TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:I have a LTC to protect me and mine. If in the course of protecting me and mine I can assist you and yours, I will. As someone said above, a LTC is not a LEO.

Do I take it from your statement that you feel only a LEO has a duty to protect innocent people? I haven't worn a badge in many years, but I still have a Christian duty and a moral duty not to stand by and do nothing.

I realize that others disagree and that's their decision to make. They make great New Yorkers and I pray my family is never in need in front of such people.
Chas.

As a rehabilitated New Yorker (escaped when I was 17), I laughed out loud in agreement, reading that over breakfast this morning.

There are some good folks in NY, but most of them live too close to Canada for my liking. Brrr.

My apologies to my enlightened and reformed New Yorker friend.

Chas.

PS: As a New Yorker, you probably know the incident that was the basis of my comment. Sadly, as time passes, fewer and fewer people do.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:I have a LTC to protect me and mine. If in the course of protecting me and mine I can assist you and yours, I will. As someone said above, a LTC is not a LEO.

Do I take it from your statement that you feel only a LEO has a duty to protect innocent people? I haven't worn a badge in many years, but I still have a Christian duty and a moral duty not to stand by and do nothing.

I realize that others disagree and that's their decision to make. They make great New Yorkers and I pray my family is never in need in front of such people.
Chas.

Sec. 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;

(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and

(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.