TexasCHLforum.com

philip964 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 10:07 am https://summit.news/2020/11/12/target-r ... ss-racist/

Target in Minneapolis reopens with goal of being less racist.

Target is doing some serious social justice pandering. In the article it mentions people drive further away to avoid this Target and call it Tar-Ghetto. The name has more to do with the character of the shoppers than the color of their skin. We have a Ghetto Walmart that we avoid and drive to the Walmart a couple miles further away for the same reason. There is a Walgreens a block from my house that my daughter and SIL won't shop at because the "ghetto" behavior often observed in the parking lot. I still shop at it because I have been going in there for 25 years and am too lazy to drive the extra three miles to a cleaner Walgreens. Sometimes I get to see some exciting things going on. A few years back I was witness to a couple very overweight black women beating the heck out of each other in the parking lot, while their kids were all screaming beat that (female dog). So yeah, I get why some folks avoid "ghetto style" locations.

parabelum wrote: ↑Wed Nov 11, 2020 8:07 am “ Florida's DeSantis moves to allow citizens to shoot looters, rioters targeting businesses.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has drafted “anti-mob” legislation that would expand the state’s Stand Your Ground law”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/florid ... businesses

parabelum wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 1:20 am Press guy states that the security guy was protecting him.

Again, both were dumb and one paid with his life. He still looks like more of an aggressor than the shooter. Note that he’s the most active participant in the overall situation next to the dude in the black guns matter (cool shirt) shirt. Note he (victim) says get the bleep camera out of here or I’m gonna ... bleep you up etc. which would support the press guy claim that the victim threatened him. Security dude steps in between and 7secs later it is over.

He’s the initial aggressor looks like to me as he confronted the press guy solely because of the camera. The security dude just ended up in between. Just what I’m seeing at 01:32 forward.

Wow! That does make it look bad for the guy who got shot. What a dad gummed mess! Intentionally going to one of these things is not a great idea. Way to many ways to find trouble!

oljames3 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 2:19 pm

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 11:51 pm The self defense laws in Colorado may be different than in Texas. Isn't self defense nullified if you create the situation that requires self defense? In other words, you antagonize someone to the point they "slap" you, you cannot then shoot them and claim self defense. If Colorado has similar laws, the shooter cannot claim self defense if he first antagonized a response from the victim. I saw the Tucker episode and they talked of this shooter and his two partners in crime going from one group to another trying to elicit a response. Maybe for the camera. Maybe to have an excuse to murder someone.

The elements of self defense are the same in CO as they are in Texas. Colorado attorney Andrew Branca explains: https://lawofselfdefense.com/beginjourney/

In an earlier post, I summarized the regaining of innocence as it pertains to self defense, and linked to an article in which Branca explained the concept in detail.

Branca is reviewing the Denver incident in significant legal detail on his blog, These reviews are restricted to members only, but you can get a 2 week trial membership for $0.99. https://lawofselfdefense.com/join/

It might be worth the .99 . We will see how it all plays out but it sure looks to me like the shooter antagonized the victim into slapping him and then decided to shoot. More out of a get even, than a self defense motive. The guy slapped him and then backed off. The shooter going for his gun may have been why the victim went for the mace. He very well may have gotten shot even if he had not pulled the mace. That sequence all happened in less than 2 seconds.

parabelum wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 12:35 pm

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 12:27 pm

eyedoc wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 10:50 am

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 11:51 pm The self defense laws in Colorado may be different than in Texas. Isn't self defense nullified if you create the situation that requires self defense? In other words, you antagonize someone to the point they "slap" you, you cannot then shoot them and claim self defense. If Colorado has similar laws, the shooter cannot claim self defense if he first antagonized a response from the victim. I saw the Tucker episode and they talked of this shooter and his two partners in crime going from one group to another trying to elicit a response. Maybe for the camera. Maybe to have an excuse to murder someone.

If the guy slapped him and then retreated, he is no longer a threat. He regained his innocence by retreating.

I was told he slapped the guy because he tried to grab his mace. Makes sense since his left arm is stretched out in its direction.

What I was particularly talking about was the shooter, his employer and the third guy with them. The fellow on Tucker said these three had been running around trying to antagonize people. My issue is that in Texas, at least, you lose your right to claim self defense if you started the confrontation by antagonizing the other person. I can't start screaming and cussing at someone and then shoot them because they slap me, and then claim self defense??? True??

IANAL but you may be correct. What is apparent is that both engaged verbally, but the one who escalated it physically appears to be the victim. We will see.

I have watched the many videos of these antifa/BLM terrorists using bullhorns to get right in someone's face and scream their agenda. This seems to me to be provocation. Those three had been doing this all day long to many people so it is safe to assume they did the same to the victim.

eyedoc wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 10:50 am

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 11:51 pm The self defense laws in Colorado may be different than in Texas. Isn't self defense nullified if you create the situation that requires self defense? In other words, you antagonize someone to the point they "slap" you, you cannot then shoot them and claim self defense. If Colorado has similar laws, the shooter cannot claim self defense if he first antagonized a response from the victim. I saw the Tucker episode and they talked of this shooter and his two partners in crime going from one group to another trying to elicit a response. Maybe for the camera. Maybe to have an excuse to murder someone.

If the guy slapped him and then retreated, he is no longer a threat. He regained his innocence by retreating.

I was told he slapped the guy because he tried to grab his mace. Makes sense since his left arm is stretched out in its direction.

What I was particularly talking about was the shooter, his employer and the third guy with them. The fellow on Tucker said these three had been running around trying to antagonize people. My issue is that in Texas, at least, you lose your right to claim self defense if you started the confrontation by antagonizing the other person. I can't start screaming and cussing at someone and then shoot them because they slap me, and then claim self defense??? True??

The self defense laws in Colorado may be different than in Texas. Isn't self defense nullified if you create the situation that requires self defense? In other words, you antagonize someone to the point they "slap" you, you cannot then shoot them and claim self defense. If Colorado has similar laws, the shooter cannot claim self defense if he first antagonized a response from the victim. I saw the Tucker episode and they talked of this shooter and his two partners in crime going from one group to another trying to elicit a response. Maybe for the camera. Maybe to have an excuse to murder someone.

parabelum wrote: ↑Sun Oct 11, 2020 9:50 pm I might be in minority here on this particular case, but based on what I have seen thus far, and of course as new evidence comes out this may or may not change, it does appear that the guy who was shot was the aggressor.

We will see as more info comes out but at this particular point, I agree with you. If the rolls were reversed and the shooter was a Trump supporter and mace guy was antifa, many would call it self defense.

As was pointed out earlier in this thread. Going to one of these events is not a smart move if you want to stay out of trouble. I don't go to them for the very reason that I know if I am attacked, I will respond in a most aggressive fashion, so I do myself a favor and don't go. Why look for trouble?

crazy2medic wrote: ↑Sun Oct 11, 2020 11:31 am The only way I'll be in a protest is if I stumble into one by accident, don't go looking for trouble and chances are you won't find trouble, if trouble comes looking for me it's gonna have to chase me down or trap me and that is why I carry a gun!

I think this is true for the vast majority of Americans. It is always that very small segment creating all the noise.

oljames3 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:33 pm US-Texas_Law_Shield has a video on defending property in Texas. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TlTnQ0XNTQ

As I understand it, if you are inside your house and someone is breaking doors/windows, your response is defending yourself, not the property.

I watched the video and as you say, it is mostly about theft. Someone throwing rocks or bricks through my window is not necessarily theft. I see it as me being under attack.

seph wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:11 pm

crazy2medic wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 7:33 pm

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 5:21 pm

philip964 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 4:46 pm https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... uburb.html

BLM rioters smash windows in homes in Milwaukee suburb after Black Officer kills Black teen and is not charged.

I find myself wondering what the laws are in Texas if something like this occurs. I would have a hard time not firing on someone who is attacking me in my home.

If a group of people are smashing windows, would you not assume they are trying to get to you to hurt or kill you? Kinda like being trapped in a mob on the street, when they break your car window you'd assume they were attempting to reach you to inflict grave bodily harm!

They throw rocks into my house, I think it's fair for me to throw lead balls back. It's like a game of catch.

Exactly

But I still wonder what the legal ramifications would be.

philip964 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 4:46 pm https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... uburb.html

BLM rioters smash windows in homes in Milwaukee suburb after Black Officer kills Black teen and is not charged.

I find myself wondering what the laws are in Texas if something like this occurs. I would have a hard time not firing on someone who is attacking me in my home.

flechero wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 4:45 pm

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 4:19 pm

philip964 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 3:22 pm https://www.click2houston.com/news/texa ... tter-mask/

Young woman says she was fired by Whataburger for wearing BLM mask. Attorney and mom at her side.

Good for Whataburger. BLM is a terrorist group and we all know it. How about if she had a mask that said ISIS? Not a bit of difference.

Completely true... and message aside, they have a uniform, including masks. They wouldn't allow a blue nike tee shirt. And they said they accepted her resignation and paid her for the 2 weeks notice... so she is obviously now trying to backtrack for cash.

Yep. I have seen their Whataburger masks. I tried to buy one for my daughter. She likes Whataburger stuff.

philip964 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 3:22 pm https://www.click2houston.com/news/texa ... tter-mask/

Young woman says she was fired by Whataburger for wearing BLM mask. Attorney and mom at her side.

Good for Whataburger. BLM is a terrorist group and we all know it. How about if she had a mask that said ISIS? Not a bit of difference.

crazy2medic wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 6:48 am The part I don't grasp is the leadership of the cities and States permitting this stuff, go back and read about past rioting and looting, the State Police or the National Guard was called up given order to stop the violence, yes rioters and looters were shot and killed and that's when the violence ended! These "protesters" have a right to peacefully protest but they are destroying businesses, attacking innocent people on the street and at their homes, seems that's not going to work out well for mayors and governors! So why are they allowing it?

I have been having some of the same thoughts. I really believe some of these leftist mayors and governors that are allowing the rioting believe they are going to score political points. I also believe many of them are suffering from an extreme case of Trump derangement syndrome.