

The aforementioned quote described a stranger beating a child not his own, with a belt.
If a stranger tries to beat my kids with a belt and I am there: 1) Wo unto them as my boy can bench press a buick and the girl carries mace; 2) I will consider that a self defense of child-being MINE- and act accordingly.

First, he described a spanking, not a beating. Secondly, you cannot use deadly force to prevent or stop a simple assault. You can use deadly force to prevent or stop an aggravated assault against yourself (TPC §9.32(a)(2)(A)) or against another person (TPC §9.33). However, a spanking with a belt is hardly an aggravated assault, as a matter of law. (TPC §22.02(a)).

I'm not advocating spanking a kid that's not yours, but your statement that someone "could righteously blow you away under our laws" is absurd.

Chas.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

• (A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
  
  (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

Sec. 22.02. AGGRAVATED ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person commits assault as defined in Sec. 22.01 and the person:

• (1) causes serious bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse; or
  
  (2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the commission of the assault.

[Cedar Park Dad]

So you're advocating battery of a child? Strangely if their parent saw that they could righteously blow you away under our laws.

Do you really believe that!!?

Chas.

The aforementioned quote described a stranger beating a child not his own, with a belt.
If a stranger tries to beat my kids with a belt and I am there: 1) Wo unto them as my boy can bench press a buick and the girl carries mace; 2) I will consider that a self defense of child-being MINE- and act accordingly.

First, he described a spanking, not a beating. Secondly, you cannot use deadly force to prevent or stop a simple assault. You can use deadly force to prevent or stop an aggravated assault against yourself (TPC §9.32(a)(2)(A)) or against another person (TPC §9.33). However, a spanking with a belt is hardly an aggravated assault, as a matter of law. (TPC §22.02(a)).

I'm not advocating spanking a kid that's not yours, but your statement that someone "could righteously blow you away under our laws" is absurd.

Chas.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

• (A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
  
  (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

Sec. 22.02. AGGRAVATED ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person commits assault as defined in Sec. 22.01 and the person:

• (1) causes serious bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse; or
  
  (2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the commission of the assault.

If you're hitting a stranger with a belt thats felony assault. The instance noted was not his child.
EDIT: I apologize if my posts are coming across as hostile. They aren't meant to be.

[rp_photo]

Please speak for your self.. I and no one I associate with would have been "better off" using your words.
Your free to believe that in your own personal opinion but please, only speak for your self.. I and many like me opine, your as wrong as can be.

Would you disagree that he violated the "Golden Rule" of CHL, which is to be a good witness and not pursue trouble?

[RottenApple]

Please speak for your self.. I and no one I associate with would have been "better off" using your words.
Your free to believe that in your own personal opinion but please, only speak for your self.. I and many like me opine, your as wrong as can be.

Would you disagree that he violated the "Golden Rule" of CHL, which is to be a good witness and not pursue trouble?

Since I've never heard of any such foolishness as a "golden rule of CHL", I'll say, yes. I don't see a darn thing wrong, or even foolish, with what Zimmerman did. Well, except for not pulling the trigger a whole heck of a lot sooner.

[mojo84]

Please speak for your self.. I and no one I associate with would have been "better off" using your words.
Your free to believe that in your own personal opinion but please, only speak for your self.. I and many like me opine, your as wrong as can be.

Would you disagree that he violated the "Golden Rule" of CHL, which is to be a good witness and not pursue trouble?

I've never heard of a "golden rule of CHL".

[E.Marquez]

Please speak for yourself.. I and no one I associate with would have been "better off" using your words.
Your free to believe that in your own personal opinion but please, only speak for yourself.. I and many like me opine, your as wrong as can be.

Would you disagree that he violated the "Golden Rule" of CHL, which is to be a good witness and not pursue trouble?

I disagree with you speaking for others.
And I disagree with your earlier statement.

Where is this "Golden Rule" of CHL you speak of?

If you mean it's a good idea to be a good witness in general I agree.
If you are implying a person with a CHL is supposed to, required to be a "good witness and not pursue trouble" I would say, a CHL'er is required to follow the law, and only use a legally carried concealed hand gun when legally justified.