Soccer dad pulls gun on coach's husband - Lubbock

[KD5NRH]

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.

That could be location dependent; without some knowledge of the area, it's hard to say what level of force a shove could be. In the immediate vicinity of some of the soccer fields around here, there are bleachers, dropoffs, and stairs. Pushing someone down even a short flight of stairs could easily be seen as having potential to cause serious bodily injury. There's also the question of what happened between the shove and the draw; if Burke stumbled and/or fell, and the husband continued to advance, then Burke could reasonably fear that he would be kicked or stomped while down, which has been held to justify deadly force in the past.

[Owens]

I drop this in the thread as an encouragement for those that are fearing the medias response:

Commentary from General Mananger of TV Station:
http://www.kcbd.com/Global/story.asp?S= ... enu69_2_12" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It was shocking this week to hear that a man allegedly pulled a gun on another parent at a Lubbock soccer game. That story has raised questions about gun laws and fear among parents.

The man is now charged with aggravated assault. Hopefully, the system will work and he'll be prosecuted appropriately.

But if this incident has raised questions about concealed handgun laws in Texas: let me remind folks that cases like this are extremely rare and have nothing to do with our right to carry a gun. State law allows that, so we can defend ourselves against criminals.

So consider this: I fully support the concealed handgun laws in Texas. And although parents should not have to worry about someone with a gun at a kids sporting event, this is not a gun issue. It is a bad choice by one individual, and should not be used as a case against concealed handguns.

*************
I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

[longtooth]

Gooood job. KCBD.

[Keith B]

+1 on the Station Managers comments. Glad to see they looked at the one individual vs. the whole.

And, I stand corrected on the legality of the push being use of force. Thanks Steve!

I still think the guy Burke is a bonehead for starting the argument (unless there was a real reason), but as others have said, we don't know all of the details.

I do hope that things come out OK for the individual, we can get more details and use this as an educational experience.

[LCP_Dogg]

Yes, good work KCBD!

I would just add that I think all of the confusion on this "case" tells us one very important lesson. That is, there are many gray lines here and that is why you do should always do your best to avoid drawing a gun (and/or shooting) in the first place.

[Keith B]

Yes, good work KCBD!

I would just add that I think all of the confusion on this "case" tells us one very important lesson. That is, there are many gray lines here and that is why you do should always do your best to avoid drawing a gun (and/or shooting) in the first place.

That is why they teach conflict resolution in the CHL class (apparently something the guy slept through ). As I said before, not starting something, or deescalating it when it does start is key to keeping yourself out of the pokey!

[mr.72]

OK, here is my beef with this whole line of discussion:

It is assumed, by the news media, the police (apparently), and many members of this forum and other forums on the web where this story is being discussed, that the CHL holder must have been wrong to draw a gun during this altercation. However, if the use of force is justified, then the threat of deadly force is justified. If the man was being beat on, certainly the use of force is justified. Of course whomever started and provoked the situation is in question but that should be the sole question, and one that is going to be nearly impossible to answer with any clarity. The automatic conclusion of "drawing the gun was wrong, no matter what" is the trend in this discussion and it runs counter to the law as far as I can tell.

If I am justified to defend myself with my fists, then I am justified to use the threat of deadly force, right?

I guess the CHL holder should have just put his hands in his pockets and let the coach's husband beat him to a pulp?

[Keith B]

If I am justified to defend myself with my fists, then I am justified to use the threat of deadly force, right?

I guess the CHL holder should have just put his hands in his pockets and let the coach's husband beat him to a pulp?

Not necessarily. As stated before, IANAL, but I think the catch here is the provocation aspect, and whether the threat of deadly force was justified.

Per http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/do ... 009.00.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; if the actor provoked the use of force from the 2nd party, then use of force is not justified. However, if the actor tried to retreat, or deescalate, then use of force was justified. We don't know all of the conversation or if he tried to back down and was not allowed to. In that case, the use of force would have been justified (husband pushed him), and possibly the threat of use of deadly force.

[Charles L. Cotton]

If I am justified to defend myself with my fists, then I am justified to use the threat of deadly force, right?

I guess the CHL holder should have just put his hands in his pockets and let the coach's husband beat him to a pulp?

A complete answer is not possible in a post, but under the right circumstances a person can threaten deadly force even if they would not yet have justification to use deadly force. I cover this part of TPC §9.04 in the Texas Self-Defense & Deadly Force Laws Seminar and it takes a good bit of time. There is also a wrongly-decided case that's a problem for CHLs; i.e. McDermott. It ignores TPC §9.04, but that may not have been argued.

Chas.

[mr.72]

Thanks Chas. I would like to take your class one day.

In this case, I think it is ambiguous enough to be impossible to consider who is at fault or who has provoked the actions of the other.

Is it provoking the use of force for a father to go and argue with his kid's coach? Probably not.

Is it provoking the use of force for a husband to step in and try and change the course of that argument? Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on if the husband came in and said, "now let's all hug this out" or whether he steps in and says "if you don't shut up I am going to beat the snot out of you".

So then is it provoking the use of force for the father to defend himself from the third party (husband)? I think, probably not, unless indeed the husband stepped in Ghandi-like.

However I think these lines are very blurry and what I don't like about this is the supposition that just because one man was lawfully carrying a gun, that automatically makes him the aggressor.

...

This reminds me of one time I was coaching (well, assistant-coaching) my daughter's softball team. We were practicing at a city-owned park, which we booked and reserved with the city. There was a father and his teen daughter out there throwing a softball and hitting it when we got there. We figured when we all arrived, softball team with matching hats and loads of gear etc., that they would get the hint and clear out. The father of the father-daughter pair was about 6'4", maybe 250lb, extremely muscular, shaved head, goatee, tattoos. So anyway they didn't clear out and we waited until after we had a little team meeting and finally one of the other assistant coaches went over and asked the girl if they would mind practicing in the part of the park without the backstop, since we had the diamond reserved for softball practice. She went off and told her dad and he immediately sprinted over to where we were (there were four of us coaches), yelling and screaming threats of bodily harm at us with regards to our request for them to move. Suddenly he looked up and noticed that the three assistant coaches all had aluminum softball bats in our hands and we were standing our ground. You know, he was much more reasonable after apprising himself of the situation, and our head coach calmly told him we had reservations for the field and he should take up his issue with the city parks dept. He stomped off, got in his truck, and peeled out for about a block.

So. We all definitely threatened deadly force. Nobody was assaulted. But three grown men did stand firm with softball bats, determined to make sure that this bigger, stronger, angry and hostile man was not going to make good on his verbal threats. We had a definite disparity of force. Any one of us, unarmed, one on one would have been no match for this guy. However I contend that the act of presenting such a disparity of force in fact de-escalated the situation.

So were we justified in threatening deadly force? If there had only been the head coach, would he have been justified to draw a gun?

I think these are sufficiently gray/fuzzy areas. I just hate to see the way this is treated in the media. We are conditioned to believe that a man with a gun is either a cop, or a bad guy. In this case, he's the bad guy, for no reason other than the fact that he had a gun. If he'd shot somebody or discharged the gun I'd see a reason for them to try and split hairs over who provoked whom. Since it all ended without violence I see no benefit in arresting the CHL holder.

[Keith B]

.....So. We all definitely threatened deadly force....

No you didn't; you just made sure he 'played ball'.

This one will be interesting to follow for sure as more details come out.

[mr.72]

No you didn't; you just made sure he 'played ball'.

LoL.

Just a little attitude adjustment.

This one will be interesting to follow for sure as more details come out.

Indeed.

[waterpump1]

I drop this in the thread as an encouragement for those that are fearing the medias response:

Commentary from General Mananger of TV Station:
http://www.kcbd.com/Global/story.asp?S= ... enu69_2_12" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It was shocking this week to hear that a man allegedly pulled a gun on another parent at a Lubbock soccer game. That story has raised questions about gun laws and fear among parents.

The man is now charged with aggravated assault. Hopefully, the system will work and he'll be prosecuted appropriately.

But if this incident has raised questions about concealed handgun laws in Texas: let me remind folks that cases like this are extremely rare and have nothing to do with our right to carry a gun. State law allows that, so we can defend ourselves against criminals.

So consider this: I fully support the concealed handgun laws in Texas. And although parents should not have to worry about someone with a gun at a kids sporting event, this is not a gun issue. It is a bad choice by one individual, and should not be used as a case against concealed handguns.

*************
I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

great report

[troglodyte]

As far as all the media reports and interviews there seems to be a distinct effort to separate the incidient from the CHL.

For the most part, our local news is pretty conservative when it comes to firearms and the 2nd Amendment.

I also applaud KCBD for taking a public stance.


Details, we've got to know the details.

I have heard some other "details" but I have not been able to qualify them to a reasonable degree and they do not directly apply to this incident. I'm still poking around. I have some questions to ask a few folks at church tonight. May not know anymore but it won't hurt to ask.

[WildBill]

As far as all the media reports and interviews there seems to be a distinct effort to separate the incidient from the CHL.

For the most part, our local news is pretty conservative when it comes to firearms and the 2nd Amendment.

I also applaud KCBD for taking a public stance.

Me too!