Soccer dad pulls gun on coach's husband - Lubbock

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

mr.72... You are right. The husband did escalate the situation. Now lets look at the environment they were in. First off they were at a kids soccer game. So there were children everywhere. We have no idea what way they were facing. Were they facing the field of play or were they facing the sidelines. Niether of which matter as there are children both on the field and the sideline. He may have been justified in drawing his gun but it was not smart by any means. He just pulled without any thought to where he was. The story goes that they were in the stands. So we can assume, yes I know what assuming does, that there were other fans/parents in the stands. So not only did Burke point his weapon at the husband but its safe to say he pointed it in the direction of children/parents/fans. This is why they teach us to be aware of our surroundings. If you shoot to stop the threat, the threat is all you want to shoot. Not only was it a premature draw in my opinion, maybe not by law but in my opinion but it was stupid and dangerous to the children and other people around. Situational awareness. You must be aware of your surroundings at all times. This is unacceptable behavior for a CHL. Yes we have the right to carry but with that right comes responsibility. We want to protect ourselves, our families and our community. Thats why we carry. We dont want to endanger them as this fool did.

[mr.72]

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

We have to keep this in perspective. As a CHL holder, you don't really get to pick the environment in which someone is going to assault you.

[Charles L. Cotton]

And BTW I don't think that McDermott case is similar at all, since there was no actual physical assault.

Yes, McDermott did not involve an assault, but that is not the controlling issue. The importance of McDermott to CHL holders is that it wrongly held there is no defense to a charge of intentionally failing to conceal in violation of TPC §46.035(a) unless the CHL could have actually used deadly force at the time they pulled their pistol. In other words, McDermott ignores TPC §9.04, but I cannot tell of §9.04 was even argued by the defense. It's a shame that case was not appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the highest appellate court for criminal cases in Texas).

Chas.

[srothstein]

I think XtremeDuty.45's post has an important point in it. I kind of mentioned it in the past and it has sort of been glossed over since, so I will mention it again more clearly.

There is a difference between legal and right. I do not have enough information to show the CHL was or was not legal when he pulled the pistol. I can see some possible justifications, but the size of the two people involved, the exact location, etc. are not given in the reports. We cannot say for sure that it was an ilelgal escalation of force, nor can we say for sure it was justified.

But the legal analysis is separate from the right or wrong analysis. We all do the right/wrong analysis and sometimes we confuse it for the legal one. Based on what was reported, I think the CHL did the wrong thing by pulling the weapon. There may be circumstances which I do not know (see above about detailed information) that could change this opinion. But, I think he was wrong for doing it at the soccer game, and for starting the whole problem by yelling at the coach to begin with.

So, my hope now, for the CHL's sake, is that the jury can keep the two analyses separate. I would also urge all of us to ensure we keep the two separate in our minds as we discuss this incident here.

[03Lightningrocks]

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

We have to keep this in perspective. As a CHL holder, you don't really get to pick the environment in which someone is going to assault you.

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. My level of patience would be directly related to the level of chastisement the agitator was giving. A few off the wall comments and shuts up....I just ignore it. On and on, to a personal level, I don't sit back and figure my wife has to deal with it.

That being said, a thought that comes to my mind is that this CHL holder appears to me to be an example of a coward growing chest hairs because he has a permit to carry a weapon. I am afraid there are many out there just like him. It looks like he pulled the weapon out of anger more than fear, to me.

Nothing I have said has anything to do with the technicalities of the law, but if I am going to take my chances with the legal system, I plan to make darned sure their is no question about my level of self control. I have no desire to end up in jail because I look like some kind of quick draw yahoo.

[Charles L. Cotton]

The thing is, yelling at the coach does not justify an assault response from a third party, even if that third party is the coach's husband. The third party intervened and used force to stop someone yelling at his wife.

IMHO, and it is just that, an opinion, the husband did the escalating.

The coach's husband probably used unlawful force when he pushed the CHL. I say probably, because we don't know all of the details. He has been charged with assault and he may be convicted. However, this doesn't mean the CHL didn't also violate a Penal Code provision. It could well be that both parties will be convicted of a criminal offense.

The issue of provocation Keith brought up will certainly be at issue. If the CHL was cursing the man's wife, then it will be interesting to see if that's sufficient provocation to remove his ability to respond to the husband's unlawful use of force. (There is no indication he abandoned the encounter, as would be required by TPC §9.31(b)(4)(a) or (B).) If he is determined to have provoked the encounter, then he cannot respond with force even if he would otherwise be justified. This is critical to understand folks -- your actions can take away your legal ability to respond to another's use of unlawful force against you! But again, I don't have an answer to this particular situation as I don't have anywhere enough information.

Also IMHO, the threat of deadly force in this case quickly de-escalated the situation that was obviously headed in a violent direction.

Arguably it did, but some would contend that the CHL being tacked and disarmed is what brought the incident to a close. (I hope I remember this correctly. ) But either way, it's not the end result that will determine the legality of the CHL's conduct. The controlling issue is whether his act of pulling a gun under those circumstances was a reasonable "degree" of response, in complaince with TPC §9.31(a).

I didn't realize until I read XtremeDuty45's post that this altercation occurred in the stands. That could be very significant. If the CHL was reasonably fearful of being shoved down the bleachers, then that adds a new twist to the story. Falling down bleachers certainly could result in death or "serious bodily injury" as defined in TPC §1.07(a)(46) which reads, "(46) "Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ."

This is an excellent discussion and I'm going to incorporate this incident into my seminar. The only thing that is certain is this, we don't know enough about this case at this point. But it's a great catalyst for discussion.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

There is a difference between legal and right. . . . But the legal analysis is separate from the right or wrong analysis. We all do the right/wrong analysis and sometimes we confuse it for the legal one.

This is absolutely correct! This is an over-simplification, but juries tend to choose who they like and don't like, then try to answer the questions to get the result they want. In criminal trials that's much easier to do than in civil trials.

The prosecutor and judge are going to look at the case with an eye to determining whether the elements of the crime exist. The jury is going to decide whether the CHL needed his rear end kicked for cursing a woman. If they decide the answer is "yes," then they will reject his self-defense defense and he's likely to get convicted. As Stephen said, this analysis has nothing to do with the law, but it's important to the 12 folks who will determine the CHL's fate in court. Again, this is an over-simplification and it may not occur in this case, but this is the unfortunate reality of the jury system.

Chas.

[LedJedi]

There is a difference between legal and right. . . . But the legal analysis is separate from the right or wrong analysis. We all do the right/wrong analysis and sometimes we confuse it for the legal one.

This is absolutely correct! This is an over-simplification, but juries tend to choose who they like and don't like, then try to answer the questions to get the result they want. In criminal trials that's much easier to do than in civil trials.

The prosecutor and judge are going to look at the case with an eye to determining whether the elements of the crime exist. The jury is going to decide whether the CHL needed his rear end kicked for cursing a woman. If they decide the answer is "yes," then they will reject his self-defense defense and he's likely to get convicted. As Stephen said, this analysis has nothing to do with the law, but it's important to the 12 folks who will determine the CHL's fate in court. Again, this is an over-simplification and it may not occur in this case, but this is the unfortunate reality of the jury system.

Chas.

Well said charles, folks often forget how much of our legal system is dependant upon juries.

For a crash course, go check out the movie "12 Angry Men". It's a bit of an eye opener to see how each person's individual opinion sways the situation.

[mr.72]

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. My level of patience would be directly related to the level of chastisement the agitator was giving. A few off the wall comments and shuts up....I just ignore it. On and on, to a personal level, I don't sit back and figure my wife has to deal with it.

OK but would you intervene by escalating it to a physical altercation? That's why he was a fool. If he wants to step in and say "hey buddy, back off. I mean it", then that's fine by me. Once he pushes, throws a punch, or whatever, then he has stepped over the line.

And by the way, if the woman is the coach, really, it's her job to be able to take this kind of abuse from parents. It sucks but that's what it means to be the coach of kids' sports. I have done it and seen it in multiple different sports at ages from 4 to 14 and all levels from no-scorekeeping recreation leagues to national champion club teams and it is the same everywhere. Some parents are going to have a fit, and if you can't handle that, you are not qualified to be the coach, whether you are a female, single, married, or whatever. If my wife was a kids sports coach (and she would never be, for this reason), and some dad started to yell and scream at her about something regarding her coaching so much that I had to step in and end the conversation, my very next conversation would be with my wife, and it would go like this: "you quit. coaching a kids' team is not for you".

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

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. Now for mr.72 saying its a coaches job to deal with parents. To me thats a load of crap. Its a coaches job to mentor and to teach. They have a group of kids that know nothing about this sport. The coaches are there to teach the positons and rules and the proper methods of kicking dribbling and passing. We must remember that these kids are SEVEN AND EIGHT. They dont even know what is going on. For all these parents that yell at the coaches at that age...GROW UP! At this age its everyone gets to play cause its all about having fun. Your kid gets taken out deal with it. Your kid gets put in another position. Deal with it. Its just a game. Its a city rec league. They dont get personal awards. There is no scholarship on the line and they arent getting paid. Its all about having fun! The parents have no right to yell at a coach at this age group unless the coach is putting the child in harms way. If the parent has a problem with something the coach is doing they need to man up and face them in a grown up manner after the game and talk things out. These parents that are yelling at the coach is ridiculous and uncalled for. If they dont like what the coach is doing they should have coached themselves!

[poppo]

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.

[mr.72]

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.

I think this is kind of an interesting psychology study.

For example, as a group, we seem to think that it's acceptable to leave your own house even after you have called 911, confront two unknown men whom you suspect may have been committing robbery on your neighbor's property, and shoot both of them dead right there. That makes you a hero.

But on the other hand, if some guy gets into a shouting match with his kid's soccer coach and then gets assaulted by a third party, then as a group, we think that he is a fool to even draw his weapon without even firing it in defense of his own life or well-being.

Something is wrong with this.

[Lonestar 48]

It just seems that we don't know enough about the event. As stated earlier, they were on the bleachers where a fall could cause injury, the size of the coach's husband, how antagonized he was...lots of unknowns. Plus, there were a lot of innocents in the area; at least 2 soccer teams, spectators, and whoever else might be around. I think the feeling of most of us is to judge on the side of safety given the little we know about the altercation. The two guys robbing the neighbors house is a very different scenario than two guys at a soccer game, and maybe if we knew more of the circumstances, more people would either applaud or condemn the CHL's actions.

Just my thoughts...I'm still trying to decipher all the laws we need to know, and that alone will limit my actions when I am carrying...if I ever have that plastic in my wallet!

[bryang]

When someone pulls a stupid stunt like this it reflects on us all.

-geo

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

I think this is kind of an interesting psychology study.

For example, as a group, we seem to think that it's acceptable to leave your own house even after you have called 911, confront two unknown men whom you suspect may have been committing robbery on your neighbor's property, and shoot both of them dead right there. That makes you a hero.

But on the other hand, if some guy gets into a shouting match with his kid's soccer coach and then gets assaulted by a third party, then as a group, we think that he is a fool to even draw his weapon without even firing it in defense of his own life or well-being.

Something is wrong with this.

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.