TexasCHLforum.com

OK folks, we have been down this avenue before. If this thread does not stay on topic about the actual case, it will be locked.

OK folks, there are a lot of 'you' comments flying here. Do not put this thread into a personal finger pointing session on other members or it WILL be locked.

Discussion and disagreements are fine and healthy, but keep them civil.

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

This discussion would really get legs then.

What I think a lot of folks are overlooking is the fact that we don't know what was said by the instigator (Burke) and what physical movements were made by the parties.

Many are assuming Burke was just 'yelling or cussing' at the female coach. We don't know if when the husband stepped in that Burke didn't say something that initiated a legal response in a push from the husband. Verbal threats CAN be relevant enough to justify use of force. He may have even moved toward the husband in a manner that the husband felt was heading toward assault (raised fists, quick lunge, etc.) In this case, the husband would have been justified in his use of force ( a push or even possibly greater) to prevent being attacked or create a safe distance between them.

The problem is WE DON"T KNOW ALL OF THE INFORMATION! Until these event details come out, we are ALL just speculating at what 'might' have happened and making up our own picture with 90% of the puzzle pieces missing. That leaves a lot of room for everyone to try and figure out whether the puzzle will be a picture of a horse or a donkey when finished.

Liberty wrote:

Keith B wrote: One thing everyone here (including me) has been doing to this point is assuming. Without the details, statements from the parties involved, witnesses, etc. we really know NOTHING. We also do not know how the legal/court system will play this out with any testimonies at the hearing and/or trial.

Best thing we can do now is sit back and wait for more information and see how this turns out for all parties involved.

Perhaps but there just might be a lot to learn from all of this and there are some fascinating facts that actually have come out of this discussion. Which is why its been such an active thread.

One interesting fact that came out of this discussion is that Drawing a weapon is force. Not Deadly Force.

A slightly different perspective changes things considerably.

A legally justified shooting isn't always a morally just shooting.

deescalation can prevent a situation from turning into a nightmare.

I totally agree. Please don't think I was trying to squelch discussion, that is what this forum is about. We just need to realize there can be a 1000 different directions this can turn and we are all speculating and assuming. However, relating our real life experiences at kids sporting events, we can all picture ourselves in this scenario and how we might handle it. Again, each of us would do something different. Just gonna be a hot one to follow. Hopefully full details will come out on it and we can get good information as it proceeds.

As Charles said, bottom line these guys escalated a small argument escalate into something criminal by letting their machismo get out of control.

Mr. 72,

Your point on CCW Zen is spot on. I have a friend that is a CHL holder and you can tell by his mannerisms when he is or isn't carrying. When he is armed, his attitude is way more laid back and level than when he is not. I think it comes from not wanting to come across as having any kind of attitude if something should come up.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

KBCraig wrote:

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.

Yeah...right Kieth. I guess we will just have to wait and see. Only a punk would mouth off at the coach at a kids soccer game.

I think you mean KBCraig, not Keith.

One thing everyone here (including me) has been doing to this point is assuming. Without the details, statements from the parties involved, witnesses, etc. we really know NOTHING. We also do not know how the legal/court system will play this out with any testimonies at the hearing and/or trial.

Best thing we can do now is sit back and wait for more information and see how this turns out for all parties involved.

Charles,

Since we are discussing this, how big a factor do you feel the provocation aspect in § 9.31 and 9.32 play into it? It clearly stated that Burke started the altercation by yelling at the coach, but then the husband stepped in and the verbal sparing went on, up to the point of the husband shoving Burke. Conflict resolution skills were definitely not in play during this incident.

Yeah, I should have said 'threat of use of deadly force.' Bad wording on my part.

The problem is, this is the way a lot of folks think, and in turn, it can kill you in court. Just look at the McDermott case and you will see why someone can be found guilty by threatening the use, even if they may have been legally justified. Here is a link to an old thread on that issue in case you are not familiar with it http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... &sk=t&sd=a" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Charles eluded to it earlier in this thread.

Overall, it is going to be up to the courts and how the lawyers try and prove this guy was justified in his actions. Without all the facts, knowing how they will argue the case, and how a Judge and/or jury will react, it's just speculation.

Found another video from KLBK that was good information, including an interview with a DPS officer.
http://everythinglubbock.com/media_play ... a_id=34371" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; on this. The reporter even makes a good statement on use of deadly force at the end.

mr.72 wrote:.....So. We all definitely threatened deadly force....

No you didn't; you just made sure he 'played ball'.

This one will be interesting to follow for sure as more details come out.

mr.72 wrote: If I am justified to defend myself with my fists, then I am justified to use the threat of deadly force, right?

I guess the CHL holder should have just put his hands in his pockets and let the coach's husband beat him to a pulp?

Not necessarily. As stated before, IANAL, but I think the catch here is the provocation aspect, and whether the threat of deadly force was justified.

Per http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/do ... 009.00.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; if the actor provoked the use of force from the 2nd party, then use of force is not justified. However, if the actor tried to retreat, or deescalate, then use of force was justified. We don't know all of the conversation or if he tried to back down and was not allowed to. In that case, the use of force would have been justified (husband pushed him), and possibly the threat of use of deadly force.

LCP_Dogg wrote:Yes, good work KCBD!

I would just add that I think all of the confusion on this "case" tells us one very important lesson. That is, there are many gray lines here and that is why you do should always do your best to avoid drawing a gun (and/or shooting) in the first place.

That is why they teach conflict resolution in the CHL class (apparently something the guy slept through ). As I said before, not starting something, or deescalating it when it does start is key to keeping yourself out of the pokey!

+1 on the Station Managers comments. Glad to see they looked at the one individual vs. the whole.

And, I stand corrected on the legality of the push being use of force. Thanks Steve!

I still think the guy Burke is a bonehead for starting the argument (unless there was a real reason), but as others have said, we don't know all of the details.

I do hope that things come out OK for the individual, we can get more details and use this as an educational experience.

LCP_Dogg wrote:Keith, so are you saying there is some duty to retreat if you are the one who started it?

I guess I didn't see that, but I mean common sense tells me that is the thing to do here, but like I said, what happens if the guy got on top of him and he could not move. His only two choices are to get beat and take it like a man, or draw his firearm. (I have been in this exact situation and took it like a man, err, I mean 14 yr old (at the time) and had no weapon to draw fortunately).


Anyways, from reading the article, it sounds like all he did was push him. Yes, this Tye guy was an idiot to pull his firearm out just for a lousy push. what the heck?!?

He deserves what is coming to him as he CLEARLY cannot control his temper.

This is only MY point of view; If you are the aggressor 'period' then you are at fault. Going strictly from the article/video (we all know they are ALWAYS 100% accurate ) Burke started the argument with the lady coach. Her husband stepped in and argued with Burke. From all reports Burke didn't try to back down, stop yelling or walk away. The husband pushed Burke, but that does not justify the use of force, especially if you are still trying to argue with the individual. So, in this case as the article reads, Burke is an idiot.

And to answer your scenario further, I feel you get what you deserve if you start a fight. You cannot push someone else to the breaking point and then go screaming to Mommy (or Kimber or Glock, etc.) If you haven't tried to back away and deescalate the situation, then you need to figuratively take your lumps. Carrying brings a responsibility, and that means avoiding conflict if at all possible. Threat of or use of deadly force is a last ditch move and needs to be only when there are no alternatives. This guy had alternatives, like not stating a ruckus in the first place.

LCP_Dogg wrote:For the sake of discussion, let's say he did start it and let's say this other dad started a fight with him and tackled him and was on top of him smacking him around. Is he justified then in drawing his weapon?

I would think so.. (regardless of who "started it")

What do you think?

Nope, you start an argument, you have escalated the issue in the first place. If he didn't try to deescalate the situation by walking away or trying to move out of the situation, then I think he is at fault. Same would go for road rage, etc. If you push buttons and make someone madder, you are asking for a fight. And if you are hot headed enough to push buttons, then you shouldn't be carrying IMO.