TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:It's a shame it's taken this long.

barstoolguru wrote:

Mike1951 wrote:

Keith B wrote: .

I gave up on logic and reason on page three!

Should the video and 911 completely vindicate her, I don't expect him to change his tune.

I am sorry you and so many others take this as just another page on an internet board and call it justified. Laws are created to help people defend themselves but never meant for something as simple as a road rage incident. Being a truck driver for many years I seen these things happen and they seem to work themselves out. Say she didn't have a gun then what would have happened; would she have been beaten to death in the parking lot? Or maybe she just gets punched in the nose and the cops show up and he gets arrested BUT for a man to lose his life because she was "scared" or "feared for her life". Did he have a weapon; NO, but she did and because of that she limited her options to one!

what is scary here is the fact that people are saying that every time someone gets into a heated argument it’s OK to shoot someone because "I was in fear of bodily harm" well if that is the case shut up! What scares me is the message that will be sent out if she gets acquitted. so maybe I am not the only one that needs to change

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

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

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!

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

barstoolguru wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

barstoolguru wrote: all we know is he approached her and she felt threatened (public gas station with other around). Is that justification to shoot and kill another?

People have been beaten to death while others stood around and watched. All it takes is one well placed punch. Just because the event occurs in a public place with others around does not make it safe. Are you going to base your survival on whether or not someone is going to come to your aid or whether or not you can take a punch?

You need to be introduced to the real world.

Anygunanywhere

So any time someone has a disagreement with another it is justified to shoot them because they might hit you?

barstoolguru wrote: all we know is he approached her and she felt threatened (public gas station with other around). Is that justification to shoot and kill another?

VMI77 wrote:

barstoolguru wrote:

VMI77 wrote: The only problem I have with your scenario is the hint of a suggestion that his reaction to her is reasonable. It simply isn't. If an adult man in this day and age is so clueless he doesn't understand the reasons for a woman to act the way you propose in your scenario, then he is dangerously stupid. And aside from the issue of a lone female dealing with two men, and aside from bump and rob events, chasing after someone then pounding on their window is not a justified or intelligent reaction. I had a guy run into me in Austin and then take off.....I didn't chase after him....I wrote down his license plate number and filed a report with the police.

Go back and read the last article posted about the parents grieving and it adds a lot to what DID happen. They bumped and then PULLED into the gas station so the accident just accrued. She was out there doing the white line mumbo with him; She helped instigate it and then she claims self defense!!!

Yeah, I'm sure the grieving parents will add a lot of objective comments. Based solely on the information in the media, which is all we know, she fled or ran away --whatever term you want to use-- to a public place, called 911, remained in her car, and did not threaten or attack the driver or passenger of the truck. The driver of the truck followed, chased her --again, whatever word you want to use-- got out of his truck in a rage and pounded on her window, thus threatening her. You can pretend otherwise all you want, but following a woman in a truck with two men and hitting on her window in a rage is a threat --it is INTENDED to intimidate, at a minimum. He was a "big man" because he was pounding on the window of a young woman, whom he no doubt did not fear in the least. You think he would have acted in the same way and pounded on the window of some 6'4" muscled up and tatted gang banger? If he did, then he'd do it looking for a fight, because anyone in his right mind knows that is what would happen. Pounding on this woman's window, whether he broke it or not, wasn't to hand her a bouquet of flowers --it was deliberate intimidation and had the sole intended purpose of forcing the woman to respond to him either by rolling down her window or exiting the car....both of which would have been stupid moves for her under the circumstances.

The police have a 911 recording, they took witness statements, and they watched a video of the incident. THEY LET HER GO WITHOUT ARRESTING HER. I don't know if you have it out for this particular woman, or you've got a chip on your shoulder about women in general. I don't really care either way; it doesn't change the reality, which is that a lone woman is vulnerable, very vulnerable, in a confrontation with one man, let alone the potential threat of two men. A man who either doesn't understand this, or doesn't care, and acts like a fool, as this guy apparently did, gets no special consideration for his ignorance or malice, which is, quite frankly, inexcusable. Not only did he have no business approaching a woman this way, his actions were pretty stupid under any circumstances, since he had no way of knowing what kind of person was in the vehicle he approached threateningly and pounded on. In the old days, he might have been beaten by one of the men nearby merely for his treatment of a woman. If I walked into a parking lot and found a man treating my wife like he did that young woman I'd be approaching with one hand on my gun.

Edited for clarity.

barstoolguru wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:Barstoolguru, your attempt to discredit this woman's defending herself appears to me to be patterned after the same style of attacks that the antis perpetrate against anyone who defends themself with a firearm. What is your real issue with this lady? Please come clean. If your issue is that she acted counter to what you would have done, please state clearly what your rules of engagement are in these exact circumstances. Be sure and not let any actual facts of this shooting get in the way since you obviously have a significantly better understanding of what actually happened than anyone else.

Anygunanywhere

It’s not a matter of discrediting the woman to defend herself, but the mere fact that a man lost his life because "SHE" though her life was in danger; so the question is was it really? The LAWYER said he broke the window. Tempered glass is hard to break with your fist just pounding on it and it would have been pushed in with the tint holding it together. Another fact is no one at a gas station heard or seen anything. She rear ended him and then for some reason drove off. I bet the guy was hopping mad and scared her but was that reason enough to shoot and kill someone. He never made entry into the car, she never got even a scratch. There was still a barrier between them and she could have drove off but instead because she had a gun she chose a different way to end it.
So is this the way thing should be handled every time someone gets scared? A man and woman have a heated verbal conversation and she gets scared and shoots him is the way to settle disputes?

how tough is tempered glass...." onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ClarkLZeuss wrote:Sounds very similar to the very first CHL homicide in Dallas. Which was ruled justifiable. And in this situation, it's a similar dynamic of disparity of force (male aggressor, female CHL/victim).

That said, some facts are missing in these reports, like
- Was her window broken?
- Who hit who (with their car)?