Pass/Fail

[gigag04]

I'll side with the "this is a non-issue crowd."

Here's why, FWIW....:

1. txinvestigator is the head instructor at a large training center in the metroplex. He's a former LEO, and works with LEOs daily. In my mind, He knows more than I do, and thus...I believe him when he says it is not a real concern.

2. Chaz is an attorney and follows SD issues routinely, as well as teaching on legal ramifications of such encounters. He, again, knows much more than I do on this topic, and thus, I believe him when he says it is not a big deal.

As far as this discussion, I consider these two gentlemen to be much more "in the know" on this subject than the rest of us. I don't want to get into a qualifications debate...I'm merely sharing why I trust the stance of these two.

To add some comic relief...I reflect back to an old school post on here about gmail, some of us just have our tin-foil hats on too tight

[GrillKing]

I'll side with the "this is a non-issue crowd."

Here's why, FWIW....:

1. txinvestigator is the head instructor at a large training center in the metroplex. He's a former LEO, and works with LEOs daily. In my mind, He knows more than I do, and thus...I believe him when he says it is not a real concern.

2. Chaz is an attorney and follows SD issues routinely, as well as teaching on legal ramifications of such encounters. He, again, knows much more than I do on this topic, and thus, I believe him when he says it is not a big deal.

+1

The postings of Chas and txinvestigator have helped me immensely in my developing my opinions on CHL related topics. For the very reasons giga04 describes...

Thanks!

Gary

[cxm]

Charles,

It was for the Rabbi...not for you... I know well you are an attorney from our previous interactions.

I must however, admit to being underwealmed by Ayoob.

I had not read your post when I wrote the reply... I guess I over edited the quote and took it all out of my post, and I see now it was unclear.

In general I agree with your points... the only exception being the question of hand loaded ammo... but I do recognize there are other views... just no cases to support a general condemnation of hand loads.

How about doing one of your classes here in Dallas?

Anyway, sorry for the unclear post.

Chuck

Chuck:
I'm not sure if this was for me, it I think it is.

I think you are way too wrapped around lawyer issues... have you been reading Ayoob lately?

I am an attorney and yes I have read Ayoob lately. I've seen nothing to indicate he has changed the position he has promoted for 20 years.

I'm not aware of any Texas cases that support your theories...

Two points. First, I said I didn't think this was an issue in Texas, except perhaps in Travis County, so the lack of any case on point supports my position on this issue.

Secondly, in Texas Courts, you won't see any opinions unless the case goes to the appellate court and 99% of cases never get there.

Being a good shot can also be a positive point... responsible enough to learn to shoot well so as to not endanger bystanders etc. etc.

I agree, otherwise my wife and I wouldn’t have taken more classes at Thunder Ranch than I can count. However, that's not the issue. The discussion revolved around the potential in some jurisdictions of having a prosecutor attempt to use such facts as advanced training against someone using deadly force to defend themself. As I said, I don't think this is an issue in Texas.

If you had been in one of my deadly force seminars you would have seen a segment on Myths & Urban Legends In that segment, we discuss unfounded concerns and false “common knowledge� that abounds relating to self-defense shootings.

I can't help but think you misread my post, as you and I seem to agree on every point you raised. The only exception may be on Ayoob's opinion about the likely aftermath of a self-defense shooting. Although you didn't say it, it appears that you feel Mas does not paint a bleak picture for someone shooting in self-defense. He clearly does and has for many years.

Regards,
Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Anyway, sorry for the unclear post.

Chuck

It was my fault, not yours. The more I read your post the clearer it is that you were not responding to mine. Sorry about that. I too feel like Ayoob's post-shooting predictions may be limited to certain northeastern jurisdictions, and of course California.

Regards,
Chas.

[txinvestigator]

Here is one that has sliped my mind and perhaps other Range Owners can chime in. It doesnt happen much but it happens. From time to time I get a call or a subpoena from a Lawyer that wants me to testify about a gun buyer or a shooter(This happens when there is a shooting). Among the things they want to know are how often they shoot and how good they were.

We don not keep records of such things, so it is a "I do not recall" situation. However they are persuing these courses of action. How much moreso if they had an actual record of their proficiency or lack of.

While others may disagree, That to me makes it not only very real, but seemingly common and not something to be dismissed.

Interesting. I have been at DFW for 3 years. The owner there for over 4, and some employees over 7. No one I asked recalls ever having been asked this question.

And back to the CHL issue of Pass Fail and it effecting the range or instructor. Even if Pass/Fail could be an issue for the student who was involved in a shooting, Instructors have legislative immunity for any civil action

Texas Government Code


Text
§411.208. Limitation of liability.

(a) A court may not hold the state, an agency or subdivision
of the state, an officer or employee of the state, a peace officer, or
a qualified handgun instructor liable for damages caused by:

(1) an action authorized under this subchapter or a failure
to perform a duty imposed by this subchapter; or

(2) the actions of an applicant or license holder that occur
after the applicant has received a license or been denied a license
under this subchapter.

(b) A cause of action in damages may not be brought against
the state, an agency or subdivision of the state, an officer or
employee of the state, a peace officer, or a qualified handgun
instructor for any damage caused by the actions of an applicant or
license holder under this subchapter.

[Rabbi]

Here is one that has sliped my mind and perhaps other Range Owners can chime in. It doesnt happen much but it happens. From time to time I get a call or a subpoena from a Lawyer that wants me to testify about a gun buyer or a shooter(This happens when there is a shooting). Among the things they want to know are how often they shoot and how good they were.

We don not keep records of such things, so it is a "I do not recall" situation. However they are persuing these courses of action. How much moreso if they had an actual record of their proficiency or lack of.

While others may disagree, That to me makes it not only very real, but seemingly common and not something to be dismissed.

Interesting. I have been at DFW for 3 years. The owner there for over 4, and some employees over 7. No one I asked recalls ever having been asked this question.

And back to the CHL issue of Pass Fail and it effecting the range or instructor. Even if Pass/Fail could be an issue for the student who was involved in a shooting, Instructors have legislative immunity for any civil action

Texas Government Code


Text
§411.208. Limitation of liability.

(a) A court may not hold the state, an agency or subdivision
of the state, an officer or employee of the state, a peace officer, or
a qualified handgun instructor liable for damages caused by:

(1) an action authorized under this subchapter or a failure
to perform a duty imposed by this subchapter; or

(2) the actions of an applicant or license holder that occur
after the applicant has received a license or been denied a license
under this subchapter.

(b) A cause of action in damages may not be brought against
the state, an agency or subdivision of the state, an officer or
employee of the state, a peace officer, or a qualified handgun
instructor for any damage caused by the actions of an applicant or
license holder under this subchapter.

Two thoughts, This would not apply to Federal cases and if they can show neglagence, a defence to prosecution doesnt hold much weight anymore.

Listen, You have your thoughts on this. You are sure of your position. I think there is cause for mine to be considered. Barrister Cotton had a good insight to this as well.

I have some people looking into any cases that have had something like this be an issue. They might take their time and I will let you know what they find if anything. Regardless of how anyone feels about this, That should be interesting.

So there we are.

[txinvestigator]

Unless a person you trained is a LEO and sued under color of authority how could it be a Federal case????

[Rabbi]

Unless a person you trained is a LEO and sued under color of authority how could it be a Federal case????

If territorial jurisdiction over a crime is Federal it is a Federal Case.

[cxm]

What in the wide world of sports does this mean????

Would you be so kind as to educate me and explain the issues involved in the Federal Government having jurisdiction in a shooting case?

Thanks

Chuck

Unless a person you trained is a LEO and sued under color of authority how could it be a Federal case????

If territorial jurisdiction over a crime is Federal it is a Federal Case.

[Rabbi]

What in the wide world of sports does this mean????

Would you be so kind as to educate me and explain the issues involved in the Federal Government having jurisdiction in a shooting case?

Thanks

Chuck

Unless a person you trained is a LEO and sued under color of authority how could it be a Federal case????

If territorial jurisdiction over a crime is Federal it is a Federal Case.

If the incedent takes place in a place that the Federal government has territorial jurisdictionand and it can be established that the state ceded its rights, it is a Federal Case.

In some cases, (but not all) this would include places such as Post offices, Railroad right of ways, federal public works projects. Federal Lands, Military bases, Federal Dams and so on.

[gigag04]

In some cases, (but not all) this would include places such as Post offices, Railroad right of ways, federal public works projects. Federal Lands, Military bases, Federal Dams and so on.

Post offices again...

If there is a CHL shooting in a post office, military base or something like that....you have more problems than how they qualified. Why are they carrying there?

-nick

[Rabbi]

In some cases, (but not all) this would include places such as Post offices, Railroad right of ways, federal public works projects. Federal Lands, Military bases, Federal Dams and so on.

Post offices again...

If there is a CHL shooting in a post office, military base or something like that....you have more problems than how they qualified. Why are they carrying there?

-nick

United States v. Tucker, 122 F. 518 (W.D.Ky. 1903), a case involving an assault committed at a federal dam, jurisdiction was sustained by finding that the U.S. owned the property in question and the state involved had ceded jurisdiction.

Just one example. Now I have no Idea where a federal dam is in Texas. Perhaps something like Canyon Lake damn in Canyon Lake texas. It is run by the Army corps of engineers? so who knows.

[gigag04]

(W.D.Ky. 1903)

1903....this has got be a joke?

It was a good convo to get me thinking but....I think it has run its course on this one.

vote: lock

[Rabbi]

(W.D.Ky. 1903)

1903....this has got be a joke?

It was a good convo to get me thinking but....I think it has run its course on this one.

vote: lock

Uh, you do realize that it is cases like this that establish the fact of what is Federal Jurasdiction? Lock it because you made a statement and I brought up a a scenerio with case law that could effect us all that probably has not be brought up?

Listen, if you think it is far fetched, fine, If you are not going to worry about it that is great as well, but it is these kinds of topics that might lead to people learning something, and at this point I am trying to make that someone me.

[cxm]

BALDERDASH!! Utter Balderdash!

I have it figured out now... this is a joke... everyone is supposed to be laughing...

Right?

Chuck

(W.D.Ky. 1903)

Uh, you do realize that it is cases like this that establish the fact of what is Federal Jurasdiction? Lock it because you made a statement and I brought up a a scenerio with case law that could effect us all that probably has not be brought up?

Listen, if you think it is far fetched, fine, If you are not going to worry about it that is great as well, but it is these kinds of topics that might lead to people learning something, and at this point I am trying to make that someone me.