TexasCHLforum.com

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:

suthdj wrote:

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:I am not even going to reply to that as clearly you have not been paying attention at all.

Ok,So by your logic if a person shoots at you then turns and runs away it is ok to shoot him in the back, after all he may turn around and shoot again,right. I think it is who you who has failed to pay attention as from the very begining I have stated once he stops being a threat you can no longer defend yourself as he is no longer attacking. NOT A THREAT

Are you serious? You obviously have not actually read what I have written for you. I will post it one more time. PLEASE READ the big bold red letters. They are hard to miss. If you do this you will clearly see where I say IF THE ATTACKER KEEPS ATTACKING. Again, please actually read the words in big bold red lettering.

I wrote:For me if a person is getting beat it means he is not defending himself hence not a threat., So weather he started it or not the beater is still in the wrong. If he is defending himself then it is a fight, worthy of watching.

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:I am not even going to reply to that as clearly you have not been paying attention at all.

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:Not if it is in self defense. What you are saying is that if I were to be attacked I could legally push the guy off and pull my gun and shoot him but if I was not carrying I could not defend myself with my hands. That is completely untrue.

KingofChaos wrote: I've seen many a fight were one guy admits defeat, the winner turns to walk away and is hit in the back of the head. Personally, I only stop when the other person is unconscious or in so much pain that they can't get up and continue(broken limb). Don't want that treatment, don't attack me.

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:

suthdj wrote:

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:

suthdj wrote:For me if a person is getting beat it means he is not defending himself, hence not a threat. So weather he started it or not the beater is still in the wrong. If he is defending himseflf then it is a fight, worthy of watching.

We are taught to stop when the threat stops, right? So, who is to say that they guy doing the beating didn't try to stop but the original attacker just kept coming? Kind of like an attacker that gets shot multiple times but keeps on coming. You shouldn't stop until the threat is stopped.

Also, I cannot for the life of me remember where I heard this but it is a good lesson. A guy was driving down the road and saw a car off to the side where a man was beating a woman. Most of us would want to stop and help as it is not right for a man to lay a hand on a woman much less beat a woman. I cannot remember if he intervened or not but it turns out that the man he saw beating the woman was at a gas station when the woman jumped into his car and took off...with his child in the back seat. So, he ran after the car and jumped into the passenger side and got the car to the side of the road and was beating the woman.

All he saw was a man beating a woman and automatically assumed that he was the BG. He was wrong. He saw part B of an incident and by missing part A he didn't have all the info and made a bad assumption.

So, just because someone is getting beaten or looks like a victim does not mean that they really are.

See the part in bold most importantly the underlined. I am not saying the person may not deserve a beating and a half, but that does not make you legally in the right.

See the part in bold most importantly the underlined. If the attacker keeps on attacking and you are in fear for you life you are legally in the right to continue to defend yourself. Some people do not carry guns and therefore rely on their hands to defend themselves.

What my original point was that just because we see an incident does not mean that we know the whole story.

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:

suthdj wrote:For me if a person is getting beat it means he is not defending himself, hence not a threat. So weather he started it or not the beater is still in the wrong. If he is defending himseflf then it is a fight, worthy of watching.

We are taught to stop when the threat stops, right? So, who is to say that they guy doing the beating didn't try to stop but the original attacker just kept coming? Kind of like an attacker that gets shot multiple times but keeps on coming. You shouldn't stop until the threat is stopped.

Also, I cannot for the life of me remember where I heard this but it is a good lesson. A guy was driving down the road and saw a car off to the side where a man was beating a woman. Most of us would want to stop and help as it is not right for a man to lay a hand on a woman much less beat a woman. I cannot remember if he intervened or not but it turns out that the man he saw beating the woman was at a gas station when the woman jumped into his car and took off...with his child in the back seat. So, he ran after the car and jumped into the passenger side and got the car to the side of the road and was beating the woman.

All he saw was a man beating a woman and automatically assumed that he was the BG. He was wrong. He saw part B of an incident and by missing part A he didn't have all the info and made a bad assumption.

So, just because someone is getting beaten or looks like a victim does not mean that they really are.

Shinesintx wrote:

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:

Westfield wrote:haos » Sat Aug 20, 2011 2:53 pm
@XtremeDuty.45

Well maybe I wasn't clear, he does ask for when he legally can use deadly force. And I guess my simplified response would actually be a question. If one of these mobs isn't attacking you or robbing you, why would you WANT to use deadly force in the first place? I don't think you legally could, and I don't logically see why you would want to.

But what if the mob is beating the snot out of defenseless people like they did in Wisconsin ? What should our rersponse if any be ?

That has been debated many times on here and it has been quite a while since I have been on the forum but IIRC it is usually mixed opinions. My opinion would be to try and help the innocent party out if I felt that I could. HOWEVER, in order for me to use deadly force I would have to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person is innocent and didn't attack first.

Example: You are pulling into a gas station and upon exiting your vehicle you see some guy getting beat. You did not see anything else but a fight. Not what started it, nothing. So how do you know who is innocent? How do you know the guy doing the beating wasn't attacked and is now defending himself?

I understand that in the cases of these "Flash Mobs" that it would be pretty obvious who is the innocent party. But you have to consider the numbers. Are you going to do any good by intervening or will you just become another casualty? I am one that believes in helping others out when I can. However, in a case like this I might even have to say that the best thing a person could do is to call 911 and provide the best and most detailed descriptions that you can. Stay on the line with them and do one of two things after the mob leaves. Check the victim/s and depending if they are in need of first aid or not you should 1) render first aid or 2) try and see where the mob is going and give as much information to the authorities as you can (car descriptions, directions, etc).

Obviously this is my opinion and everyone has their own. Also, each situation is different. You cannot have a planned course of action and think that will work for everything. There are just too many variables in every scenario (location, bystanders, is your family with you or not, number of BGs, your physical ability etc.) You really cannot prepare for this. No one truly knows what they will do if something like this were to happen. The best we can do is practice with our carry guns and prepare ourselves mentally that there may be a day that we have to use it and pray that day never comes.

Glad you said it...so I did not have to type it out.

The bold statement is EXACTLY what I was thinking.