TexasCHLforum.com

mr.72 wrote:

Liberty wrote: To not not discuss these incidents is to overlook realistic scenarios and understandings on just how things can go wrong. If any of us ever find ourselves in the position of any of the these 3 major players perhaps we might have learned something from this to prevent things from going as wrong as they did here.

Here is the problem with this logic, Liberty-

The summary of most of the comments is like this:

1. The father, who was initially "yelling at the coach", is a complete jerk, a coward, an idiot, etc. You cannot learn from his behavior because these judgments only serve to separate his actions from those of normal people. So nobody on this forum is saying to themselves, "you know, I'm also a complete jerk, a coward, and an idiot. I should learn something from this situation". Instead everyone is saying, "oh I would never get into that situation, because unlike this guy, I am not a complete jerk, a coward, and an idiot".

2. The husband, who "shoved" the father, was justly defending his wife who was being mercilessly verbally abused by this cowardly jerk. Nevermind that his actions were not justified by law clearly by any of the evidence that has been made public, or that this same prejudice against the cowardly jerk seems to have permeated even the law enforcement people on the scene so the guy who actually committed an assault did not get charged (yet). So the normal, prejudice and assumption based position here only teaches us the lesson of "we can break the law sometimes by assaulting someone and get away with it, as long as we are defending a helpless woman, and the other guy happens to be a cowardly jerk". This is not the kind of lesson we need to be learning.

Anyway if the dad was such a coward, then the woman didn't need any help defending herself.

This whole situation is way too biased, and too many people are breaking their arms patting themselves on the back for how much better they are than the dad who was arguing with the coach. I can tell you from direct experience, arguing with the coach is routine in kids' sports, whether you want to admit it or not. Sure, maybe you are one of the parents who does not argue with the coach, and maybe you are right that the other parents shouldn't do it and it makes them look like a fool. But it still happens, with regularity, and people do it who are not cowardly jerks or otherwise those whom we can easily castigate. Most of the time they are just regular people who get too excited and emotional when they think their child has been treated unfairly, and most of the time they think the coach is the one on some kind of power trip trying to exercise some unfair advantage over certain kids for no good reason. Sometimes they are right, and the coach is the one who is the power-tripping jerk. So they get too excited and get in arguments, big deal?

KBCraig wrote: In this case, the speculations and assumptions are being used to support preconceived notions, not to help arrive at the truth.

We are not the jurors, but we are the public. You know, those folks from whom jurors are drawn. Words have a way of getting repeated, and of creating a lasting influence in people's minds.

Do you really want potential jurors being influenced by the idea that the CHL in this case is automatically wrong? Just because "everyone knows" that being a soccer dad means he must have been cursing and threatening, and the coach's husband could not possibly have been in the wrong in any way?

Whether or not any potential jurors read this forum isn't the point. The point is, reputation spreads, and the rampant projection and speculation about people with real names, amounts to sullying their reputations.

KBCraig wrote: I hate to see threads locked, but I think it's almost time for this one to be placed on probation until more facts come out.

Keith B wrote: One thing everyone here (including me) has been doing to this point is assuming. Without the details, statements from the parties involved, witnesses, etc. we really know NOTHING. We also do not know how the legal/court system will play this out with any testimonies at the hearing and/or trial.

Best thing we can do now is sit back and wait for more information and see how this turns out for all parties involved.

barres wrote:We're all just speculating right now.

If Burke was not making threats to the coach, then the husband was not justified in his use of force (shove) on Burke. I believe I learned on this forum recently that the display of a firearm (threat of Deadly Force) is justified if the use of force is justified, yes? The husband's unlawful use of force could be met with a lawful use of force, could it not? The pistol was not used, so deadly force was not used by Burke, only the threat of Deadly Force. The police arrested the man with the pistol to let the DA/judge/jury sort it out.
.