TexasCHLforum.com

esxmarkc wrote: I could care less about the money. I care about the process and tactics which they may apply to get at it. From the story I posted "Hawke-Petit had indicated the assailants were "being nice", and she believed they only wanted money" This poor lady made the gave mistake in thinking exactly as you are thinking: she tried to apply logic to their behavior.

If you have these armed animals standing in front of you making demands and you are worried about going bankrupt over some BG's mother suing you over excessive use of force then you can limit your liability in such situations bey leaving your handgun safely at home. Otherwise they are just as likely to take it off you and use it against you or someone else. In all honesty I'm really surprised that didn't happen to the shooter in this story.

cb1000rider wrote:

bdickens wrote: I think it is really sad that so many "good men" don't want to be inconvenienced by the ramifications of standing up for what is right.

Thank our laws and civil legal system. It's really not personal inconvenience. It's about what would happen to my family if our financial security was taken away merely by the process of a civil action. More than that, in the off chance that I was criminally charged, it impacts my ability to work and provide for my family.

It's not about inconvenience at all. It's about self protection and family preservation just as much as carrying a firearm is about self protection.

bizarrenormality wrote:All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.