TexasCHLforum.com

Wow, this thing has gotten so far out of whack. Since we are throwing scenarios around that have absolutely nothing to do with this situation, I might as well throw one in too. What if the guy drawing the gun suspected the soccer coach was in reality a terrorist? The husband was probably trying to get the guy with the gun to shut up before he spilled the beans. Then what? Huh...Huh...what do you think?


Lord folks...i hope most of us use more common sense when drawing our weapons than this guy did. If we don't, we will all be saying adios to our CHL's.

These people were not random strangers on the street. There was nobody else using a gun to shoot people. The guy pulled a gun because he was pushed. We don't know why he was pushed. We don't know if the coaches husband said give it a break and the gunman turned on him with his tongue lashing. We don't even know how the two came to be standing close enough for one to push the other. Did mister gun toter make a threatening move or not? We don't know.

KBCraig wrote:

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.

LOL...you provide me with many good laughs....Thanks.

KBCraig wrote:

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.

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.

troglodyte wrote:No new info but I'm still trying.

Can't find any records that any charges were filed on anyone. But Lubbock is not that good with posting public records or documents.

Regardless of who is at fault, yadda, yadda, yadda, the news reported his CHL was sent to Austin. IF no charges are filed what is the status of Burke's CHL? I figure he gets it back but how would that work? Are there any legal consequences or liabilities for anyone involved by his CHL being taken away?

Excellent question. I am curious about this also. I would like to believe if no charges are filed, one would get their CHL back.

poppo wrote:
What difference does it make if the first person was a male, a female, the person's wife or another wife? None. It was simply person #1. And it doesn't matter who the second person was if they were not originally present and invlolved with the first 'conflict'. When person #2 whether it be a stranger or husband or whatever, comes along after the fact , that becomes a separate 'conflict' and I see no legal or common sense reason why a person would not be entitled to defend them self from the second person who initiated their own argument and initiated an assault.

Ok, try this one then. Someone gets into a minor parking lot fender bender. And argument starts over who was at fault. The husband of one of the people inolved happens to drive by and sees the argument. He 'comes to the rescue' of his wife and assults the other driver. According to your logic, you can't defend yourself from the guy because you didn't retreat from your argument with the person you had the fender bender with. Give me a break.

Some of you need to learn how to seperate chivalry from legality.

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.

Since the thread was brought back from the dead, I will ask if anyone knows of any further information on the altercation? I am curious to see if the police drop charges on all involved. Sometimes, when the participants know each other, the police will let it go with some hand shakes.

poppo wrote: Let's look at this with the same conditions but a different scenario. I'm standing on the corner with my friend and we are having an argument over whatever. I'm doing all the yelling at this point. Some stranger sees this, comes up, starts arguing with me and assults me. Have I lost my right to defend myself from this stranger because I was initialy arguing with my friend and not the stranger? I think not.

Not a valid argument at all. To be comparable, the situation would have to be as follows. Your having an argument with a female acquaintance. Your yelling at her when her husband walks up and has words with you. Missing segment at this point as we don't know what the exchange during this part was. Husband pushes you back to make some space and then you pull your gun out.

flintknapper wrote: I am curious how you arrived at the conclusion that I am "defending" this guy in any way?

I didn't say you were. But now that I looked at my post, I can see how it may have looked like I was referencing you and Mr. craig.

My appologies sir.

flintknapper wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:[quote="KBCraigWould 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.

To which of us are you speaking?[/quote]

Your compatriot, but as the old saying goes. "If the shoe fits.....". It's really nothing personal or meant as an insult. I was just commenting that I don't understand the line of thought.

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.

SlowDave wrote:
And to wrap up all the topics on this thread... if any of you guys (or ladies) want to pull over and change a flat for me (I'm a guy), I promise not to be offended.

Just so you don't get home too late for dinner, you might want to go ahead and get started on that tire. I will pull over a lane and slow down, so I don't strafe you as I drive buy.

I agree with the rest of your post.

KBCraig wrote: 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.

Look what you started Amber...

amber wrote:Sexism is as sexism does. When men try to "protect" women because they think we're not able to verbally defend ourselves from a loudmouth, that's sexist. When men try to "protect" women because they think we're too weak or incompetent to serve in the military or drive a truck or use power tools or change a tire, that's sexist. When men try to "protect" women because they think we're not smart enough to be a doctor or a lawyer or a computer programmer or a CEO, that's sexist. When men treat women like children instead of adults, that's sexist.

I hear you Amber, but I believe this mix and match of situations doesn't all fit thrown into one gunny sack together. For instance, helping a female to change a tire is not the same thing as telling her she can't be a CEO or a doctor or lawyer. By the way, I have saved many a stranded female on the side of the road with flat tires or broken down vehicles. I hate to admit it but I have yet to stop and help a male stranded with a flat tire....unless he had a female with him and looked in trouble. It probably could be considered sexism, but it is a good kind. On the other hand, i would never deny a female the right or will to do any job or task because of her sex. You don't know me so you don't realize you are trying to give a sexism lesson to a guy who was raised by a single mom who became an attorney while raising 3 boys. My temptation is to debate the issue further with you, but it probably distracts from this thread.

amber wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:I pray to god that chivalry is not dead.

I pray that rampant sexism becomes as extinct as dinosaurs.

LOL...me thinks your being a bit over sensitive Amber. Chivalry does not equate to sexism.