TexasCHLforum.com

I've been rather vocal in this thread. The letter that Stupid posted actually states my sentiments better than anything I have written.

I will admit that other posts have stated valid opinions and the decision to get involved in a situation that might require you to shoot is a very tough one to make. Every person will have different reasons on whether to get involved or not get involved.

However, somehow this country has got to get back to the attitudes that it used to have as brought out in the letter. I just don't know if the good old USA will ever be able to get back to that. It's a lot more complicated now than it was back then.

If I made anyone mad on previous posts, it wasn't my intent and my apologies if that happened. I stated my beliefs publicly to generate discussion on a difficult subject. But I still believe what I believe and others will believe what they believe. That's still something we can do here in America, and that is good.

+1 on the last 3 posts.

Lodge2004 wrote:

40FIVER wrote:Those who carry for only selfish reasons (me and mine), have lost that ideal that has made America so great.

I'm one who would disagree with you. In most situations, when I am out and about there are one or more children in tow - the primary reason I carry a sidearm. Me getting shot trying to stop a gas station robbery that does not present a direct threat to their safety does not help them.

That said, if somebody does present a direct threat to "me and mine" then my only purpose for existing at that moment is to stop the threat.

I never said that you should always intervene, no matter what the circumstances. Certainly, the safety of your own family is of utmost importance. Why introduce a scenario where you should clearly protect your family first? My other posts have made that very clear.

What if your family isn't with you, what is your excuse then? There are not enough excuses in this world that will cover up pure selfishness and disregard for helping others when you have the power to do so.

TxBlonde wrote:

40FIVER wrote:
Those who carry for only selfish reasons (me and mine), have lost that ideal that has made America so great.

I'm sure others will disagree,


Not really, why is it selfish? Those who carry to protect others should join the Academy and become an outstanding and upright Police Officer. Most departments are short staffed and you will have all the RIGHTS and PRIVILEGES as such.

This country was found on watching out for your neighbor. There is not enough spots for police officers where I live plus Do you know the ratio how many people to one police there is? That is why the citizens should watch out for each other.

Think of it this way. What would you want done if you were in someone else's shoes. YOu can say well I would always have my gun. YOu know stuff can happen like it jamming or you do not have a clear safe shot. Or here is another one it is your 18 year old daughter and she is not allowed to carry and she is working at a convience store that got robbed. How would you feel if there was someone there who could have done something and didn't.

I watch out for my nieghbors and they watch out for me. We can not really on a police department who has two or three officers on at a time to respond to 15,000 people. They are not GOD and they can not be everywhere every minute of the day.

We as CHLers just have to make good choice and deal with the consiquences of our actions.

TxBlonde, just to be clear, I did not make the last statement you attribute to me in your post.

Also, you certainly have to use good judgement when choosing to intervene in a situation concerning other people (non family members). However, I think some are no brainers: women being mugged in mall parking lot, female clerk behind the counter at the stop & rob are some examples.

Those situations that are not clear in what is happening certainly require some serious thought before helping out. The mind is a much more powerful tool than the gun.

BTW, I did try to become an LEO in my younger days, but I couldn't pass any agency's physical (an abnormality of the spine that I was born with).

I guess that makes me free from any moral obligation to help my neighbor as I would want him/her to help me? I don't think so. I was able to serve with the New Mexico Mounted Police (a type of reserve force for the NM state police) when I lived out there.

Venus Pax wrote:

TxBlonde wrote:You know if I was working at a store and I was being robbed I would pray that someone would help me. AND NOT JUST SIT IN THEIR CAR AND DO NOTHING BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT BEING THREATENED.

What ever happened to watching each others back in this country???

I agree with the sentiment, but I think the issue is that Good Samaritan laws don't cover us for shooting the BG to save someone's life or possessions. It's quite unfortunate.
Essentially, you could shoot the BG, but your bullet could hit an innocent person. You could be held liable for that person's injury or death.

It's not a sentiment. It is a belief in upholding what is good and right- That you would come to the aid of another person, regardless of the consequences.

This statement is not made toward you Venus, but is a reply to a post before yours:
Those who carry for only selfish reasons (me and mine), have lost that ideal that has made America so great.

I'm sure others will disagree,

My intent wasn't to get the thread locked, but to show the 2 faced attitude of the type of person I was expressing my opinion about.

Back on topic - the shooter will have to live with what he did and so will anyone who ever kills another person. Those who believe in God and that He is supremely interested in us puny humans will have the ultimate help in dealing with that. Knowing that you are morally right to take a life will also help.

+1 Frankie

Lucky45 wrote:I guess you are not aware of what goes on in a modern 911 call center.

My my, this thread has certainly riled your dander. The fact that my post was in the form of a question would tell most people that I in fact don't know much about 911 operators. Once again, that's why it was in the form of a question.

Evidently the 911 operator knew plainclothes cops were enroute, but he didn't have the courtesy to tell the old man that. That bit of info should have been shared with the old man immediately.

Also, don't the cops usually notify the dispatcher when they are arriving at a scene? If the cops were there before the shooting started, the 911 operator should have known it and then relayed that info to the old man.

The 911 guy never mentioned that the cops were on scene until the shooting was over and only then did he mentioned plain clothes officers would be around.

Finally, this may be a totally different topic, but when did the value of human life become the all important thing? The value of the soul is all important, but the Bible is full of examples where God commanded that human life be taken, and for a lot less than murder. We've all been preconditioned to believe that the human life is all important. And the ones who trumpet this belief the loudest are the same ones who believe in the killing of the unborn child. The One to whom we will all give account to doesn't operate in the gray world we humans operate in.

I don't know that I would have pulled the trigger if I had been the old man. But I believe he had the moral right to do what he did.

Lucky45 wrote:So the operator was trying to calm a desperate man who was acting, venting and foaming at the mouth like a rabid pitbull that has been chained up and beaten with a whip. He just wanted to sink his teeth into something if you let him go, and the operator has to try to CHANGE his MINDSET.

Wow, you got that from the audio? To me he sounded like a man who was certainly excited, but nothing like you make him out to be. He's a guy who is sick and tired of the BGs having their way. Sure, the old man's adrenaline is starting to pump, but he was having a fairly polite conversation with the 911 operator, not foaming at the mouth.

Lucky45 wrote:

srothstein wrote:This was a burglary and the man tried to get the police there in time. The police did not show up in time to stop the burglars from leaving, so the man went outside to do so. The burglars did not surrender so he could recover the property, so he shot them.

That seems clear cut to me.

Do we know that? We should see from the police report.

But now you can't see simple logic that srothstein is pointing out?

This is not a flame, Lucky45, just some friendly bantering.