TexasCHLforum.com

Shame on you, Houston Chronicle!

http://www.chron.com/news/local_news/ar ... 060598.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Most CHL holders are busy, responsible, and productive citizens, and I'm surprised that they would spend their time in Black Friday lines.

Also, a CHL is supposed to make extra efforts to avoid trouble, which Black Friday has a reputation for.

Love how the media slants stories to be anti-gun. The aggressor should have been arrested. Too bad the CHL holder didn't pepperspray the guy.

jayinsat wrote:Love how the media slants stories to be anti-gun. The aggressor should have been arrested. Too bad the CHL holder didn't peppersprayed.

Good argument for why a CHL should also have less-lethal options available.

I don't know that I would have drawn in this situation, unless the "rabble-rouser" was much bigger and younger than I, and appeared determined to press his attack.
A taser might have been a good option here.
That said, the story had a proper ending, no charges filed, trouble-maker altered his behavior.

Other than people being all panicky about guns, a displayed weapon is less of a hazard than use of a Taser or pepper spray.

The Chron is toning down their anti-gun stance... I was expecting the title to be something like "Deranged CHL holder threatens hundreds of innocent shoppers with Assault Weapon"

It sounds like the CHL holder was raising hell about a guy cutting in line.
While I'm glad it turned out the way it did I don't think I would have been the one in line to confront a
"line Cutter" if I was carrying. (and I always am)
Glad no charges were pressed. Glad the CHL holder didn't point the gun at the line cutter.

They said the gun was confiscated, wonder if he got it back (since they admit he didn't break any laws).

sjfcontrol wrote:They said the gun was confiscated, wonder if he got it back (since they admit he didn't break any laws).

Probably not [yet].

http://www.kens5.com/news/Man-pulls-gun ... 1.html?c=e

yeh, looks like he got his gun back.

from what they're reporting here, locally...he didn't point the gun at the guy, he pointed it at the floor, basically saying "I have a gun, you want to stop now" I don't like that, but I guess giving the bully guy a chance isn't a bad idea, and keeps you from shooting a guy and 'filling out the paperwork' as I say.

That's the second report I've read where they said the gun had a single bullet in the chamber... How many bullets do they normally find in the chamber?

After being physically assaulted the CHL was well within his legal rights to defend himself. Remember a fist can be just as deadly as a gun. If I were assaulted like that you can bet your boots I would have presented my gun. From the story it sounds like the puncher was the aggressor.

I don't know if the the puncher started it or not....from the local reports, the "puncher" was cutting in line, but the "gun guy" then started pushing him back....now, if "our" job is to de-escalate a situation, shoving an already aggressive guy isn't the way to do it...so then the "puncher" punched and then the "gun guy" pulled. that's the way I piece it together with all of the news articles online and on TV.
understand they are being quite clear that he did nothing illegal. They are saying he scared alot of people.

and I'm not saying he did anything wrong, if I'm punched in the face, I'm pulling....well, I'm probably unconscious, but if I'm awake, I'm pulling
I guess what I'm saying is maybe the "gun guy" could have possibly prevented it from reaching the "gun" point? I don't know?

SewTexas wrote:....now, if "our" job is to de-escalate a situation, ...

This is one of those cases where wisdom and common sense happen to intersect and tell us that de-escalation is the wisest course.

However, I'll also note that the self defense statutes do not require de-escalation, per se. They simply require that the person defending himself did not provoke the person against whom the force was used.

There is a difference between what is prudent versus the strict letter of the law.

Jumping Frog wrote:

SewTexas wrote:....now, if "our" job is to de-escalate a situation, ...

This is one of those cases where wisdom and common sense happen to intersect and tell us that de-escalation is the wisest course.

However, I'll also note that the self defense statutes do not require de-escalation, per se. They simply require that the person defending himself did not provoke the person against whom the force was used.

There is a difference between what is prudent versus the strict letter of the law.

It sure did stop the angry shopper. I wonder if it will have a permanent effect on him before he flies off the handle again. Or should I say prevents him from flying off the handle again?