TexasCHLforum.com

speedsix wrote:...I'm really surprised at the number of folks here who think she did no wrong by correcting strangers in public when she wasn't in a position of authority to do so...that's arrogant and confrontational to do...we shouldn't go round trying to enforce ANY law, even littering(which, by the way, occurred on private property...a civil matter, not a crime, unless the McD's reported it...)unless we have in our pocket or pinned on our shirt the proper answer to the obvious question: "Who are YOU to tell ME what to do?" which you can reasonably expect the "perp" to ask you...if you seriously think you're going to accomplish a positive change by berating a litterbug...go for it...I'm going to go call a broker and invest in Band-Aid stock...
...those of you who think she did well...I hope you don't ever talk yourselves INTO a situation where you have to use your gun...you may find that the cops, the DA, the judge, and the jury had mothers like mine...who taught their children to MYOB...instead of going round telling folks what to do...

I don't think she did "wrong," and I don't think you really do either....she made have made a mistake....but doing "wrong" to me suggests an act that is unethical or immoral, some unacceptable infringement on the rights of others. Someone may tell me my music is too loud, to watch my language, or it's rude to wear a hat in the building, etc, and I may resent it and think they're busybodies that need to mind their own business....I might even say so in response, but such remarks are not provocation....which the courts have traditionally referred to as "fighting words," and they are not justification for me to throw objects or punches.

I agree that there is a certain amount of arrogance in attempting to correct some stranger in public and the natural response is to think "who are YOU to tell me what to do," but I also think someone who merely calls out some for littering, foul language, or whatever, should be able to make their comment without fearing a beat down. I don't have a right to act however I want in public and be free from criticism, and in fact, I think people acting out in public should expect criticism, instead of those calling them out expecting a beat down. As irritating as it may be to get called out for misbehaving in public, it's a much healthier society where that is the expectation, and beat downs for it are not tolerated.

However, I realize that our society has long passed that healthy point and is in descent, so personally, I would keep my mouth shut.

mamabearCali wrote:

speedsix wrote:...you could take the same pose about speeders...or shoplifters...and get maybe even more exciting results...there are people to report criminals to who are paid to deal with them...and that's our business...reporting them...mouthing off to a stranger in public is not...she provoked the beating...

mamabearCali wrote:The definition of provoked is becoming less and less and less. It used to mean if you went up to someone and called them dirty names and told them about their momma--that was provoking. Now saying "thats not cool" to people throwing trash on the ground is "provoking" and can justify a beating? REALLY?!? Cause if that is the case then teachers the world over provoke people when they tell kids to pick up their trash. If this continues we are going to end up at a place where simply being somewhere is considered "provoking" and justifies a beating.

That place is called the UK, and yes, we're headed there ourselves. It's a class thing. If you littered and were corrected by an eco-Nazi and reacted the same way, you'd be guilty of assault because telling you "that's not cool" wouldn't be provocation. However, those deemed to be in the underclass are victims of society, IOW --people like you and me-- so any criticism, actual, suggested, implied, or just so interpreted by them, that comes from people like us, is provocation, and justifies whatever they do. Just like Mr. Martin being in whatever way considered suspicious by Mr. Zimmerman justifies Mr. Martin administering a beat-down.

philip964 wrote:http://www.wtsp.com/news/watercooler/ar ... drive-thru

She made the mistake of pointing out littering. So if she was a CHL and defended herself with her gun would she be in Zimmerman's shoes.

Yes, she would be --at least if the lefties decided to make a cause celebre out of it. She's obviously a racist, and further more, just because the male (whose race won't be mentioned) called her a White "B...." doesn't mean it's a hate crime, although, her provocative call out of the alleged litterer may indeed be a hate crime. And anyway, how was this an assault.....all these people did was vigorously exercise their free speech rights and share a soft drink with her.