TexasCHLforum.com

03Lightningrocks wrote:

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.

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.

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.

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:I agree with 03Lightningrocks the dude thinks his having a gun makes him a man. He is nothing but a coward with a gun and thats a scary thing.

And what facts do you have to back this up? It's already been stated that this altercation appears to have taken place in the stands. And as already noted, it doesn't take much to lose your footing and take a tumble. A shove could certainly have given the guy a fear for his life or bodily harm. Now, I'm not saying that is what happened, but it certainly is possible. But making blanket statements like you are doing without all of the facts is the 'scary thing'. I for one will wait for all of the facts before making any character judgments.

This will be an interesting case. And I will say that the guy was a bonehead for drawing. However, if I'm reading this right, Burke had an argument with the woman coach. When her husband came into it, that resulted in a second seperate conflict that was initiated by the husband (not saying if his intervention was warranted or not). He then physically assaulted Burke by pushing him. So the husband initiated the second argument AND initiated the assault. From a legal standpoint, I can see Burke being justified. Not nesessarily right, but legally justified. But I'm no lawyer, so we will have to wait and see on this one. It's one of those deals where on one hand you want to see the guy roast, but not at the expence of the legal right to defend yourself.