Leaving the car to confront troublemakers isn't smart

Reports of actual crimes and investigations, not hypothetical situations.

Moderators: carlson1, Keith B

TexasCajun
Senior Member
Posts: 1554
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 4:58 pm
Location: La Marque, TX

Re: Leaving the car to confront troublemakers isn't smart

Post by TexasCajun »

Cedar Park Dad wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Cedar Park Dad wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
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.
Tex. Penal Code §9.32 wrote: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.
Tex. Penal Code §22.02(a) wrote: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.
I haven't taken anything you've said as hostile. But you have missed the point of my anecdote by the widest possible margin. My point is that in 35 years times have changed to the point where personal responsibility and accountability have been replaced by consequence-shielding and a fear of repercussions for doing the right and/or just thing.
Opinions expressed are subject to change without notice.
NRA TSRA TFC CHL: 9/22/12, PSC Member: 10/2012
User avatar
rbwhatever1
Senior Member
Posts: 1434
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:16 pm
Location: Paradise Texas

Re: Leaving the car to confront troublemakers isn't smart

Post by rbwhatever1 »

Two very different opinions on this Incident clearly shows where the State has led our Society with unjust legislation and indoctrination. It appears some Citizens have given the State complete control over their lives. These Citizens expect the State to solve every problem in this Society when the State itself is the problem. The State created these 4 thugs by doctrine. The State empowers them. The State has Failed Society by running amuck and Society itself is going to have to solve the problem with or without the State.

Law Abiding Americans should be able to walk freely down any street in the United States any time of day or night without fear of being raped, robbed, assaulted or murdered. If this is not the case our Government is a failure and "We the People" are the only ones that can fix it.

It is the duty of all Law Abiding Citizens "to be armed to protect ourselves, our families, our communities and our Country." What free man would hand this responsibility over to any State? What "Just State" would ever remove or limit this ability from its Citizens?

I regret this Law Abiding American had no firearm to exterminate all 4 of these violent rabid animals. I also regret that only one American helped this woman. What and who have we become? Are we really the masters of our destiny or wards of the state?

Happy Friday!!
III
clarionite
Senior Member
Posts: 889
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 10:09 pm

Re: Leaving the car to confront troublemakers isn't smart

Post by clarionite »

I believe I know what it must have felt like to utter "civis romanus sum" in the Age of Chaos now...
User avatar
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts: 17788
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: Leaving the car to confront troublemakers isn't smart

Post by Charles L. Cotton »

Cedar Park Dad wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Cedar Park Dad wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
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.
Tex. Penal Code §9.32 wrote: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.
Tex. Penal Code §22.02(a) wrote: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.
You are dead wrong on your statement of Texas law. You can do whatever you like and suffer the consequences, but I will not let your false comments about when deadly force can be used legally go unchallenged and risk someone believing you to their detriment.

First, a spanking with a belt is not a "felonious assault." (See TPC §22.01 quoted below.) Secondly, not all felonies justify the use of deadly force. (Read the Penal Code Section 9.32(b)(2) I quoted above.) The scenario described does not constitute an aggravated assault because that requires either the display or use of a deadly weapon, or the infliction of "serious bodily injury" as defined in the Penal Code. (See TPC 22.02(a) quoted above and TPC §1.07(a)(46) quoted below.) Since the scenario described does not fall under TPC §9.32(a)(2), deadly force would not be justified.

Again, I'm not advocating anyone spank a kid that's not theirs, but your statement that killing someone for doing so would be justified under Texas law is flat out wrong. I also find it somewhat puzzling that you fault a woman for stopping her car to verbally confront young vandals, never once condemning the criminals, yet advocate killing someone for spanking a kid. :headscratch

Chas.

Tex. Penal Code §9.22 wrote:Sec. 22.01. ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse;

(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or

(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.

(b) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor, except that the offense is a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed against:

(1) a person the actor knows is a public servant while the public servant is lawfully discharging an official duty, or in retaliation or on account of an exercise of official power or performance of an official duty as a public servant;

(2) a person whose relationship to or association with the defendant is described by Section 71.0021(b), 71.003, or 71.005, Family Code, if:

(A) it is shown on the trial of the offense that the defendant has been previously convicted of an offense under this chapter, Chapter 19, or Section 20.03, 20.04, 21.11, or 25.11 against a person whose relationship to or association with the defendant is described by Section 71.0021(b), 71.003, or 71.005, Family Code; or

(B) the offense is committed by intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly impeding the normal breathing or circulation of the blood of the person by applying pressure to the person's throat or neck or by blocking the person's nose or mouth;

(3) a person who contracts with government to perform a service in a facility as defined by Section 1.07(a)(14), Penal Code, or Section 51.02(13) or (14), Family Code, or an employee of that person:

(A) while the person or employee is engaged in performing a service within the scope of the contract, if the actor knows the person or employee is authorized by government to provide the service; or

(B) in retaliation for or on account of the person's or employee's performance of a service within the scope of the contract;

(4) a person the actor knows is a security officer while the officer is performing a duty as a security officer; or

(5) a person the actor knows is emergency services personnel while the person is providing emergency services.

(b-1) Notwithstanding Subsection (b)(2), an offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a felony of the second degree if:

(1) the offense is committed against a person whose relationship to or association with the defendant is described by Section 71.0021(b), 71.003, or 71.005, Family Code;

(2) it is shown on the trial of the offense that the defendant has been previously convicted of an offense under this chapter, Chapter 19, or Section 20.03, 20.04, or 21.11 against a person whose relationship to or association with the defendant is described by Section 71.0021(b), 71.003, or 71.005, Family Code; and

(3) the offense is committed by intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly impeding the normal breathing or circulation of the blood of the person by applying pressure to the person's throat or neck or by blocking the person's nose or mouth.
Tex. Penal Code §1.07(a)(46) wrote:(46) "Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.
User avatar
mojo84
Senior Member
Posts: 9045
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Leaving the car to confront troublemakers isn't smart

Post by mojo84 »

I don't know why ;-) but I tend to go with Mr. Cotton on this one.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
rp_photo
Senior Member
Posts: 853
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:07 am

Re: Leaving the car to confront troublemakers isn't smart

Post by rp_photo »

I don't think vandalism was the intent but rather to bait the victim into a confrontation.

So by doing what she did, the victim played into their hands.

Driving on would have frustrated them.
CHL since 2/2011
Glock 26, S&W 442, Ruger SP101 .357 3",
S&W M&P 40, Remington 870 Express 12 ga 18"
User avatar
mojo84
Senior Member
Posts: 9045
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Leaving the car to confront troublemakers isn't smart

Post by mojo84 »

rp_photo wrote:I don't think vandalism was the intent but rather to bait the victim into a confrontation.

So by doing what she did, the victim played into their hands.

Driving on would have frustrated them.

A lot of assumptions in that short post.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
rp_photo
Senior Member
Posts: 853
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:07 am

Re: Leaving the car to confront troublemakers isn't smart

Post by rp_photo »

mojo84 wrote:
rp_photo wrote:I don't think vandalism was the intent but rather to bait the victim into a confrontation.

So by doing what she did, the victim played into their hands.

Driving on would have frustrated them.

A lot of assumptions in that short post.
Given what's been going on post-verdict and some of things said by the perps, I'd say it's a good assumption, or at the very least a safe one.
CHL since 2/2011
Glock 26, S&W 442, Ruger SP101 .357 3",
S&W M&P 40, Remington 870 Express 12 ga 18"
User avatar
E.Marquez
Senior Member
Posts: 2781
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:48 pm
Location: Kempner
Contact:

Re: Leaving the car to confront troublemakers isn't smart

Post by E.Marquez »

I don't KNOW if vandalism was the intent or rather to bait the victim into a confrontation.

So by doing what the aggressors did, the victim had every right to confront them for their actions.
And as far as i can tell, such a verbal confrontation does not by law, remove the legal ability to defend oneself from a follow on physical assault.

Driving on would have frustrated the victim likely, would have emboldened the aggressors to continue the behaviors if not escalate their level of assault next time.

People who cower and shirk away from confronting those in the wrong in a legal, moral and ethical manner, do a disservice to the remainder of the good citizens of this country.
Companion animal Microchips, quality name brand chips, lifetime registration, Low cost just $10~12, not for profit, most locations we can come to you. We cover eight counties McLennan, Hill, Bell, Coryell, Falls, Bosque, Limestone, Lampasas
Contact we.chip.pets@gmail.com
rp_photo
Senior Member
Posts: 853
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:07 am

Re: Leaving the car to confront troublemakers isn't smart

Post by rp_photo »

E.Marquez wrote: And as far as i can tell, such a verbal confrontation does not by law, remove the legal ability to defend oneself from a follow on physical assault.

Driving on would have frustrated the victim likely, would have emboldened the aggressors to continue the behaviors if not escalate their level of assault next time.

People who cower and shirk away from confronting those in the wrong in a legal, moral and ethical manner, do a disservice to the remainder of the good citizens of this country.
Let's do a risk/reward analysis on stopping and confronting as a CHL:

Reward:

An opportunity to wrongdoers straight who most likely aren't going to heed the advice and behave better as a result.

Risk:

Injury or death at the hands of multiple assailants.

Successful self-defense but with the potential for arrest and prosecution.

Inability to afford bail and loss of freedom, job, home, and family.

5 or 6 figures of legal fees

A year or so of your life in turmoil.

Note that the threat of arrest and associated costs and loss of time and freedom are perhaps the greatest detriment to doing the right thing.
Last edited by rp_photo on Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
CHL since 2/2011
Glock 26, S&W 442, Ruger SP101 .357 3",
S&W M&P 40, Remington 870 Express 12 ga 18"
User avatar
mojo84
Senior Member
Posts: 9045
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Leaving the car to confront troublemakers isn't smart

Post by mojo84 »

rp_photo wrote:
E.Marquez wrote: And as far as i can tell, such a verbal confrontation does not by law, remove the legal ability to defend oneself from a follow on physical assault.

Driving on would have frustrated the victim likely, would have emboldened the aggressors to continue the behaviors if not escalate their level of assault next time.

People who cower and shirk away from confronting those in the wrong in a legal, moral and ethical manner, do a disservice to the remainder of the good citizens of this country.
Let's do a risk/reward analysis on stopping and confronting as a CHL:

Reward:

An opportunity to wrongdoers straight who most likely aren't going to heed the advice and behave better as a result.

Risk:

Injury or death at the hands of multiple assailants.

Successful self-defense but with the potential for arrest and prosecution.

Inability to afford bail

5 or 6 figures of legal fees

A year or so of your life in turmoil.

Note that the threat of arrest and associated costs and loss of time is indeed a detriment to doing the right thing.

Good thing we live in somewhat of a free country so that we can all have our own opinions and make our own decisions.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
rp_photo
Senior Member
Posts: 853
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:07 am

Re: Leaving the car to confront troublemakers isn't smart

Post by rp_photo »

mojo84 wrote: Good thing we live in somewhat of a free country so that we can all have our own opinions and make our own decisions.
Absolutely, and feel free to agree or disagree.

I noticed that you list "Operate full service personal and commercial property and casualty insurance agency" as an occupation, so risk and reward should come with the territory .
Last edited by rp_photo on Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:39 am, edited 2 times in total.
CHL since 2/2011
Glock 26, S&W 442, Ruger SP101 .357 3",
S&W M&P 40, Remington 870 Express 12 ga 18"
User avatar
mojo84
Senior Member
Posts: 9045
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Leaving the car to confront troublemakers isn't smart

Post by mojo84 »

rp_photo wrote:
mojo84 wrote: Good thing we live in somewhat of a free country so that we can all have our own opinions and make our own decisions.
Absolutely, and feel free to agree or disagree.
Thank you
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
User avatar
E.Marquez
Senior Member
Posts: 2781
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:48 pm
Location: Kempner
Contact:

Re: Leaving the car to confront troublemakers isn't smart

Post by E.Marquez »

Reward:

An opportunity to display to wrongdoers that their behavior will not go uncontested, the ability to positively identify the attackers/ vandals in order to make full and competent report to local police. The reasonable assumption that the aggressors will consider the encounter "next" time, and wonder if the risk is worth the reward of their actions.
Risk:

Major:Bad words being slung at worst
Minor: Injury or death at the hands of multiple assailants.

Mitigation: cell phone in hand, 911 dialed finger on send. Remain near car with it between you and the potential assailants, ready to close door and depart to safer location as you complete the call to 911, Defensive weapon ready as a last resort.

I accept you have a personal opinion that differs from mine, and acknowledge that neither yours, mine or others is necessarily wrong, just different.. What is correct for you and those you have control over (minor children in your care).

My position is as simple as.. when you observe a wrong, doing nothing is just as wrong.. personally, ethically, morally as a citizen, person, human.

In 30 years when I can no longer competently and effectively defend myself using less than lethal and deadly force I will likely choose to depart the situation immediately no matter the physical and mental cost, and just be a good witness. But not today while I have the means to do otherwise. :tiphat:
Companion animal Microchips, quality name brand chips, lifetime registration, Low cost just $10~12, not for profit, most locations we can come to you. We cover eight counties McLennan, Hill, Bell, Coryell, Falls, Bosque, Limestone, Lampasas
Contact we.chip.pets@gmail.com
User avatar
mojo84
Senior Member
Posts: 9045
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Leaving the car to confront troublemakers isn't smart

Post by mojo84 »

I guess these victims shouldn't have confronted the robbers.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08 ... ul-lesson/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Should have just given up their belongings and been good witnesses. I suspect the robbers will think twice before robbing someone else.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
Post Reply

Return to “The Crime Blotter”