TexasCHLforum.com

TrueFlog wrote:Here's a question... Let's say that you witness one of these events in progress and decide to intervene. (I'm not saying it's a good idea - just what-if.) It's not worth shooting the kid over a pair of jeans, so you tackle him and attempt to detain him. I believe you'd be within the law to do so - using non-lethal force to prevent theft. Most likely, his buddies are going to swarm on you, attacking you in a 10-on-1 beating. Fearing for your life, you draw and fire on the attackers. Would that be A) justified because of the disparity of force or B) unjustified because you initiated the confrontation by trying to detain the kid? I think we can all agree it would be a bad situation, but I'm curious as to the legal considerations.

As a CHL holders we've all decided to take responsibility for our own security and self-defense, so I'm puzzled.....why would a CHL holder risk financial ruin, prison, injury, or death, to protect some commercial operation from theft when they've obviously decided not to spend any of their own money on their own security? This isn't like coming to the aid of neighbor or an old lady in a parking lot. You're talking about a commercial enterprise that has decided it's cheaper to let people steal, rob, or murder, than to pay for the security required to prevent it. If it's a corporate operation they probably have policies that prohibit employees from even defending their lives. No one is providing free security for me and mine. If a store wants to prevent theft like this then they need to pay for the security they need to prevent it.