Soccer dad pulls gun on coach's husband - Lubbock

[KBCraig]

Thank you, mr.72.

I take offense at the characterization based on the age of the dad and the age of the kids, as if there's some nasty inference to be drawn there.

For the record, I didn't have a child until I was 27, but my wife had her first just four months after turning 18 (this was 12 years before we met). Does this somehow imply that she's at fault in any confrontation, and cannot be justified to defend herself?

[Keith B]

OK folks, we have been down this avenue before. If this thread does not stay on topic about the actual case, it will be locked.

[03Lightningrocks]

Since the thread was brought back from the dead, I will ask if anyone knows of any further information on the altercation? I am curious to see if the police drop charges on all involved. Sometimes, when the participants know each other, the police will let it go with some hand shakes.

[flintknapper]

Hard to believe this thread is still alive.

[barres]

Let's look at this with the same conditions but a different scenario. I'm standing on the corner with my friend and we are having an argument over whatever. I'm doing all the yelling at this point. Some stranger sees this, comes up, starts arguing with me and assults me. Have I lost my right to defend myself from this stranger because I was initialy arguing with my friend and not the stranger? I think not.

Not a valid argument at all. To be comparable, the situation would have to be as follows. Your having an argument with a female acquaintance. Your yelling at her when her husband walks up and has words with you. Missing segment at this point as we don't know what the exchange during this part was. Husband pushes you back to make some space and then you pull your gun out.

What difference does it make if the first person was a male, a female, the person's wife or another wife? None. It was simply person #1. And it doesn't matter who the second person was if they were not originally present and invlolved with the first 'conflict'. When person #2 whether it be a stranger or husband or whatever, comes along after the fact , that becomes a separate 'conflict' and I see no legal or common sense reason why a person would not be entitled to defend them self from the second person who initiated their own argument and initiated an assault.

Ok, try this one then. Someone gets into a minor parking lot fender bender. And argument starts over who was at fault. The husband of one of the people inolved happens to drive by and sees the argument. He 'comes to the rescue' of his wife and assults the other driver. According to your logic, you can't defend yourself from the guy because you didn't retreat from your argument with the person you had the fender bender with. Give me a break.

Some of you need to learn how to seperate chivalry from legality.

Why are you assuming that the caoch's husband was not originally present? I assume (which I know could be wrong) that he was ther the whole time watching their child play soccer and saw/heard the entire confrontation between the CHL'er and the coach (I have long ago forgotten any of their names ). Based on my assumption, he was defending a third party. The question on everyone's mind is, did he do so legally, of did he overstep the legal bounds of defense and assault the CHL'er?

[03Lightningrocks]

What difference does it make if the first person was a male, a female, the person's wife or another wife? None. It was simply person #1. And it doesn't matter who the second person was if they were not originally present and invlolved with the first 'conflict'. When person #2 whether it be a stranger or husband or whatever, comes along after the fact , that becomes a separate 'conflict' and I see no legal or common sense reason why a person would not be entitled to defend them self from the second person who initiated their own argument and initiated an assault.

Ok, try this one then. Someone gets into a minor parking lot fender bender. And argument starts over who was at fault. The husband of one of the people inolved happens to drive by and sees the argument. He 'comes to the rescue' of his wife and assults the other driver. According to your logic, you can't defend yourself from the guy because you didn't retreat from your argument with the person you had the fender bender with. Give me a break.

Some of you need to learn how to seperate chivalry from legality.

The difference is not in the sex of the people involved....so give me a break. The difference is that walking up on two strangers arguing and interjecting yourself is not the same situation as Getting involved in a situation where you are related to the person involved and you were there from the start of the situation.

[troglodyte]

No new info but I'm still trying.

Can't find any records that any charges were filed on anyone. But Lubbock is not that good with posting public records or documents.

Regardless of who is at fault, yadda, yadda, yadda, the news reported his CHL was sent to Austin. IF no charges are filed what is the status of Burke's CHL? I figure he gets it back but how would that work? Are there any legal consequences or liabilities for anyone involved by his CHL being taken away?

[03Lightningrocks]

No new info but I'm still trying.

Can't find any records that any charges were filed on anyone. But Lubbock is not that good with posting public records or documents.

Regardless of who is at fault, yadda, yadda, yadda, the news reported his CHL was sent to Austin. IF no charges are filed what is the status of Burke's CHL? I figure he gets it back but how would that work? Are there any legal consequences or liabilities for anyone involved by his CHL being taken away?

Excellent question. I am curious about this also. I would like to believe if no charges are filed, one would get their CHL back.

[KBCraig]

The difference is not in the sex of the people involved....so give me a break. The difference is that walking up on two strangers arguing and interjecting yourself is not the same situation as Getting involved in a situation where you are related to the person involved and you were there from the start of the situation.

For the person interjected upon, it makes no difference at all.

Whether he thought the person was a total stranger, or knew it was a spouse and could go so far as to tell you their names, address, phone numbers, and kids' ages, if the person interjecting did something to justify the use of force in return, then justification is justification.

[mr.72]

Actually, if no conviction is given, the guy should get his CHL back. I didn't know you lose your CHL if there are charges filed alone with no conviction.

[barres]

IIRC, your CHL can be suspended when you are charged with certain crimes, pending their resolution. It is then revoked upon conviction or re-instated upon a better outcome.

[03Lightningrocks]

The difference is not in the sex of the people involved....so give me a break. The difference is that walking up on two strangers arguing and interjecting yourself is not the same situation as Getting involved in a situation where you are related to the person involved and you were there from the start of the situation.

For the person interjected upon, it makes no difference at all.

Whether he thought the person was a total stranger, or knew it was a spouse and could go so far as to tell you their names, address, phone numbers, and kids' ages, if the person interjecting did something to justify the use of force in return, then justification is justification.

The comparison of the two situations is not even a little bit logical. They will not be viewed in the same way by the prosecuter or the jury.

[KBCraig]

The comparison of the two situations is not even a little bit logical. They will not be viewed in the same way by the prosecuter or the jury.

No, it's perfectly logical. It just doesn't suit your estimation of the emotional response.

Prosecutors or juries may or may not view it the way you do. But justification is justification, no matter the relationship of the parties involved.

[Pete]

Just wondering if any more on this came out.

Very interesting thread.

Thought I would add in a point that has not been brought up (if that is possible).

Maybe the female coach yelled at Burke, you know something like "I will not let your kid play because you are coward who fathers children at a young age" or something like that ( I mean it is possible, folks here have said that about him). I have seen my fair share of incidents where the "weaker sex" is not always the less aggressive or more polite. Quite a few seem to relish the idea there significant other was there for back up.

Also a few folks saying it was unwise to draw his handgun becasue of all the children and other folks around. Very odd indeed. I can see debating the need for deadly force and drawing a handgun, but not doing it to protect the children? I have heard that before somewhere. If there was school shooter and a teacher drew a handgun (in whatever district allowed it) would that CHL holder be wrong for drawing a pistol around children? I know a little different, but the need for deadly force could have been the same. I know, I do not have all the facts on the Burke case, just saying if there was a need the fact children were around could be irrelevant.

I agree we do not know all the facts, some may chose to pass judgement, fine by me. I did enjoy reading them.

I am glad to hear no one was seriously injured. This could have gone bad, someone could have gotten shot, if the reasons were good enough would be up to a jury.

Really like to know how this turns out, but it may take a while.

[03Lightningrocks]

The comparison of the two situations is not even a little bit logical. They will not be viewed in the same way by the prosecuter or the jury.

No, it's perfectly logical. It just doesn't suit your estimation of the emotional response.

Prosecutors or juries may or may not view it the way you do. But justification is justification, no matter the relationship of the parties involved.

LOL...you provide me with many good laughs....Thanks.