TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

srothstein wrote:There is a difference between legal and right. . . . But the legal analysis is separate from the right or wrong analysis. We all do the right/wrong analysis and sometimes we confuse it for the legal one.

This is absolutely correct! This is an over-simplification, but juries tend to choose who they like and don't like, then try to answer the questions to get the result they want. In criminal trials that's much easier to do than in civil trials.

The prosecutor and judge are going to look at the case with an eye to determining whether the elements of the crime exist. The jury is going to decide whether the CHL needed his rear end kicked for cursing a woman. If they decide the answer is "yes," then they will reject his self-defense defense and he's likely to get convicted. As Stephen said, this analysis has nothing to do with the law, but it's important to the 12 folks who will determine the CHL's fate in court. Again, this is an over-simplification and it may not occur in this case, but this is the unfortunate reality of the jury system.

Chas.

Well said charles, folks often forget how much of our legal system is dependant upon juries.

For a crash course, go check out the movie "12 Angry Men". It's a bit of an eye opener to see how each person's individual opinion sways the situation.

troglodyte wrote:I believe I read where no charges have been filed against the husband. A question could also be, what was the husband saying? If he made threats, "I'll kill you." or "Shut up or I'll smack you across the field." then pushed him, how does it or does it not change the situation. What was dad saying to the wife?

Now...just to muddle things up...if the dad was justified in pulling his gun and the guard tackled him, would the dad be justified in shooting the guard? Should assault charges be filed against the guard?

I guess the point I'm making is where does it stop? If a guy is getting in my wife's face, I may be fearing for her safety and push the "assailant" away. The coach may not be able to leave the area as she is responsible for the players, even if the parents are there so a retreat may not be possible. I'm all for stand-your-ground but retreat is not always a bad thing. I may be violating the law with the push but I hope to think in this part of the country a man can still stand up for a woman's honor. Then you have to determine how much of a push it was. Was it a violent shove or a hand to the chest trying to provide separation?

When it comes down to it, dad made a bad decisions starting with yelling at the coach and then escalating it to find himself in jail with a deadly weapons charge. It becomes a guessing game until more details are known. While he may be found to be legally justified, I still say he did something really stupid and stupid should hurt.

I'll ask around and see if I can find out more specifics. I know someone who was at the location and may have been at that specific game.

You gotta watch that man. That's shakey ground there. Being fearful of your or someone else's safety is not justification for force and certainly not justification for deadly force. I could fear for my safety from little green aliens or the stay-puff marshmellow man too. There has to be a solid foundation to justify force and I'm not seeing it here.

That's like folks saying they feared for their life and that's why they did something. The fear may be real, but fear alone does not justify anything. There has to be a legitimate threat as identified by law.

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/do ... 009.00.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

§ 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of
force is justified when the use of force is justified by this
chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or
serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as
long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension
that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the
use of deadly force.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

§ 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is
immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;
(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm
clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of
reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law
proscribing the conduct; and
(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification
claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

§ 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified
in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third
person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably
believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31
or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against
the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes
to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his
intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

I believe these are the relevant passages. Arguments are arguments and not force. Last I checked the threat of force does not justify force. If you are already justified in using force then you can threaten to use it, but not the other way around. In either case, there is no indication that threats were even made.

You might say it's defense of the 3rd person (standing up for your wife):
You can't say it's defense of the 3rd person unless the 3rd person would have been justified in using force themselves. The coach herself would not have been justified with the way this was reported so using force on her behalf would not be justified.

As presented there is nothing reported in the story as-is that states that Burke threatened anyone or did anything to justify force. There is also nothing that suggests that the use of force (the push) was immediately necessary.

As it stands with the story as it is reported I believe the husband should be charged with assault. If that assault charge is true then Burke's use of force should be justified and thus the guard's use of force (assault) would not be justified in tackling Burke.

That being said... one little threat can change the entire legal landscape. If Burke so much as muttered "I'm gonna kick yo butt" and looked like he was actually going to do it then all bets are off. There is nothing that says that took place though.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

We're absolutely here, for sure because we don't know all the facts.

The only reason i lay all this out like I have is to illustrate the very fine but clear line in the sand where one sentence can make or break your justification. IMO if you carry you have a duty to know and understand the law and you had better know for sure if you're justified before you decide to draw down. And you had better be the first one to call the cops because that may make or break your case too.

Someone earlier also pointed out that some folks are interjecting morality into this issue. That MAY come into play in the jury room, but what we need to be worrying about is the law. If you're square by the law you may just be able to avoid the jury room altogether.

For the record, i can't imagine I would draw down on someone for being pushed at a kid's soccer game. I won't judge burke cause i wasn't there but he would have some serious splainen to do if i were his daddy.

Can someone please dig up what TPC says about Threating Force and what that constitutes? I can't seem to find it.

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:jedi,
I couldnt agree more. Thats where self-control comes into play. I will be the first to say I do not have the best self-control all the time and one of those times is when/if some dude talks trash to my wife. Thats just me. I wont say I cant control that but I choose not to because its not right and I want them to think twice next time they talk to a woman like that. but again I agree with you it doesnt give you the right to escalate...I would choose to to defend my wife. Be it right or wrong...thats just me though.

i hear ya man. If you ended up in the pokey for that I'd be the first one in line to bring you cookies during visiting hours :)

take it easy :)

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:LedJedi,
Your right there is nothing that is noted that justifies the push and you are right by saying he was justified in verbally arguing with Burke not shoving. But we also dont know what it was that Burke was saying. Depending on what he said to the coach I could justify the shove from the husband. If he is just yelling at her and voicing his disgust no but if he is calling her names and I dont mean 'poopyhead' and he is verbally assaulting her I could see where a shove would be needed to shut him up. Just my thoughts.

Ya, i hear ya man and I absolutely feel where you're coming from 100%.

That doesn't change the use of force justification though. If someone's being loud / disruptive but not really threatening anyone with physical violence then you are MUCH better off just calling the police and letting them deal with him for disturbing the peace or something like that rather than putting yourself in a potentially liable situation by assaulting him.

I do understand the desire to wanna lay someone out on occasion. Just this morning I was so mad I was shaking dealing with a problem with my cable TV company. Had it not been over the phone I would have been sorely tempted to reach out and smack someone, but that's the line that is drawn between good guys and bad guys. You must respect the law. This may be Texas but ya can't smack someone "just cause they needed smackin". Either force is justified or it's not. In the scenario mentioned and with the details provided IANAL but I don't see legal justification for the use of force (push).

I don't wanna see you or anyone else get into trouble because they read on this board that it's ok/acceptable to push someone for arguing. If that were legal we'd be seeing coaches and refs slug it out on TV on a regular basis. :)

Again, though, I 100% feel where you're comin from. I pity the fool that argues with my woman. (in my best Mr. T voice)

(on a different note... TVMAX is the worst cable company on the planet. Never EVER Do business with them if you an at all avoid it.)

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:Im no lawyer but...If the agressor has a physical problem that he cant defend himself as a normal person could he has no right to be going around starting fights. Thats just not smart. Especially if he has a gun. Cause now he knows he will have to pull his gun. So if he starts the fight knowing he will have to pull his gun and fires and the other guy dies...its no longer self defense but premeditated murder. As for his altercation with the coach. If the coach was doing something harmful to the child a normal parent would go down and get the child out of harms way and then confront the coach. They would not sit there and just yell at them from the stands. When they do that they are usually mad at the coach for putting the child in a different position or taking them out of the game. The husband of the coach was justified in his pushing of Burke as he was defending his wife. I would have done the same. As would most husbands...I hope. So if you badmouth some guys wife and he shoves you I dont see how that qualifies as you being in fear for your life. At that point you either fight back or you walk away. You dont draw your weapon to be state your dominance.

In the story as presented thus far there is no indication that Burke was doing anything other than having a disagreement (assuming verbal) with the coach. I understand standing up to verbally defend your wife, i'd do the same myself, but there is no indication that force (a push) was justified on the part of the husband.

Up to that point it SOUNDS like it was purely a verbal disagreement. Assuming that there were no threats of immediate violence on Burke's behalf I can't see how the force would be justified.

That being said, I can't really see a push being justification for drawing the weapon either in that scenario.

If you remove the circumstance of the husband/wife relationship and the verbal disagreement I dont think it's unreasonable to argue that if another person pushes you without provocation it's conceivable that a draw might be justified from a push depending on the scenario. Though I can't see it as justification here given how it's set up.

Given the other circumstances involved it seems that Burke may be off his rocker though. I doubt any reasonable person would have reacted the way he did and I'm sure a jury will see it the same way if all the facts of the case are presented as they are represented here.

My point is don't be so quick to judge/condemn someone and that there is nothing in the story that justifies the husband's use of force as the story is currently presented. That does not necessarily excuse Burke, but the husband has to share some blame in the situation. Had Burke not drawn his weapon I could easily see the husband getting arrested for assault.