TexasCHLforum.com

LedJedi

DSARGE wrote:You never know when something will happen, and what good is owning a firearm if it just sits in the house?

amen brother!

It's far better to have it and not need it than it is to need it and not have it.

LedJedi

you know... that reminds me....

my CHL instructor also said very plainly that there was no law governing concealed carry and drinking. I thought that odd he would say that.

what thread are you speaking of? I think that was before I graced your pages.

LedJedi

Rex B wrote:We can determine from these highly accurate reports, then, that a Beretta handgun in "..a caliber starting with a 4" was not a man-stopper

at least not in the buttox

LedJedi

para driver wrote:caliber and distance are irrelevant.. I have seen people use pistols effectively out past 50 yards, shotguns out to 100 with slugs. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that they might be so capable and the CHL was reasonable to assume this as well.

now weather he shot Mr Johnson in the buttocks deliberately or missed the 10-ring under stress, we will never know, because to admit such opens the door for 'reasonable doubt' as to his mindset and plausibility of 'fear for his life'.. unfortunately, the shooter is wide open for civil lawsuit, being several months short of the 'castle doctrine'..

prepare to contribute to his legal fees, after some ACLU shyster get's a hold of Mr. Johnson (presumably at his Criminal Trial)..

hmmm, would the castle doctrine really apply given that he's not at home, at his place of work and i assume he got out of his vehicle to make the shot.

wait... public place... nevermind... i'll be quiet.

hmmm, question... i know the castle doctrine covers your home, place of business, car and public places but what if yer over at Jason's having a beer? Jason is covered, but is Jedi?

LedJedi

i'm trying not to take sides here, as I think both of you should just get it over with and break out the tape measure.

I would, however, like to point out that the police have ALREADY ruled it as self defense. I think that pretty much says it all.

LedJedi

Seburiel wrote:And, typically, the Police say that they would rather someone call them instead of protecting themselves and their loved-ones...
Why?
So that they can get some sort of 'glory' out of it?
Do police departments' budgets suffer if they aren't the ones protecting the populace?
I'm not a police hater by any means, but it's getting ridiculous, in my opinion, whenever a justified shooting takes place, it seems that the police say they'd rather everyone just 'roll over and take it' instead of providing for their own defense.

I'm sorry, I know that this isn't a rant forum, but it just chaps my hide, I guess.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 6 matches

Re: so to summarize.....