TexasCHLforum.com

Abraham wrote:"And an LEO has no duty to protect you says the Supreme Court"

But you do?

No.

Abraham wrote:I do?

No.

Abraham wrote:By virtue of getting a CHL, one adopts the mantle of righting violent wrongs wherever they announce themselves?

That's a mischaracterization of the discussion. We're not talking about "righting violent wrongs wherever they announce themselves". We're talking about being confronted with a violent situation and making decisions based upon the elements of that confrontation.

In point of fact, the genesis of this discussion was whether or not the actions of the store clerk were right or wrong. Your contention was that he should not have re-entered the store since it wasn't his duty to do so. The opposing contention is that we have a moral duty as human beings that transcends any legal duty we might think we have. That moral duty compels us to intervene in those situations where we are confronted with a choice to act. How we choose to act speaks volumes about our moral compass.

Abraham wrote:Go through the effort of getting a CHL and I now have the burden of protecting one and all?

Absolutely not. Again, you're mischaracterizing the discussion.

Abraham wrote:Do I have that right?

You do not. You have grossly mischaracterized the opposing view.

Abraham wrote:baldeagle,

I understand under certain circumstances an armed response by a CHLer may very well be legal, but that's one very big, circumstantial step.

As an example, you see someone you're certain is a victim and go charging in with your gun drawn and it turns out he/she is the perpetrator. There are endless varieties of ways this type of things can go wrong for you when you step up to the plate, absolutely certain you're doing the right thing.

Say goodbye to your freedom and welcome to financial ruin.

Me, I'm defending myself and my loved ones only.

There isn't a lot of ambiguity when an armed robber walks into your store and points his gun at the manager.

Abraham wrote:Being armed or having access to a gun doesn't make us LEO's.

I will defend myself and my loved ones, but I'm not going to put myself in harm's way for you or your property.

Am I uncaring or in some way wrong for my personal mind-set?

I don't think so.

Some of use with CHLs need to think very carefully about what possessing a CHL means.

Really? What does this section of the penal code mean?

Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:

(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and

(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

You certainly have the right to choose to not intervene, but the law specifically states that your intervention, should you choose to do it, is justified.

So what exactly is it that you want us to think about regarding possessing a CHL?

jayinsat wrote:

“I waited for him to go up toward the front, I ran out of the restroom, ran out to my truck where I keep my own personal weapon, grabbed my weapon, came back into the store and confronted the guy,” says McClean.

I agree that Autozone is stupid to fire the guy. I also think the guy was stupid for running out and getting his gun and then running back in the store to confront the bg. That could've ended very badly. I agree with sneaking out, calling to cops while getting your stuff and, if you hear gunfire or notice physical abuse (pistol whipping,etc), going back in. So many liablility issues

Just my thoughts.

So you would wait until someone was hurt before taking action? Isn't that a rather selfish approach?

As soon as the robber walks in brandishing a gun, the lives of everyone in that store are in danger. His store manager certainly thought so:

Devin’s manager was grateful.

“He was like “Thank you Devin, you really saved my life,” says Mclean.

Granted, as a civilian, you have no duty to act, but as a human being, it seems the right thing to do.

I especially liked his take in this article:

“Working for AutoZone, I don’t think I could do it anymore looking at their morals and their values, obviously they are not valuing someone’s life,” says Mclean.

Bingo! That's exactly the right thing to say.