TexasCHLforum.com

Jumping Frog wrote:

TomsTXCHL wrote:IMO we are being disingenuous to critique my exploration of this hypothetical, which again I have raised only in an effort to understand "the rules".

Don't let yourself get perturbed for people pointing out a subtle language issue that can create legal problems. When a situation arises where use of deadly force is justified, the deadly force is justified to stop the threat. If the threat happens to die, then that is an unfortunate consequence of being placed in a position where a person is forced to use deadly force to protect him/herself.

The death is a byproduct of the intent to stop the threat, one did not use deadly force with only the intent to kill.

This is a subtle moral difference that has legal consequences. I know it sounds like a petty or picayune distinction, but the issue of intent can only be described in words that need to distinguish the intent.

Let me make an analogy from 2000 years of Catholic moral theology. Everyone knows the Catholic Church regards the deliberate killing of an infant in the womb, aka abortion, is wrong. The intention to kill the child is what makes it wrong.

However, if a pregnant woman discovers she has uterine cancer or similar serious medical issue requiring an immediate hysterectomy, the intention is to provide medical treatment even though a secondary consequence is the baby dies. That is considered acceptable in Catholic moral theology because of the distinction in intent.

VMI77 wrote:

TomsTXCHL wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:Every CHL should have the six enumerated crimes memorized: aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

Can you help us out re the use of the word "aggravated" above please. I don't understand the difference(s).

Also, what you have told us here is that if e.g. we were in a restaurant where an armed robbery is taking place, and which has potential to escalate as some of these incidents involved robbing of all PATRONS as well as the "cash register", that if I could draw and get a bead on the BG w/gun I need only shoot to kill. No warning needed. Headshot.

If yes I do like that a lot better than announcing my presence "DROP YOUR WEAPON!" which in all likelihood results in the BG changing position and giving me now a moving target.

Mmmmm.....be careful about how you word things. This warning is not a criticism, but as others have noted, the internet is forever. You don't ever shoot "to kill" you always shoot to stop whatever criminal act or assault that is taking place. You're using lethal force and it may result in death, but you don't actually intend to kill anyone.

Jumping Frog wrote:Every CHL should have the six enumerated crimes memorized: aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

TNacp99 wrote:I saw no evidence that the woman's life was in danger in the video.

cb1000rider wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Just because we have a gun doesn't mean that its use is required. If I did pull my gun, shooting would not be my first option. I would only fire the gun in the event I couldn't stop the assault or they turned on me. My primary goal would be to stop the assault of the old lady and the purse would be secondary.

Yea, there definitely seems to be two camps on this:
1) Pull -> Fire
2) Pull -> Evaluate -> Fire

Sure seems that it can get expensive to do the right thing these days...

rotor wrote:Did you all watch the video? The car was being driven by an accomplice so this was not just one bad guy but two or possibly more. This all happened very fast. You run up to help the old lady ( she is about my age too) and someone comes out of the car and shoots you. Who knows? I understand what you are all saying and think that this is a dastardly attack ( which is why I carry) but I am not going to get shot to save a womans purse. Someone attacks me directly and I draw my weapon. I don't consider myself a coward but I would not want to take a bullet to save a seniors purse, phone and baby pictures. The problem of course is that these decisions have to be made fast. If the cops can read my license plate and tell if I run a red light with their cameras can't WM do a better job in their parking lot? This should have been an easy police find the bad guy situation.

VMI77 wrote:

TomsTXCHL wrote:

suthdj wrote:Don't knock your ability that 73 yo woman put up a good fight.

Yeah, I'd have tried, or at least I like to think I'd have instinctively charged-with-intent-to-separate-them, but if the stocky bitch had taken me down, well, hopefully the old lady would have had her purse and gotten safely into her car by then.

I sometimes carry w/Gunderwear which means you almost gotta drop your shorts to get at the gun. A "last resort" sorta carry option cuz really quick-draw is not possible.

Come on guys, give yourselves more credit. Thugs like that don't know how to fight. With a little training you can put one like that down with one blow. Don't charge to separate, charge to end the assault immediately by disabling the attacker.

BTW, don't forget about the thug driving the car.....that thug may have been armed.

suthdj wrote:Don't knock your ability that 73 yo woman put up a good fight.