Denison, TX CHL helps disarm/capture BG who stabbed gal.

[surprise_i'm_armed]

http://www.kxii.com/news/headlines/Byst ... 71206.html

The above incident happend in Denison, Grayson County, Texas. This is the Lake Texoma area where
the northern border of Texas is defined by the Red River.

A woman had been stabbed by a man. Spectators got involved, including a CHL who grabbed his handgun
and went to her aid. Luckily for everyong involved the man with the knife had a bum leg and wasn't too spry.

But if he had been a younger man he could have been quite lethal to a lot of people.

In this case the CHL didn't fire a shot, but he was ready to prevent this woman, or any other person, from
being harmed further.

SIA

[RPB]

Good story I hadn't heard about, thanks

[surprise_i'm_armed]

"Yaw wekkum", as my South Carolina ex-Marine boss used to say. :-)

SIA

[AEA]

That was up in my area! No,......wasn't me or the guy would have been DOA!

[2farnorth]

Interesting. I just watched it at 9:25 pm and there was no mention of a CHL or gun involved?!! Has the story been scrubbed?

[AEA]

Quote from the OP Link:

It was a typical Monday afternoon for John Polonchak until someone ran into his automotive store saying a woman had just been stabbed.

"I had a concealed carry permit so I grabbed my weapon, ran down the road, saw a man down the street waving a bowie knife around chasing people," he said.

Polonchak, along with several bystanders rushed to the woman's aid and worked to disarm the man.

"I kicked the knife out of his hand, kicked him in the face, pinned him to the ground and some other people helped me hold him there til the cops got there," he said.

[57Coastie]

That was up in my area! No,......wasn't me or the guy would have been DOA!

Prosecutors and antis love statements like this, as it can be so easily argued that here we have an admission that the difference between the non-deadly termination of a threat and an unnecessary deadly shooting is demonstrated. I wouldn't want to be hauled up before a grand jury, even in Texas, if I had caused that death and (I stress) there was an issue as to the legitimacy of the shooting. My attitude if I ever fell into such a situation would clearly be shown by showing this posting to the Grand Jury.

"Shoot to kill, then sort it out later."

Reminds me of my advice earlier on the forum, that we should always assume that the whole world will read our postings. Likewise for e-mails.

Jim

[AEA]

That was up in my area! No,......wasn't me or the guy would have been DOA!

Prosecutors and antis love statements like this, as it can be so easily argued that here we have an admission that the difference between the non-deadly termination of a threat and an unnecessary deadly shooting is demonstrated. I wouldn't want to be hauled up before a grand jury, even in Texas, if I had caused that death and (I stress) there was an issue as to the legitimacy of the shooting. My attitude if I ever fell into such a situation would clearly be shown by showing this posting to the Grand Jury.

"Shoot to kill, then sort it out later."

Reminds me of my advice earlier on the forum, that we should always assume that the whole world will read our postings. Likewise for e-mails.

Jim

Shooting to stop a Felony Assault with a deadly weapon in progress would no doubt be no-billed by a Grand Jury in Texas. I would not be worried.

[baldeagle]

They never fail to include the "people shouldn't get involved, they could get hurt" mantra. {{{sigh}}} Thank God for the good men and women in law enforcement (not the bad ones!) but they simply can't be everywhere. Basically what they're recommending is let the women die while you wait for LE to arrive.

[57Coastie]

Shooting to stop a Felony Assault with a deadly weapon in progress would no doubt be no-billed by a Grand Jury in Texas. I would not be worried.

I neither stated nor implied anything to the contrary in my post. Notwithstanding explicitly stressing and underlining some words, they have of course been ignored.

This response to my post reinforces the point I was trying, unsuccessfully, I see, to make. It was intended as helpful advice to members of this forum.

And I stand by that advice.

Jim

[2farnorth]

Quote from the OP Link:

It was a typical Monday afternoon for John Polonchak until someone ran into his automotive store saying a woman had just been stabbed.

"I had a concealed carry permit so I grabbed my weapon, ran down the road, saw a man down the street waving a bowie knife around chasing people," he said.

Polonchak, along with several bystanders rushed to the woman's aid and worked to disarm the man.

"I kicked the knife out of his hand, kicked him in the face, pinned him to the ground and some other people helped me hold him there til the cops got there," he said.

Okay.. Sorry. Didn't read the story. Just watched the video. It didn't mention weapon or chl

[Valor]

Shooting to stop a Felony Assault with a deadly weapon in progress would no doubt be no-billed by a Grand Jury in Texas. I would not be worried.

I neither stated nor implied anything to the contrary in my post. Notwithstanding explicitly stressing and underlining some words, they have of course been ignored.

This response to my post reinforces the point I was trying, unsuccessfully, I see, to make. It was intended as helpful advice to members of this forum.

And I stand by that advice.

Jim

I'm in agreement with your original post. Until one is drug through the legal process, they may not understand the profoundness of "every word you say can and will be held against you in the court of law..." . Many believe there is full anonymity via message boards with aliases. Such statements as, "If that would have been me they would have been dead!", can and may be used to show one to be a cold blood premeditated killer and was looking for a reason to shoot someone. Heck, the infamous Florida shooting should be proof of that. See how they pulled up Zimmerman's Myspace account in an attempt to paint him a racist! So yeah, keep admitting in a public, even privately, that you would have "killed" someone, regardless of a felony defense. The point, do not make your legal team job more challenging than it already may be. "Before his downfall a man's heart is proud, but humility comes before honor." Proverbs 18:12

[Jaguar]

I'm in agreement with your original post. Until one is drug through the legal process, they may not understand the profoundness of "every word you say can and will be held against you in the court of law..." .

Don't forget, "nothing you say to the police can be used to help you in a court of law..." that would be hearsay.

[57Coastie]

I'm in agreement with your original post. Until one is drug through the legal process, they may not understand the profoundness of "every word you say can and will be held against you in the court of law..." .

Don't forget, "nothing you say to the police can be used to help you in a court of law..." that would be hearsay.

Likewise, as your signature tells me you know, Jaguar, in some, if not most, U. S. jurisdictions, bringing in a self-serving statement by the defendant can be considered a waiver of his 5th Amendment rights, making him subject to cross-examination, in which case he might be compelled (through the contempt-power of the judge) to be subject to cross, or, should he refuse to be crossed, his silence may be held against him.

As it has been well-put, "the 5th Amendment is a shield, not a sword."

Jim

[Heartland Patriot]

You know what else I've heard? That if you carry hand-loaded defensive ammunition, they'll use that to show you were being "malicious" about it, even if its loaded to factory specs...AND, I also heard that if you use hollow-point ammunition, they'll use that to show you wanted to cause "horrifying wounds" because you WANTED to "do someone in"...yep, I've heard those things...however, does anyone have any case law from the State of Texas to back up either one of those items I mentioned I heard OR them using someone's message board statements against them? I'm always curious about these things, its why I ask...