Soccer dad pulls gun on coach's husband - Lubbock

[BrassBullets]

Going off of the information in the article, I would say that he did not need to draw a weapon to defend his life for just a push. If a man was yelling at my wife, I would do what ever it takes to draw his attention to me.

It will of course be up to what the witnesses say to determine if he was in a position that could have cost him his life.

I would also like to add that he should have considered his surroundings before drawing a weapon. Was there no way for him to get away or receive assistance from the crowd? I would have rather taken a beating, than have accidently shot a kid.

[LedJedi]

LedJedi,
Your right there is nothing that is noted that justifies the push and you are right by saying he was justified in verbally arguing with Burke not shoving. But we also dont know what it was that Burke was saying. Depending on what he said to the coach I could justify the shove from the husband. If he is just yelling at her and voicing his disgust no but if he is calling her names and I dont mean 'poopyhead' and he is verbally assaulting her I could see where a shove would be needed to shut him up. Just my thoughts.

Ya, i hear ya man and I absolutely feel where you're coming from 100%.

That doesn't change the use of force justification though. If someone's being loud / disruptive but not really threatening anyone with physical violence then you are MUCH better off just calling the police and letting them deal with him for disturbing the peace or something like that rather than putting yourself in a potentially liable situation by assaulting him.

I do understand the desire to wanna lay someone out on occasion. Just this morning I was so mad I was shaking dealing with a problem with my cable TV company. Had it not been over the phone I would have been sorely tempted to reach out and smack someone, but that's the line that is drawn between good guys and bad guys. You must respect the law. This may be Texas but ya can't smack someone "just cause they needed smackin". Either force is justified or it's not. In the scenario mentioned and with the details provided IANAL but I don't see legal justification for the use of force (push).

I don't wanna see you or anyone else get into trouble because they read on this board that it's ok/acceptable to push someone for arguing. If that were legal we'd be seeing coaches and refs slug it out on TV on a regular basis. :)

Again, though, I 100% feel where you're comin from. I pity the fool that argues with my woman. (in my best Mr. T voice)

(on a different note... TVMAX is the worst cable company on the planet. Never EVER Do business with them if you an at all avoid it.)

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

jedi,
I couldnt agree more. Thats where self-control comes into play. I will be the first to say I do not have the best self-control all the time and one of those times is when/if some dude talks trash to my wife. Thats just me. I wont say I cant control that but I choose not to because its not right and I want them to think twice next time they talk to a woman like that. but again I agree with you it doesnt give you the right to escalate...I would choose to to defend my wife. Be it right or wrong...thats just me though.

[LedJedi]

jedi,
I couldnt agree more. Thats where self-control comes into play. I will be the first to say I do not have the best self-control all the time and one of those times is when/if some dude talks trash to my wife. Thats just me. I wont say I cant control that but I choose not to because its not right and I want them to think twice next time they talk to a woman like that. but again I agree with you it doesnt give you the right to escalate...I would choose to to defend my wife. Be it right or wrong...thats just me though.

i hear ya man. If you ended up in the pokey for that I'd be the first one in line to bring you cookies during visiting hours :)

take it easy :)

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

jedi,
I like chocolate chip...their the best! thanks man...have a good one!

[Purplehood]

I start a verbal argument with no intent to resort to any form of physical action.

Arguing is legal, correct?

The husband jumps in because he does not like me "arguing" with his wife, and resorts to physical action.

How do we know this jerk wasn't just having an argument and an overzealous husband escalated things too far?

[barres]

We're all just speculating right now.

If Burke was not making threats to the coach, then the husband was not justified in his use of force (shove) on Burke. I believe I learned on this forum recently that the display of a firearm (threat of Deadly Force) is justified if the use of force is justified, yes? The husband's unlawful use of force could be met with a lawful use of force, could it not? The pistol was not used, so deadly force was not used by Burke, only the threat of Deadly Force. The police arrested the man with the pistol to let the DA/judge/jury sort it out.

I'm confusing myself, now. All I know for sure is that I can easily see how the media could twist a possibly legal action by a CHL holder to make it look as bad for our cause as they possible could. I, for one, refuse to make any judgments until I have way more facts. Okay, except for one: Pulling a gun was not the smartest thing Burke ever did, whether or not it was legal.

[Liberty]

We're all just speculating right now.

If Burke was not making threats to the coach, then the husband was not justified in his use of force (shove) on Burke. I believe I learned on this forum recently that the display of a firearm (threat of Deadly Force) is justified if the use of force is justified, yes? The husband's unlawful use of force could be met with a lawful use of force, could it not? The pistol was not used, so deadly force was not used by Burke, only the threat of Deadly Force. The police arrested the man with the pistol to let the DA/judge/jury sort it out.
.

I believe you understand it right.
Ok, It's a given that Burke was jerk, but he may be legally in the right. One has to wonder though, how a jury would feel about an opportunity to toss this guy in jail.

Maybe this is a case where a twist on the old Texan "He needed Killing" to perhaps "He needs Jailing"

[poppo]

This will be an interesting case. And I will say that the guy was a bonehead for drawing. However, if I'm reading this right, Burke had an argument with the woman coach. When her husband came into it, that resulted in a second seperate conflict that was initiated by the husband (not saying if his intervention was warranted or not). He then physically assaulted Burke by pushing him. So the husband initiated the second argument AND initiated the assault. From a legal standpoint, I can see Burke being justified. Not nesessarily right, but legally justified. But I'm no lawyer, so we will have to wait and see on this one. It's one of those deals where on one hand you want to see the guy roast, but not at the expence of the legal right to defend yourself.

[LCP_Dogg]

It is amazing how different we all can perceive it. I find myself going back and forth now on whether he was justified or not. This from me originally thinking he was nowhere near justified to now me thinking he IS.


Aye aye aye...

Can someone ANYONE who lives near this locale, PLEASE keep an ear out for updates on this case/trial and let us know what happens... THANKS (FROM ALL OF US) IN ADVANCE!!

[troglodyte]

I'm on it dogg.

Waiting for the 10:00 news to see if there are any new developements.

I'll be watching this one closely and will post new info as it is available.

Trog

[srothstein]

The husband pushed Burke, but that does not justify the use of force, especially if you are still trying to argue with the individual.

Keith, I hate to disagree with you, but the pushing was a use of force that was in and of itself illegal. Chapter 9 clearly states that the use of force is not justified by verbal provocation alone. So, arguing with the coach was stupid but not illegal. The husband starting to also argue was not illegal. But the husband pushing the father was the first use of force and was the first crime committed.

I do not see it as justification for the use of deadly force, but it is force and justifies a certain amount of force back, in self-defense. Pulling the pistol and threatening it is not the use of deadly force, but is force. The justification is a fine line and a jury may feel otherwise, but may be legal.

One of the things we are doing here (besides relying on probably faulty news reports) is applying our morals and not the law. Morally, the draw was not justified from what I have read. It certainly does not show the effort to de-escalate that CHL's are taught and we like to believe in. But, it may have been legal.

So, I think the coach's husband also deserves a charge of assault. And I bet any decent lawyer could get the agg. assault charge pled down to either simple assault or disorderly conduct - fighting.

So, in this case as the article reads, Burke is an idiot.

This part I cannot argue against. And he certainly has convinced me that he is a lousy parent too (arguing over the youth sports to begin with).

[troglodyte]

I believe I read where no charges have been filed against the husband. A question could also be, what was the husband saying? If he made threats, "I'll kill you." or "Shut up or I'll smack you across the field." then pushed him, how does it or does it not change the situation. What was dad saying to the wife?

Now...just to muddle things up...if the dad was justified in pulling his gun and the guard tackled him, would the dad be justified in shooting the guard? Should assault charges be filed against the guard?

I guess the point I'm making is where does it stop? If a guy is getting in my wife's face, I may be fearing for her safety and push the "assailant" away. The coach may not be able to leave the area as she is responsible for the players, even if the parents are there so a retreat may not be possible. I'm all for stand-your-ground but retreat is not always a bad thing. I may be violating the law with the push but I hope to think in this part of the country a man can still stand up for a woman's honor. Then you have to determine how much of a push it was. Was it a violent shove or a hand to the chest trying to provide separation?

When it comes down to it, dad made a bad decisions starting with yelling at the coach and then escalating it to find himself in jail with a deadly weapons charge. It becomes a guessing game until more details are known. While he may be found to be legally justified, I still say he did something really stupid and stupid should hurt.

I'll ask around and see if I can find out more specifics. I know someone who was at the location and may have been at that specific game.

[LedJedi]

I believe I read where no charges have been filed against the husband. A question could also be, what was the husband saying? If he made threats, "I'll kill you." or "Shut up or I'll smack you across the field." then pushed him, how does it or does it not change the situation. What was dad saying to the wife?

Now...just to muddle things up...if the dad was justified in pulling his gun and the guard tackled him, would the dad be justified in shooting the guard? Should assault charges be filed against the guard?

I guess the point I'm making is where does it stop? If a guy is getting in my wife's face, I may be fearing for her safety and push the "assailant" away. The coach may not be able to leave the area as she is responsible for the players, even if the parents are there so a retreat may not be possible. I'm all for stand-your-ground but retreat is not always a bad thing. I may be violating the law with the push but I hope to think in this part of the country a man can still stand up for a woman's honor. Then you have to determine how much of a push it was. Was it a violent shove or a hand to the chest trying to provide separation?

When it comes down to it, dad made a bad decisions starting with yelling at the coach and then escalating it to find himself in jail with a deadly weapons charge. It becomes a guessing game until more details are known. While he may be found to be legally justified, I still say he did something really stupid and stupid should hurt.

I'll ask around and see if I can find out more specifics. I know someone who was at the location and may have been at that specific game.

You gotta watch that man. That's shakey ground there. Being fearful of your or someone else's safety is not justification for force and certainly not justification for deadly force. I could fear for my safety from little green aliens or the stay-puff marshmellow man too. There has to be a solid foundation to justify force and I'm not seeing it here.

That's like folks saying they feared for their life and that's why they did something. The fear may be real, but fear alone does not justify anything. There has to be a legitimate threat as identified by law.

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/do ... 009.00.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

§ 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of
force is justified when the use of force is justified by this
chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or
serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as
long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension
that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the
use of deadly force.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

§ 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is
immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;
(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm
clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of
reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law
proscribing the conduct; and
(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification
claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

§ 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified
in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third
person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably
believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31
or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against
the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes
to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his
intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

I believe these are the relevant passages. Arguments are arguments and not force. Last I checked the threat of force does not justify force. If you are already justified in using force then you can threaten to use it, but not the other way around. In either case, there is no indication that threats were even made.

You might say it's defense of the 3rd person (standing up for your wife):
You can't say it's defense of the 3rd person unless the 3rd person would have been justified in using force themselves. The coach herself would not have been justified with the way this was reported so using force on her behalf would not be justified.

As presented there is nothing reported in the story as-is that states that Burke threatened anyone or did anything to justify force. There is also nothing that suggests that the use of force (the push) was immediately necessary.

As it stands with the story as it is reported I believe the husband should be charged with assault. If that assault charge is true then Burke's use of force should be justified and thus the guard's use of force (assault) would not be justified in tackling Burke.

That being said... one little threat can change the entire legal landscape. If Burke so much as muttered "I'm gonna kick yo butt" and looked like he was actually going to do it then all bets are off. There is nothing that says that took place though.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

We're absolutely here, for sure because we don't know all the facts.

The only reason i lay all this out like I have is to illustrate the very fine but clear line in the sand where one sentence can make or break your justification. IMO if you carry you have a duty to know and understand the law and you had better know for sure if you're justified before you decide to draw down. And you had better be the first one to call the cops because that may make or break your case too.

Someone earlier also pointed out that some folks are interjecting morality into this issue. That MAY come into play in the jury room, but what we need to be worrying about is the law. If you're square by the law you may just be able to avoid the jury room altogether.

For the record, i can't imagine I would draw down on someone for being pushed at a kid's soccer game. I won't judge burke cause i wasn't there but he would have some serious splainen to do if i were his daddy.

Can someone please dig up what TPC says about Threating Force and what that constitutes? I can't seem to find it.

[KBCraig]

Others have made these points, but to sum up what we know from media reports (very important to note that media reports are not the same as facts):

1. Dad argued with Coach from the stands.
2. Husband argued with Dad in the stands.
3. Husband pushed Dad, which was unlawful force; use of force would be justified in defense.
4. Dad threatened Husband with deadly force; threats of deadly force are justified when use of force is justified.

Assuming he gets a decent lawyer and keeps his mouth shut and anger in check (two things he seems to have a problem with), the charges should be dropped and his CHL returned.

One other thing... while the dad seems to have been technically justified, I would bet that he didn't think that through before drawing.