TexasCHLforum.com

mr.72 wrote: Here is the problem with this logic, Liberty-

The summary of most of the comments is like this:

1. The father, who was initially "yelling at the coach", is a complete jerk, a coward, an idiot, etc. <snip>

2. The husband, who "shoved" the father, was justly defending his wife who was being mercilessly verbally abused by this cowardly jerk. <snip>

This whole situation is way too biased, and too many people are breaking their arms patting themselves on the back for how much better they are than the dad who was arguing with the coach. I can tell you from direct experience, arguing with the coach is routine in kids' sports, whether you want to admit it or not. Sure, maybe you are one of the parents who does not argue with the coach, and maybe you are right that the other parents shouldn't do it and it makes them look like a fool. But it still happens, with regularity, and people do it who are not cowardly jerks or otherwise those whom we can easily castigate. Most of the time they are just regular people who get too excited and emotional when they think their child has been treated unfairly, and most of the time they think the coach is the one on some kind of power trip trying to exercise some unfair advantage over certain kids for no good reason. Sometimes they are right, and the coach is the one who is the power-tripping jerk. So they get too excited and get in arguments, big deal?

So, let's go this way:
1. The dad was justly defending his kid from the tyrannical coach on a power trip by yelling at her but no contact (i.e. assault).
2. The husband, just for the sport of it, went over and shoved the dad because he's a male chauvinist pig.

So, I've flipped the tables on who's the "good" and "bad" guy, but I think all the facts still stand, and the proper reaction. Someone comes over and shoves you in that situation, you need to "de-escalate" the situation and walk away. I would argue that you are required to do this legally since you "incited anger" in the situation, not by yelling at him, but by yelling at his family member, but even if you are not legally required, good sense and judgement would indicate that backing away is more likely to result in a positive outcome than drawing a weapon. To the poster who said you didn't incite the husband since you didn't speak to him but rather his wife, I'd argue that you could incite someone by bashing in his car windshield with a baseball bat, so how much more easily could you incite him by yelling at his family member.

And don't worry, I will NEVER argue with you that arguing with the coach in kids' sports is not commonplace. And I wouldn't call them cowardly jerks, just judgement-impaired humans. However, I DO believe I can castigate them easily. Heck, I'm doing it right now. I may be right, I may be wrong, but I'm castigating like there's no tomorrow.

And now, here I sit with a broken arm from patting myself on the back, and am unable to beat even the small pieces of horse carcass into liquid. Dang it all.

Have a wonderful day!

poppo wrote:

SlowDave wrote:I beg to disagree. I learned that if you start an argument, you have forfeited the right to defend yourself unless you first walk away from the encounter or at least announce that you intend to. That's very important, and I didn't know it before.

Well, I can see not much has changed opinion wise from the last time I checked this thread.

I agree with the above statement, however people seem to keep forgetting that the 1st argument was with the coach and yes, was started by the dad. However, the 2nd argument was started by the husband when he intervened. Therefore, IMO, no 'forfeiture of right to defend yourself without walking away' existed for the encounter with the husband. I see it as two separate issues. 1. the argument with the coach where the dad may have been being jerk. 2. The husband stepping in creating a separate issue where he initiated a seperate argument and ultimately an assault.

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.

Well, I'm gonna disagree differently. I'm not looking to learn a lesson for exactly this same scenario, but more generally, so I remain of the opinion that I learned that if I start an argument, I have forfeited my right to defend myself unless I first walk away from the argument or at least announce my intention to do so. I have not learned necessarily exactly what to do if I yell at a female coach at a soccer match and then her husband comes up and pushes me and I'm wondering whether I should draw my weapon, but that's okay... I'm not a soccer fan anyway, so unlikely to happen.

mr.72 wrote:

SlowDave wrote: And I'd offer that if you are ripping on a coach of a kids sports team, maybe you should get a life.

If by "you", you mean me specifically, then you are barking up the wrong tree. Read some more of my posts.

If by "you" you mean the "collective you", then I still think you are wrong. If your kids are on a sports team, and you are paying for their participation, you are buying equipment and sacrificing time to get them there, then you have every right to expect the coach to treat them fairly. If you don't understand that, then you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

1. I was speaking to the "collective you."
2. I don't have any idea what I'm talking about.

Have a nice day.

KD5NRH wrote:

SlowDave wrote: Well, I'm not saying it, but as far as I can read, PC 9.31 a.2 and 9.31 b.4. are saying it.
"9.31
(a) Except as povided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when.... [The use of force] is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
<snip>
(a.2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used and
...
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

You conveniently skipped:
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

Thus, verbal provocation does not legitimately provoke the use of force, and would not invoke (a)(2)

Good point. Just thinking this through out loud:
step 1: I yelled at someone (let's say)
step 2: they used force against me which was not justified by my verbal provocation alone
step 3: I used force against them which is justified by their use of force on me.

Hmm... I guess I'm sitting on maybe on that. Seems like their force was not *justified* by my verbal provocation, but maybe it could be ruled that I did still provoke them, in the merriam-webster sense (provoke: to incite to anger)? You may be right, but I'm not positive. Thanks for the insight.

And I didn't "conveniently" leave it out... I'm just not that smart.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

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.

Gotta tell you, I'm not feeling the love!

Just so as not to irritate (further) the original female poster with concerns of sexism, if I pull over to help you change your tire, please just inform me politely that you think I'm a sexist pig and I'll apologize and let you change your own tire without further interference. No harm, no foul. And I mean this without any sarcasm. I don't fully understand your point of view, but I will comply with your wishes in these kinds of matters.

aardwolf wrote:Are you really saying that if you yell at a panhandler he can physically assault you and you're not allowed to defend yourself?

Well, I'm not saying it, but as far as I can read, PC 9.31 a.2 and 9.31 b.4. are saying it.
"9.31
(a) Except as povided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when.... [The use of force] is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
<snip>
(a.2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used and
...
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
---
(b.4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(b.4.A) the actor abandons the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(b.4.B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(b.5)..."

Probably clearer to go read it in context, but that's the gist.

p.s. I've gotta find a PC source that I can copy and paste from!

p.p.s. So, I guess I'm not the only one that learned this from this thread!

mr.72 wrote:Here is the problem with this logic, Liberty-

The summary of most of the comments is like this:

<snip>
This whole situation is way too biased, and too many people are breaking their arms patting themselves on the back for how much better they are than the dad who was arguing with the coach. I can tell you from direct experience, arguing with the coach is routine in kids' sports, whether you want to admit it or not. Sure, maybe you are one of the parents who does not argue with the coach, and maybe you are right that the other parents shouldn't do it and it makes them look like a fool. But it still happens, with regularity, and people do it who are not cowardly jerks or otherwise those whom we can easily castigate. Most of the time they are just regular people who get too excited and emotional when they think their child has been treated unfairly, and most of the time they think the coach is the one on some kind of power trip trying to exercise some unfair advantage over certain kids for no good reason. Sometimes they are right, and the coach is the one who is the power-tripping jerk. So they get too excited and get in arguments, big deal?

I beg to disagree. I learned that if you start an argument, you have forfeited the right to defend yourself unless you first walk away from the encounter or at least announce that you intend to. That's very important, and I didn't know it before. I agree with the other poster that if we wait until all the data is in, we will never discuss these issues nor learn from them. In fact, ALL the facts are never known, not even by the jury, not by anyone... ever (excepting possibly one of the participants or another eye-witness if they saw it all, which is doubtful). So, I guess we should just close all threads and have no case studies in any field, because after all, we don't want to pre-judge anyone or speculate.

And I'd offer that if you are ripping on a coach of a kids sports team, maybe you should get a life. If they abuse or molest your kid, you should deal with them accordingly. On the other hand, if they have your kid playing outfield instead of pitcher when you KNOW your kid should be playing pitcher, you should shut up and get over it. If you don't like it, be the coach next year--there are always openings. Maybe the coach is on a power trip... so what? A power trip of making his kid the pitcher does not mean you should worsen the situation by showing your lack of ability to deal with the situation as an adult.

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.

Well, this is indeed an interesting thread. Since some are against jumping to conclusions, I'll state this as hypothetical based on the following assumptions:
1. The dad yelled at the coach using expletives and other improper language but no direct threat of bodily harm to the coach.
2. The husband responded to this attack by pushing the dad, without any preceding physical contact between the two (i.e. the dad did not chest bump the husband first)
3. The dad pulled the gun based on this push alone (i.e. no other punches were thrown nor did the husband break out a scythe or chain).
4. Before pulling the gun, the dad did not attempt to abandon the encounter.

Couple of points based on these assumptions, which are made just to provide a point of discussion, not to judge this case prematurely:
1. On a non-legal basis, the dad is an idiot and made several bad decisions in a row.
2. On a legal basis, I think the critical thing is the provocation. If he provoked, as some have pointed out, then he has given up his right to respond to force with the threat of deadly force (ref: pc 9.31 a.2 and b.4). If that is the case, it doesn't matter if the husband was 450 lbs and a trained death cage fighter, nor if the stands for the 8 yr old soccer match were as high as Kyle Field (hence those points are not covered in my assumptions). My reading of that portion says that if you start it, you have to b.4.A walk away or state your intention to walk away AND b.4.B: the other person has to continue to use unlawful force against you. Otherwise, you are not justified due to your original provocation--period. This is an extremely important point to consider for any CHL holder for all their breathing hours.

Merriam-webster.com defines "provoke" as "to arouse to a feeling or action" or "to incite to anger." Based on these definitions (don't know if there are others in TPC) and my assumptions, I'd say the dad did indeed "provoke" the attack.

3. I have also coached kids sports, and I disagree with the poster who said you should live with this stuff or not coach. I am extremely mild tempered and do put up with a lot from the parents. But, the organization, other parents, law enforcement, and others need to assist. If we expect that the coaches should be able to deal with this or not coach, kids sports are over in this country. I would not expect all other coaches to put up with as much stuff as I quietly absorbed. It's ridiculous.

4. Sooner or later, this stuff may go to jury trial. Points 1 and 3 and the general American experience at kids sports games will then wash over into the legal side through the humans on the jury. God help the CHL holder if one of those jurists is a former kids sports coach.

And finally, a response to the last post:

Russell wrote:

edmart001 wrote:<snip>
I am also struck by a point that I haven't noticed anyone pick up. That is apparently the CHL holder is 25 and a parent of a 7 or 8 year old. This means he had to have fathered the child at the ripe old age of between 16 and 18. It is not my place to judge, but knowing this does make me want to know more about this person's track record of making adult decisions as well as more detail about what happened on the day.

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 would, and so will many others. I dislike this line of logic every time I hear it. "If you have ever made a mistake, then you shouldn't criticize others for making a mistake, regardless of whether it's the same one, a larger mistake with more consequences, or whatever." The deal is, I would judge MY OWN character for making a multiple-life-impacting mistake like that, and it will also definitely affect my opinion of the character of others. In spite of urges or hormones or whatever, one should maintain a level of judgement so as not to screw up their own life, and by extension, society as a whole. Similarly, even when one wishes to beat the crap out of a moron for cussing out his wife at a kids sports game, he should instead show some restraint and go over and, in a calm and relatively polite voice, ask the person to leave the premises. It's not easy, it's not fun, but otherwise, we just turn into a pack of wild dogs and say in our own defense, "Well, did YOU ever make a mistake?"

Those are my thoughts. Sorry so long of a post. Would like to hear feedback from the experts on my thoughts on the provocation aspect trumping all other points. And I respect others' points of view and have tried to restrain myself from inflammatory words and language to keep this a nice civil discussion of a very important topic and situation. Sorry so long and thanks for the discussion.