TexasCHLforum.com

9mmboy wrote:

mojo84 wrote:A person can intervene and help stop the ongoing assault without automatically starting to shoot. You can "what if" any situation you want. The goal should be to stop the assault and let the cops sort things out and determine who's who.

Common sense and judicious use of force and deadly force is recommended.

Too many people trying to play robo-cop. A lot of CHL holders think the plastic puts them at the same level as LEO's. WRONG! Unless you or a loved one is being harmed, STAY OUT OF IT. Joe Horn was lucky, you might not be

Helping someone in need has nothing to do with a CHL or being RoboCop.
Tell me this, your grandmother is being attacked by a much younger heavy woman and you have no issue with a 275 pound guy doing nothing to help her and you have not problem with that?

What if some guy grabbed your daughter on the playground and starts dragging her toward a van while everyone just watches. You OK with that?

There have been millions that have helped others and there were no negative ramifications.

Shooting someone isn't always the first action that should be taken. Fights and assaults have been broken up for centuries without going to the gun and shooting someone.

A person can intervene and help stop the ongoing assault without automatically starting to shoot. You can "what if" any situation you want. The goal should be to stop the assault and let the cops sort things out and determine who's who.

Common sense and judicious use of force and deadly force is recommended.

The odds are very slim you'll ever need a gun so why carry one? Take the chl and gun money and go buy lottery tickets.

nightmare wrote:

suthdj wrote:so when your wife and kids are being assaulted in a Walmart parking lot and nobody helps them how will that make you feel.

If they're attacked by an old lady I will be very happy if some mall ninja doesn't assume they're the bad guys and shoot them.

Hey. The answer made as much sense as the question.

No, it didn't.

TomsTXCHL wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

TomsTXCHL wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:Every CHL should have the six enumerated crimes memorized: aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

Can you help us out re the use of the word "aggravated" above please. I don't understand the difference(s).

Also, what you have told us here is that if e.g. we were in a restaurant where an armed robbery is taking place, and which has potential to escalate as some of these incidents involved robbing of all PATRONS as well as the "cash register", that if I could draw and get a bead on the BG w/gun I need only shoot to kill. No warning needed. Headshot.

If yes I do like that a lot better than announcing my presence "DROP YOUR WEAPON!" which in all likelihood results in the BG changing position and giving me now a moving target.

Mmmmm.....be careful about how you word things. This warning is not a criticism, but as others have noted, the internet is forever. You don't ever shoot "to kill" you always shoot to stop whatever criminal act or assault that is taking place. You're using lethal force and it may result in death, but you don't actually intend to kill anyone.

Thanks for your post, and I guess I follow your caution, but iirc I was reacting to JF's comment i.e. taking it to the extreme. Should have written in that statement the word "One" instead of "I" perhaps, and was merely presuming that a headshot would stop the BG permanently.

I understand that an opposing lawyer would always argue that a headshot was unnecessary but if you carry a .380 or 9mm isn't that really the best chance at ending the encounter?

If you had to use your gun in a self defense shooting and your case was before a grand jury or trial jury, would you want your above statements presented to them? Do you think they would help or hurt your case?

Any time I see a 70 something year old lady getting pounded and knocked down by a much bigger younger person, I'm going to act as if the old lady is the victim. I also wouldn't recommend going to the gun first unless I perceived the old lady was about to be killed or severely injured.

Just because we have a gun doesn't mean that its use is required. If I did pull my gun, shooting would not be my first option. I would only fire the gun in the event I couldn't stop the assault or they turned on me. My primary goal would be to stop the assault of the old lady and the purse would be secondary.

Sometimes, doing the right and moral thing involves some personal risk.

It's very important to fight fair and make sure it ends in a draw. Afterward, everyone gets a participation ribbon and a snack.



[For those less astute folks, that was sarcasm]

cb1000rider wrote:

mojo84 wrote:It's a shame so many people have the me, myself and mine attitude. This video illustrates just how poorly that selfish cowardly attitude reflects on society.

It may be fear.

It also may be a reflection on an overly litigious society.
WalMart has fired how many employees for intervening and stopping criminal activities to date?

And, no offense, our CHL instructor taught us specifically NOT to get involved. He had a great video of what looked like a kidnapping happening in broad daylight, it turned out to be parents taking control of their 17 year old teen...

Darned if you do, darned if you dont... There are great stories of people getting involved and shutting down situations, but you've got to be very careful...

Exactly what I'm talking about. Now we need someone to pipe up with the "I'm not batman" stance.

It's a shame so many people have the me, myself and mine attitude. This video illustrates just how poorly that selfish cowardly attitude reflects on society.