Soccer dad pulls gun on coach's husband - Lubbock

[03Lightningrocks]

I agree with 03Lightningrocks the dude thinks his having a gun makes him a man. He is nothing but a coward with a gun and thats a scary thing.

And what facts do you have to back this up? It's already been stated that this altercation appears to have taken place in the stands. And as already noted, it doesn't take much to lose your footing and take a tumble. A shove could certainly have given the guy a fear for his life or bodily harm. Now, I'm not saying that is what happened, but it certainly is possible. But making blanket statements like you are doing without all of the facts is the 'scary thing'. I for one will wait for all of the facts before making any character judgments.

Through Out the days of all man kind, it is and always has been instinct for men to protect their women. Through Out the days of all man kind, it has been unacceptable for a man to instigate an attack on a woman. I pray to god that chivalry is not dead. I deduced the man to be a coward based on the fact that only a coward would verbally assault a woman. I deduced the man to be a coward based on the fact that he pulled a gun on a person he knew, not some random assailant, over a simple push. If he really feared for his life over a push....LOL...that is even more reason to believe him to be a coward.

We have all watched the irate parent act like a darned fool at our kids sporting events. Many of us had an urge to slap the loud mouth down. Letter of the law or not, this will help garner a conviction if this goes to trial. many of the folks sitting on that jury are going to question the mentality of a person who would start an assault and then pull a gun on a person who simply shoved him away. More speculation on my part, but I wonder if the pistolaro was advancing on the husband with his chest all puffed out.

I am aware that the technicalities of the law are quite a different issue than my moral beliefs about having manners and living in civilization.

[mr.72]

The thing that's wrong is your analysis of both events and the forum members response to both. Your generalization is both inaccurate and unfair.

Chas.

Sorry to disagree, Charles.

I think in both cases, it was on the margin of being legal, and in both cases the action of the shooter or would-be shooter were unwise even if barely justified.

[03Lightningrocks]

The thing that's wrong is your analysis of both events and the forum members response to both. Your generalization is both inaccurate and unfair.

Chas.

Sorry to disagree, Charles.

I think in both cases, it was on the margin of being legal, and in both cases the action of the shooter or would-be shooter were unwise even if barely justified.

The part of Charles post I took to mean inacurate and unfair was the part where you generalized how we all saw each event. I for one, was not an advocate of J.H.'s actions any more than I am an advocate of this persons actions.

[Charles L. Cotton]

The thing that's wrong is your analysis of both events and the forum members response to both. Your generalization is both inaccurate and unfair.

Chas.

Sorry to disagree, Charles.

I think in both cases, it was on the margin of being legal, and in both cases the action of the shooter or would-be shooter were unwise even if barely justified.

My disagreement with your statement applies to your statement that "For example, as a group, we seem to think . . ." The opinions of TexasCHLforum members could be found on both sides of both of the two issues. Some people thought Joe Horn was a hero, some thought he should have been prosecuted and some thought what he did was legal, but his 911 tape was foolish.

As for this incident, opinions are all over the board again with most people thinking we don't yet have enough information.

Chas.

[flb_78]

From what I've read, the CHL is in the wrong. Im sure he wasn't yelling at the coach without using vulgar language.

I don't care if the husband stepped in and became involved. The CHL still started the situation.

I eagerly await for more details, but from what I've read, this guy should be up thug creek without a paddle.

[mr.72]

OK, I stand corrected.

[KBCraig]

The fool that endangered people was the husband who escalated the conflict.

I don't know that I agree the husband is a fool. Men protecting women has been going on a long time and I hope it continues. It is instinct to protect your own. Putting myself in the husbands position, I would not just sit there and allow some guy to hurl insults and berate my wife without intervening.

No one would expect any husband to put up with that without intervening, but he became a fool the moment he laid his hands on someone else over mere words.

[KBCraig]

I deduced the man to be a coward based on the fact that only a coward would verbally assault a woman.

You assume that's what he did. Tell me, what did he say to her? What words did he use? Or, are you assuming what he might have said?

I deduced the man to be a coward based on the fact that he pulled a gun on a person he knew, not some random assailant, over a simple push.

You assume he knew the man.
You assume it was a simple push.

If he really feared for his life over a push....LOL...that is even more reason to believe him to be a coward.

Again, you assume that it was a simple push.
It was reported that they were in the stands. How big were the stands? How far off the ground? How crowded? Could he have retreated, to deescalate the situation, whether or not there is a duty to retreat? Or was he trapped there?
Was there a size disparity? Does he have physical limitations that we can't know by seeing a mugshot?
What was the husband saying when he initiated the argument? Was he uttering threats? Promising bodily injury or death? Was he visibly enraged?
How sudden was the assault? Did he come charging over screaming and shoving, or had they been standing face to face while arguing?

If you can't answer these questions, then you shouldn't assume where to assign cowardice and honor between these two.

[03Lightningrocks]

I deduced the man to be a coward based on the fact that only a coward would verbally assault a woman.

You assume that's what he did. Tell me, what did he say to her? What words did he use? Or, are you assuming what he might have said?

I deduced the man to be a coward based on the fact that he pulled a gun on a person he knew, not some random assailant, over a simple push.

You assume he knew the man.
You assume it was a simple push.

If he really feared for his life over a push....LOL...that is even more reason to believe him to be a coward.

Again, you assume that it was a simple push.
It was reported that they were in the stands. How big were the stands? How far off the ground? How crowded? Could he have retreated, to deescalate the situation, whether or not there is a duty to retreat? Or was he trapped there?
Was there a size disparity? Does he have physical limitations that we can't know by seeing a mugshot?
What was the husband saying when he initiated the argument? Was he uttering threats? Promising bodily injury or death? Was he visibly enraged?
How sudden was the assault? Did he come charging over screaming and shoving, or had they been standing face to face while arguing?

If you can't answer these questions, then you shouldn't assume where to assign cowardice and honor between these two.

Yeah...right KB(edit...saw the K and a blur...need glasses). I guess we will just have to wait and see. Only a punk would mouth off at the coach at a kids soccer game.

[03Lightningrocks]

Ya know KB(edit...I can't see)...I could pretend I live in a vacuum. But I don't. I have witnessed many a coward mouthing off at the coaches over the years. usually the punk parents. I guess you want to pretend the shootest just politely voiced his opinion and the husband went beserk....OKey Dokey...LOL. Like I said...we shall see.

[03Lightningrocks]

The fool that endangered people was the husband who escalated the conflict.

I don't know that I agree the husband is a fool. Men protecting women has been going on a long time and I hope it continues. It is instinct to protect your own. Putting myself in the husbands position, I would not just sit there and allow some guy to hurl insults and berate my wife without intervening.

No one would expect any husband to put up with that without intervening, but he became a fool the moment he laid his hands on someone else over mere words.

How do you know the punk with the big mouth didn't make a threatening move towards the coaches husband? seriously, Ifg i got to mouthing off at your wife in your presence....i would fully expect you to intervene.

[Keith B]

I deduced the man to be a coward based on the fact that only a coward would verbally assault a woman.

You assume that's what he did. Tell me, what did he say to her? What words did he use? Or, are you assuming what he might have said?

I deduced the man to be a coward based on the fact that he pulled a gun on a person he knew, not some random assailant, over a simple push.

You assume he knew the man.
You assume it was a simple push.

If he really feared for his life over a push....LOL...that is even more reason to believe him to be a coward.

Again, you assume that it was a simple push.
It was reported that they were in the stands. How big were the stands? How far off the ground? How crowded? Could he have retreated, to deescalate the situation, whether or not there is a duty to retreat? Or was he trapped there?
Was there a size disparity? Does he have physical limitations that we can't know by seeing a mugshot?
What was the husband saying when he initiated the argument? Was he uttering threats? Promising bodily injury or death? Was he visibly enraged?
How sudden was the assault? Did he come charging over screaming and shoving, or had they been standing face to face while arguing?

If you can't answer these questions, then you shouldn't assume where to assign cowardice and honor between these two.

Yeah...right Kieth. I guess we will just have to wait and see. Only a punk would mouth off at the coach at a kids soccer game.

I think you mean KBCraig, not Keith.

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.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

Through Out the days of all man kind, it is and always has been instinct for men to protect their women. Through Out the days of all man kind, it has been unacceptable for a man to instigate an attack on a woman. I pray to god that chivalry is not dead. I deduced the man to be a coward based on the fact that only a coward would verbally assault a woman. I deduced the man to be a coward based on the fact that he pulled a gun on a person he knew, not some random assailant, over a simple push. If he really feared for his life over a push....LOL...that is even more reason to believe him to be a coward.

We have all watched the irate parent act like a darned fool at our kids sporting events. Many of us had an urge to slap the loud mouth down. Letter of the law or not, this will help garner a conviction if this goes to trial. many of the folks sitting on that jury are going to question the mentality of a person who would start an assault and then pull a gun on a person who simply shoved him away. More speculation on my part, but I wonder if the pistolaro was advancing on the husband with his chest all puffed out.

I am aware that the technicalities of the law are quite a different issue than my moral beliefs about having manners and living in civilization.

I couldnt agree more. KB yes we kow we are assuming. You are assuming too. We ALL are assuming. Thats what we do when we dont know all the facts. However historical data shows us that when a parent yells at a coach of a 7 and 8 yr old soccer team they are not doing it politely. As for not knowing the husband. Any good parent knows thier child's coach's spouse. They usually tend to be at all the games. I think it is a fair assumption that he knew the husband. If not maybe he should pay attention to his surroundings more (something I wrote on in another post on this thread). If there was just some random guy at my ceveryone of my childs soccer game and he never left with a kid I would be a bit curious. Also the husband would be cheering for his son/daughter...ya know the same son/daughter of the coach. It does not take a genius to figure who he was out. So yes I say he knew him. As for fearing for his life. I have to disagree. The bleachers for soccer games tend not to be all that tall. IANAL but if I was prosecuting this guy I would get him on the stand and ask him if he was truly in fear for his life. Why did he not ask the many other parents around to help him out? He had other avenues of approach on this one. He was over anxious to pull his peice. To me it was a premature draw.

[Liberty]

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.

Perhaps but there just might be a lot to learn from all of this and there are some fascinating facts that actually have come out of this discussion. Which is why its been such an active thread.

One interesting fact that came out of this discussion is that Drawing a weapon is force. Not Deadly Force.

A slightly different perspective changes things considerably.

A legally justified shooting isn't always a morally just shooting.

deescalation can prevent a situation from turning into a nightmare.

[03Lightningrocks]

I think you mean KBCraig, not Keith.

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.

OOps...I'm sorry. I have been told to get glasses and am fighting it as I don't want to admit I am getting older.


I agree on the technicalities of the whole thing. Who knows how this will play out. My perspective on it comes from raising two kids and attending almost 20 years of soccer, basket ball and baseball games. I have watched loud mouth parents ruin so many games over the years I can't count them all. Seems like every team had at least one of them. I am probably a bit biased in my view points of it all because of this.