TexasCHLforum.com

barstoolguru wrote:You've obviously got a problem with women....it hard to keep an open mind and on the subject if you stoop to personal attacks. I have no problem with woman what I do have is a problem with this woman and the way she is justifying taking a life

Paragraph edited for clarity.

Well, I don't mean it to be a personal attack, and given that you're admitting a problem with this particular woman, and your other remarks about women, I'm going to stand by it. Let me put it another way....you seem to advance the notion that women should be treated the same as men. What I'm saying to you is that if you believe women and men should be treated the same across the board, legally or otherwise, then you have a problem with women, because just and fair treatment of women and men is impossible without acknowledging the inequalities.

The law is not always fairly applied between men and women, but as it concerns self-defense, it is perfectly fair for the law to be "unfair" in the way we're discussing it here. Furthermore, the woman isn't justifying the shooting....it's the law that justifies the shooting, the action of the police, and ultimately the decision of the Grand Jury. And if she is indicted it will be a jury that decides. Personally, I think she should and will be no-billed based on the information made public so far. If she is indicted I believe she will be acquitted. Unless there is some new revelation I'd vote for acquittal if I was on the jury.

barstoolguru wrote:The physical disparity between men in women is measurable and indisputable…. So if gang banger comes up to you and starts to whip your butt you are going to take it BECAUSE she is a woman? Do I really need to list names of gun fighters, boxing, karate champs and not to mention killers that are all woman and what about equal rights; are they only equal when it beneficial to the woman? I always thought is a court of law everyone is equal but now you are saying different!

You've already been called on this line of argument. First, my discussion of women and force disparity is based on generalities. There are a lot of women where I work and none of them are karate champs or killers. Every single one of them would be justified in shooting a man that physically attacked them. The fact that there may be some circumstance where this disparity is reversed does not in any way nullify the general rule. Second, I'm not saying anything different "now" on this subject than I said last week, last year, or last century. And third, where did you ever get the idea that everyone is equal in a court of law? This is not true anywhere so far as I know, and it's certainly never been true in the United States. To be "equal" the law would have to be inherently unjust, since men and women are not "equal," but are physically and mentally different.

barstoolguru wrote:He could have stayed in his truck and let her come to him….. Really? Is there a law that says he has to? By law he has to ID himself and trade info and cops don't come out to fender benders anymore.
When you choose to do battle with another you lose the right to claim “I was frail and weak” and she chose to. She had a gun and she was flexing her “GUN MUSSELS”. Like I said over and over she chose to stay and fight so don’t complain when you get a bloody nose

You're descending into the realm of the absurd with this......the characterization that she chose to "do battle" is risibly false. Firstly, is there a law that says if someone is trying to break into your house you have to remain inside? So, barring such a law, that's what you'd do? ---go outside and confront them? If so, then good luck with that....the law allows people to make foolish choices. Secondly, merely exiting the vehicle isn't and wasn't the problem --you're attacking a straw man. I said exactly how he could have exited his truck to exchange information without getting shot. It's not the exiting that was the problem, it was the hostile approach demonstrated by showing rage and pounding on her window. Given all the comments up to now you must be deliberating ignoring such distinctions.

Unfortunately this thread has degenerated.

Id be ok with a poster stating I understand what is known and reported, but regardless of that info I disagree because…….

Try as I might, I cannot understand where some of the posters position and attitude are coming from. It’s like we are reading two different accounts of the event.

Human nature I guess, no harm I guess.. but it’s difficult to have a discussion when one side is talking about things known and reported, and the other making up things not relevant to the facts or assumptions from fact reported.

None of us know what happened.. So based on what WAS reported.. and just that, it supports a justifiable shooting IMHO.

The Grand Jury may find differently

Post removed in the interest of harmony.

Removing my personal attack.

OK, stop the personal punches. Last warning.

Keith B wrote:OK, stop the personal punches. Last warning.

Keith B wrote:OK, stop the personal punches. Last warning.

Edited content to appease and conform to forum Norms.

If she didn't have a gun would this have been handled any differently; would have to say "yes"! People get into heated discussions every day settle differences without shooting each other. We talk about her defending herself, I am all for it but not when she escalated it to the level she did. She was a will participant in a road rage incident. She made no effort to defuse the situation


PC §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE.
(2)did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity,

in defense of disparity for being a woman
OKC Woman Sentenced For Beating Man To Death With Crystal Ball
http://www.news9.com/story/17514706/lif ... n-to-death" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

barstoolguru wrote:If she didn't have a gun would this have been handled any differently; would have to say "yes"! People get into heated discussions every day settle differences without shooting each other. We talk about her defending herself, I am all for it but not when she escalated it to the level she did. She was a will participant in a road rage incident. She made no effort to defuse the situation


PC §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE.
(2)did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity,

OK, I'm going to follow Bronco's lead and exit for good this time, but I have to comment on the anti-gun screed that the availability of a gun encourages people to be confrontational. Why, barstoolguru, are you a member of a CHL forum? Are you just gathering info on the enemy, or do you actually have a CHL and carry? If you do have a CHL and carry, why, since you have essentially stated several times now that confrontations would turn out "better" if people didn't carry guns? This is classic anti-gun talk.

Furthermore, the guy that pounded on the window wasn't reported to possess a gun, so obviously he didn't rely on a gun to escalate the situation. Let's turn it around: you think if he knew she had a gun he'd have pounded on her window? If not, then without a gun, the situation may have escalated to assault and serious injury or death to the woman. This is want Heinlein means by the line that an armed society is a polite society.

And you're right, if she didn't have a gun, it may well have ended differently for both of them: she might have a concussion, broken neck, other injuries, or be dead, and he might just be in jail.

Yes a carry and yes I have a CHL and yes, I have learned to stand down not because I am scared after all I have a gun but because simple words "I am sorry" will do so much more than all the ammo in the world in situations like this. If one of them would have said it then everyone would have went about their business and none of this would have ever happened

barstoolguru wrote:Yes a carry and yes I have a CHL and yes, I have learned to stand down not because I am scared after all I have a gun but because simple words "I am sorry" will do so much more than all the ammo in the world in situations like this. If one of them would have said it then everyone would have went about their business and none of this would have ever happened

Not true.

Anygunanywhere

This thread is starting to remind of the Zimmerman thread. Seems we all of our own opinion of what the participants in the incident should or should not have done. I have rarely seen in Internet discussion change anybody's mind on their interpretation of reported news accounts.

My only contribution thus far was pointing out the one party called E911 and the other party did not. This indicates to me that one party felt a threat and the other party did not. My personal belief is that calling E911 may have been a factor in the initial investigation. It has been said, in many threads on this forum, that there seems to more weight added to side of the party that makes the call.

I leave it at that let you the rest of you continue to make the same points over and over.

Cheers!

Regarding whether or not provoking or instigating the attack by her reckless driving excludes her from self defense, I'm reminded me of something we discussed in my CHL class.

Section 9.31
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made
by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence
and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless
the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the
other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of
unlawful force, unless:
(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) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful
force against the actor


To me, this sounds like she would be justified EVEN IF she provoked it, because of the fact that she "abandoned" the encounter by driving into a parking lot and stayed in her car while on the phone with 911, and the male driver "nevertheless continued" to use unlawful force against her by coming after her and beating on her window/trying to open the door.
Thoughts?

trentwhite778 wrote:Regarding whether or not provoking or instigating the attack by her reckless driving excludes her from self defense, I'm reminded me of something we discussed in my CHL class.

Section 9.31
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made
by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence
and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless
the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the
other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of
unlawful force, unless:
(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) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful
force against the actor


To me, this sounds like she would be justified EVEN IF she provoked it, because of the fact that she "abandoned" the encounter by driving into a parking lot and stayed in her car while on the phone with 911, and the male driver "nevertheless continued" to use unlawful force against her by coming after her and beating on her window/trying to open the door.
Thoughts?

And we talked about the same thing in my CHL class. It doesn't seem like, by law, it mattered what had transpired in past encounters - and why should it? Because if not, a savvy attorney would claim past encounters 'forced' his client's hand? How far past? Hours, days, weeks, more?

No, it seemed like all that mattered was that immediate encounter. If you are willingly in a confrontation with another where unlawful force is being used by both parties, and then abandon that encounter, or clearly communicate your intent to not continue it, you regain your right to legally defend yourself with force and where appropriate deadly force. To me, it's clear the law is saying bad behavior does not justify other bad behavior. But disengage yourself from the encounter (good behavior), and you regain your right to defend yourself.

I am not a lawyer, but this might be a tough one to prove in court depending on the available evidence to support your claim that you clearly communicated your intent to disengage and leave the encounter. But in this woman's case specifically, I believe driving AWAY from the other party to a neutral area and (apparently) ignoring him is abandoning the "encounter" - specifically the road-rage incidents prior to the shooting. She could have kept driving to further abandon it, but it may not have been feasible depending on the state of her vehicle - and she may not have intended to flee the scene.

Also, for you knowledgeable types here, barstoolguru has mentioned that the family ought to retain an attorney, presumably in a wrongful death lawsuit. If the grand jury does not file charges, doesn't a CHL status provide a pretty strong defense against such a suit? Assuming the grand jury finds in the CHL's favor, won't such a wrongful death lawsuit be dismissed as soon as the CHL-holder's attorney files that motion?

AJHutton wrote: Also, for you knowledgeable types here, barstoolguru has mentioned that the family ought to retain an attorney, presumably in a wrongful death lawsuit. If the grand jury does not file charges, doesn't a CHL status provide a pretty strong defense against such a suit? Assuming the grand jury finds in the CHL's favor, won't such a wrongful death lawsuit be dismissed as soon as the CHL-holder's attorney files that motion?

I think this comes into play if one is no billed.

CPRC § 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.