TexasCHLforum.com

alvins wrote:their is some stupid law in webster tx about it being against the law to swear in public.

Probably the DOC-Language statute in the penal code.

The best post in this thread is the one on confronting an alpha male.

It is an excellent treatise on "it's not what you say bit how you say it."

PeteCamp wrote:

There seems to be the perception that these types of scenarios turn into deadly force situations because we carry.

This is total nonsense.

There is no perception that these turn into deadly force scenarios because we carry. You suggested that.

I don't presume to speak for Mr. Camp. But, I think you guys might be missing each other. The way I am reading what he said is that any encounter CAN turn into a deadly force encounter, because at least one gun is present (brought by the CHL holder). What I read from your posts is that you are taking his comment to mean that the encounter must inevitably end up as deadly force if there is any escalation.

In LE we are taught that there is at least one gun at every call we make, because we brought it. In my opinion this parallels what is being said by Mr. Camp, that the ever looming deadly weapon is always there. It sure doesn't have to escalate to a deadly force scenario, but the potential is always there.

Thus - in light of that potential, why look to escalate the scenario? I understand being offended by foul language in front of loved ones. However, the way that it was presented by the OP - he was confrontational, and what he said could easily be construed as "fightin' words" by many of the types of people portrayed. In situations where one feels the need to correct the ills of society, it is not really what you say, but how you say it.

When the CSI people and detectives show up at that scene, the witnesses will describe how the CHL holder approached the group in a confrontational manner, and began an argument over their language. It turned to yelling and then got physical. The CHL holder pulls his weapon and starts shooting the group members due to the disparity of force and for being in "fear of his life." The detectives will ask the question "how many opportunities did the CHL holder have to remove him/her-self from that situation?" This is beginning to touch on that standard of reasonableness. The prosecutor that gets the case will pitch it from the perspective of the sheer multitude of opportunities to deescalate, diffuse, and use some verbal judo, to get out of pinch that the CHL holder did not take advantage of. Now they can begin to build motive (if he/she passed by all these opportunities he/she WANTED to fight).

As posted earlier, if like minded people here don't find it reasonable, it will be worse in a jury of 12 peers (of people that can't figure out how to get out of jury duty....jk).


These loved ones for whom we correct the ills of society would much rather have you with them, than in prison or dead. This is a constant reminder I carry with me when I'm on the street. Chasing a crackhead into a crack house and taking everyone to jail might be fun, and cool, but if I have to make radical compromises in officer safety or integrity to do so, it just isn't worth it. I'm not putting my family through that, just to get a crack head of the streets. That said, there are safe and reasonable ways to get crack heads off the streets, so I have to make sure I am doing THAT way.

I'm not letting anyone off easy for provoking an armed urinating contest while armed with a deadly weapon. It is a fairly serious matter, and I feel the appropriate amount of objection and rebuke was shared by the majority. Granted, my take doesn't mean squat since I'm doing well to moderate my self, much less others.

I'm glad that people are learning and getting other perspectives.

The 1st amendment does not protect language that is an unreasonable restriction or infringement on someone else's rights.


You can flick off the cops, but you cannot yell fire in a crowded room.

Nor can you force others to listen to your profanity. Texas Penal Code treats this in the section where the DOC statutes are codified.

FWIW, here is what I would do.

As an off duty LEO, I would politely approach the group, and respectfully say something like the following:

"Fellas, hate to interupt - I know you guys are just trying to have a good time but if you could please keep the cussing to a dull roar around the children here, I would really appreciate it."

It is lighthearted, and simple, and allows me to do the mature thing of "doing something" about the problem. If they choose to escelate, I would excuse myself, and go back to minding my own business. I would then call the local PD and have them all cited for DOC-Language, or at least have them identified by local LE, and go to the muni/JP prosecutor, and swear out a class C complaint, reciting my detailed narrative. Then it becomes an arrest warrant - also, any citizen can go to the local prosecutor and request to file a class C complaint for something like that. They might not take the charges, but if you are detailed enough to establish probably cause, then it probably will.

Couldn't agree more. In my initial reading of the OP a few days back, it seemed like it was a contest of sorts.


To the OP, how you have handled the situation if you had know that you did not have a weapon, other than your words?