TexasCHLforum.com

flb_78 wrote:Id like this thread to stay open to hear the finalized results.

I would, as well. Some folks seem determined to keep speculating, though.

03Lightningrocks wrote:The comparison of the two situations is not even a little bit logical. They will not be viewed in the same way by the prosecuter or the jury.

No, it's perfectly logical. It just doesn't suit your estimation of the emotional response.

Prosecutors or juries may or may not view it the way you do. But justification is justification, no matter the relationship of the parties involved.

03Lightningrocks wrote:The difference is not in the sex of the people involved....so give me a break. The difference is that walking up on two strangers arguing and interjecting yourself is not the same situation as Getting involved in a situation where you are related to the person involved and you were there from the start of the situation.

For the person interjected upon, it makes no difference at all.

Whether he thought the person was a total stranger, or knew it was a spouse and could go so far as to tell you their names, address, phone numbers, and kids' ages, if the person interjecting did something to justify the use of force in return, then justification is justification.

Thank you, mr.72.

I take offense at the characterization based on the age of the dad and the age of the kids, as if there's some nasty inference to be drawn there.

For the record, I didn't have a child until I was 27, but my wife had her first just four months after turning 18 (this was 12 years before we met). Does this somehow imply that she's at fault in any confrontation, and cannot be justified to defend herself?

03Lightningrocks wrote:

KBCraig wrote:

flintknapper wrote:I'm just glad there wasn't a PitBull involved.

Would it be a pit bull with lipstick?

Speaking of pit bulls. I don't guess i will ever understand your line of thinking. You were ready to hang a cop who shoots a dog that is threatening his child, but here you are defending a guy who pulled his weapon on a human being that simply gave him a push.

My line of thinking is that I don't assume that either the dog was threatening, nor that there was a "simple push" involved.

I sometimes wonder if you're able to read anything, without reading something into it that isn't written.

flintknapper wrote:I'm just glad there wasn't a PitBull involved.

Would it be a pit bull with lipstick?

03Lightningrocks wrote:

KBCraig wrote: The point is, reputation spreads, and the rampant projection and speculation about people with real names, amounts to sullying their reputations.

Glad you find it so amusing.

I wonder how funny it will be if you're involved in an incident someday, and thanks to poor reporting and prejudices, everyone talks about what a piece of trash you are.

Liberty wrote:

KBCraig wrote: I hate to see threads locked, but I think it's almost time for this one to be placed on probation until more facts come out.

I hate to see threads locked too, but I don't understand what harm speculation and projection can do. We are not the jurors. Assumptions and speculations can help us understand the finer points when the facts differ just a little bit.

In this case, the speculations and assumptions are being used to support preconceived notions, not to help arrive at the truth.

We are not the jurors, but we are the public. You know, those folks from whom jurors are drawn. Words have a way of getting repeated, and of creating a lasting influence in people's minds.

Do you really want potential jurors being influenced by the idea that the CHL in this case is automatically wrong? Just because "everyone knows" that being a soccer dad means he must have been cursing and threatening, and the coach's husband could not possibly have been in the wrong in any way?

Whether or not any potential jurors read this forum isn't the point. The point is, reputation spreads, and the rampant projection and speculation about people with real names, amounts to sullying their reputations.

Addressing no one in particular, since a number have commented that "it was just a shove!":

I know plenty of people, who if they got in your face and shoved you, you'd not only pull your gun, you'd call for backup and wish you had an artillery battery behind you.

Don't assume anything about this case. Don't speculate, based on your prejudices of the situation. It doesn't matter how many irate youth sports parents you've seen losing their cool, don't project your past experiences into this discussion, because you weren't there!

Let me add that as a father of five, I also have experience coaching and assisting youth sports (previously t-ball, and just making my first venture into soccer this fall), and I have seen plenty of irate, obnoxious, and angry parents. I can easily imagine one of them in the role of this particular soccer dad. But I do not know that this was the case here.

And let me point out that the coach's husband is also a soccer dad, one who was also standing up for his wife, so the odds are just about equal on him being the ballistic hot-head.

I hate that I continually sound like I'm defending the dad in this case. I'm not. I'm defending against speculation.

I suspect that the dad was in the wrong, but I do not know that he was. Thus, I must reserve judgement until the facts are revealed. I can (and have) pointed out many possibilities where the dad would be fully justified in threatening deadly force, and we must allow for those possibilities before passing judgement.

I hate to see threads locked, but I think it's almost time for this one to be placed on probation until more facts come out.

edmart001 wrote:

Russell wrote:

edmart001 wrote: It is not my place to judge

When you were between the ages of 16 and 18, did you make all the right adult decisions?

Not many 16 year old's do. I know I didn't. I was only thinking about one thing when I was that age.

I wouldn't judge his character based on that.

I actually agree with you. In fact, in my previous post, I even said, "It is not my place to judge".

It's funny how many statements that start off with "It's not my place to judge..." then go on to do exactly that. Or at the very least, heap aspersions.

"It's not my place to judge" is not a disclaimer that permits one to then go on with an implied, "...but if it was...!"

03Lightningrocks wrote:I deduced the man to be a coward based on the fact that only a coward would verbally assault a woman.

You assume that's what he did. Tell me, what did he say to her? What words did he use? Or, are you assuming what he might have said?

03Lightningrocks wrote:I deduced the man to be a coward based on the fact that he pulled a gun on a person he knew, not some random assailant, over a simple push.

You assume he knew the man.
You assume it was a simple push.

03Lightningrocks wrote:If he really feared for his life over a push....LOL...that is even more reason to believe him to be a coward.

Again, you assume that it was a simple push.
It was reported that they were in the stands. How big were the stands? How far off the ground? How crowded? Could he have retreated, to deescalate the situation, whether or not there is a duty to retreat? Or was he trapped there?
Was there a size disparity? Does he have physical limitations that we can't know by seeing a mugshot?
What was the husband saying when he initiated the argument? Was he uttering threats? Promising bodily injury or death? Was he visibly enraged?
How sudden was the assault? Did he come charging over screaming and shoving, or had they been standing face to face while arguing?

If you can't answer these questions, then you shouldn't assume where to assign cowardice and honor between these two.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

mr.72 wrote:The fool that endangered people was the husband who escalated the conflict.

I don't know that I agree the husband is a fool. Men protecting women has been going on a long time and I hope it continues. It is instinct to protect your own. Putting myself in the husbands position, I would not just sit there and allow some guy to hurl insults and berate my wife without intervening.

No one would expect any husband to put up with that without intervening, but he became a fool the moment he laid his hands on someone else over mere words.

Russell wrote:Let's add a little fun into this just for the heck of it.

Let's not.

We have plenty of threads out there for hypothetical situations. None of them ever amount to anything except endless "what if" possibilities.

What we have here, is a real case that doesn't need more hypothetical speculation.

Others have made these points, but to sum up what we know from media reports (very important to note that media reports are not the same as facts):

1. Dad argued with Coach from the stands.
2. Husband argued with Dad in the stands.
3. Husband pushed Dad, which was unlawful force; use of force would be justified in defense.
4. Dad threatened Husband with deadly force; threats of deadly force are justified when use of force is justified.

Assuming he gets a decent lawyer and keeps his mouth shut and anger in check (two things he seems to have a problem with), the charges should be dropped and his CHL returned.

One other thing... while the dad seems to have been technically justified, I would bet that he didn't think that through before drawing.