TexasCHLforum.com

JayCee wrote:...too many episodes of Walker: Texas Ranger...

Sure, I do enjoy debating issues but that doesn't mean I'm discounting the information or the sources. Aren't public forums for debating?

So let me propose this question: what would a cop do if someone did to them what was done to me? Why is the protocol different just because I'm a civilian? What if you were walking down the street and someone tried to run you over could you draw on them? Why or why not?

1. You didn't just insult Chuck Norris, did you? Man, the boogeyman is afraid of Chuck Norris. That's like a death wish! "Take a nap, JayCee."

2. Dialog, discussion, research, and debate. Debate is included, but not exclusive.

3a. He'd call for backup and take evasive maneuvers. I can't imagine an officer ever, ever, ever shooting from his vehicle moving at highway speeds at another vehicle moving at highway speeds, much less on a crowded highway. Any who were dumb enough to do so would be rightly ridiculed and sanctioned. It seems the protocol is quite the same for you, despite LEO having a much larger breadth of experience, knowledge, and legal abilities than civilians.

3b. You were a motorist who was behind the wheel of a deadly weapon and means of escape who was legally obligated to yield to those at your left and to merge behind if necessary and as able. But you revved up your little sports car and cut off a truck who was moving with the flow of traffic and had no obligation to alter his speed or course for you, thus ticking off the truck driver, then you threatened him with the use of deadly force by intentionally displaying a firearm in order to threaten and scare him. There are so many things wrong with this scenario on its own (meaning illegal acts by you creating and escalating the conflict) that comparing it to an innocent civilian wandering down the street and having a motorist try to run the person over for no reason is a disingenuous comparison at best.

Oldgringo wrote:

Excaliber wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

Excaliber wrote:Ladies and gentlemen of the Forum, it would appear that our repeated good faith attempts to generously share the best fruits of our knowledge and experience in this thread are falling on deaf ears.

It is clear at this point that the OP is not posting to enhance his own knowledge or to contribute to ours, but merely to stir up controversy and insult those of us who tried to help in the hope of getting our gentle folk to say something uncivil or contrary to law so he could use it for whatever purpose he has in mind.

The commonsense rule we're all familiar with is that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it's a pretty good bet it's a duck. I think the same type of analysis is applicable to trolls, and by that standard, I don't think there's much reason to doubt that's what we're looking at here, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

Whether that is in fact actually the case or not is irrelevant at this point. A wise man once said that it is unproductive to engage in a battle of wits with the unarmed. I think it would be appropriate to apply that rule here.

Yes, there was also an old adage advising against getting in er,...uh, I forget, ...it was some sort of a contest with a skunk. Somebody help me to remember.

Was it one of these?:


"A bulldog can whip a skunk, but sometimes it's not worth it."

"What kills a skunk is the publicity it gives itself."

"Sometimes when you get in a fight with a skunk, after a certain point, you can't tell who started it."

Close, but no cigar. "...don't get in a p******g contest with a skunk..."

I thought that one ended with "with a drunk."

I guess I misheard that one!

Oldgringo wrote:

Excaliber wrote:Ladies and gentlemen of the Forum, it would appear that our repeated good faith attempts to generously share the best fruits of our knowledge and experience in this thread are falling on deaf ears.

It is clear at this point that the OP is not posting to enhance his own knowledge or to contribute to ours, but merely to stir up controversy and insult those of us who tried to help in the hope of getting our gentle folk to say something uncivil or contrary to law so he could use it for whatever purpose he has in mind.

The commonsense rule we're all familiar with is that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it's a pretty good bet it's a duck. I think the same type of analysis is applicable to trolls, and by that standard, I don't think there's much reason to doubt that's what we're looking at here, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

Whether that is in fact actually the case or not is irrelevant at this point. A wise man once said that it is unproductive to engage in a battle of wits with the unarmed. I think it would be appropriate to apply that rule here.

Yes, there was also an old adage advising against getting in er,...uh, I forget, ...it was some sort of a contest with a skunk. Somebody help me to remember.

I know two about pigs (don't wrestle with a pig... and don't cast pearls before swine...) but I don't know any about skunks.

Some of the respondents on this thread include law enforcement--the people who will make the front-line decision on if your show of force was justified.

I think the question is a valid one and don't fault you at all for asking it. However, it seems to me that when you got respectfully worded responses which said this is not the best course of action from people who regularly carry, who have many years of experience driving next to the types of crazies you encountered, and some of them work in law enforcement, that you threw their answers aside and decided you're gonna do what you're gonna do anyway. I hope I misread your responses because that attitude says that you aren't willing to learn and only want an excuse to show off. That kind of attitude mixed with a hot rod, young man, and a gun is a recipe for disaster. And you wouldn't need to go looking for it--as you're all too aware, it has a way of finding us whether we're looking for it or not.