TexasCHLforum.com

Chaparral wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 8:15 pm Just because it is legal to initiate a verbal confrontation with a stranger, doesn’t mean it is a smart thing to do.

Rob72 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:32 am

dlh wrote: ↑Fri Jul 27, 2018 9:37 am

mojo84 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 27, 2018 9:28 am The video makes it pretty obvious what happened.

The video is certainly helpful but there is quite a bit we as "arm-chair jurors" do not know.

1) What was said between the shooter and the girlfriend?

2) What was said between the shooter and the boyfriend?

3) How did it feel to get thrown to the hot asphalt in a convenience store parking lot while you are wearing shorts?

4) The skinny shooter looked somewhat frail to me--certainly not a husky football type.

Maybe we will learn more in the coming days---maybe not.

1) Given the outcome of the situation, this is largely irrelevant, if the interaction was more than ~10 seconds.
If the shooter said, "Ma'am, this is a disabled parking spot, would you mind moving your car?", any further words or actions on his part, other than,
"Ok, thank you..." and walking away escalated the situation. If he started with something less cordial, he was seeking a confrontation.

2) Legally, if the shooter intentionally places himself in a situation of conflict, this is (within very limited confines) irrelevant. It is generally
legally insufficient to act solely on the words of another person, in the absence of imminent danger. I.e., even if BF threatened to kill the
shooter, BF is backing up and not obviously trying to get into the car for a weapon, reaching to his waistband, etc.. Had BF continued advancing,
that would be a different situation as well. Bottom line, as LTCs we are responsible for assessing the situation, in the context of being a,
"reasonable person".

3) Probably hurt. If I pee on a light-socket, that will probably hurt too. This is a consequential progression, not a thoroughly unforseen event.
Shooter thought he could utilize verbal command-presence to dominate a woman in a car. He was so focused on the conflict he felt confident and
justified of winning that he neglected to assess for other factors in play. Ask any LE, when you amp-up with commands, you should have
reasonable expectation of physical conflict. Again, if the shooter is/was so completely unaware of violence dynamics that this is not part of his
consciousness, he should not be carrying. Yes, these are Big Boy Rules. The State has authorized him to apply lethal force. Some
actions/behaviors make applying that level of force more a certainty than a possibility brought about by multi-tiered failure to assess risk.

4) Agreed. Which falls under the, "don't let your mouth write checks your butt can't cash," paradigm. Again, this was not an unprovoked assault.
Regardless of her floral, or thorny, personality, the woman is at a distinct disadvantage, seated in the car, not to mention the level of "disrespect"
imparted by the lecture. Street-norms indicate you'll get a butt-whuppin' if you try that too many times. If you're skinny dude, and you start
altercations with Big Dude, and you do so knowing you have lethal force at hand, you are not functioning within the intent of SDA. Again, you
might skate by, but sooner or later...

One of the big messages not to miss in this is the proper and adequate utilization of verbal skills. Out and about, if we feel the need to try and direct others in what we consider appropriate behavior, we need to be able to do so very affably, and in a highly self-effacing fashion. If we are not aware of how others perceive us we may end up in very hot water, through the best of intentions. One might even suggest that helping someone who was disabled with their groceries/other tasks, perhaps even looking for such people and situations, would be a better use of time and energy than "preaching righteousness to the unwashed." But that is an attitude of service, not Authority, and perhaps that is the difference in this situation.

Lastly,

1Peter 3:15-16
But in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give a defense to everyone who asks you the reason for the hope you possess. But respond with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who slander you will be put to shame by your good behavior in Christ.

Whether one is Christian or not, that is excellent advice, and will keep one out of enormous quantities of trouble.

mojo84 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 27, 2018 9:28 am The video makes it pretty obvious what happened.

mojo84 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 25, 2018 2:35 pm

BBYC wrote: ↑Wed Jul 25, 2018 2:09 pm

mojo84 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 25, 2018 1:08 pm Maybe self-appointed parking cops need to reevaluate their own actions.

Maybe they do. Jerks who park illegally definitely need to reevaluate their own actions.

I do not disagree. She shouldn't have parked there. How many times have you confronted and chewed someone out for a traffic or parking violation? Of you have done it, do you make a regular habit of it?

mojo84 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 25, 2018 1:08 pm Maybe self-appointed parking cops need to reevaluate their own actions.

bblhd672 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 25, 2018 1:15 pm

BBYC wrote: ↑Wed Jul 25, 2018 12:56 pm

bblhd672 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 25, 2018 12:48 pm

BBYC wrote: ↑Wed Jul 25, 2018 11:39 am

bblhd672 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 10:45 am Normal people don't provoke an argument over a parking violation and threaten to use deadly force.

You don't like his behavior. Thats obvious. It's also obvious he doesn't like people parking illegally in handicap parking spaces. He had as much right to criticize her parking as you do to criticize his behavior.

No one has a right to threaten to use deadly force over a parking violation.

That's true and in the video I saw, the guy who did got shot.

My post was about the shooter’s previous actions not what is on the video.

bblhd672 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 25, 2018 12:48 pm

BBYC wrote: ↑Wed Jul 25, 2018 11:39 am

bblhd672 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 10:45 am Normal people don't provoke an argument over a parking violation and threaten to use deadly force.

You don't like his behavior. Thats obvious. It's also obvious he doesn't like people parking illegally in handicap parking spaces. He had as much right to criticize her parking as you do to criticize his behavior.

No one has a right to threaten to use deadly force over a parking violation.

bblhd672 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 10:45 am Normal people don't provoke an argument over a parking violation and threaten to use deadly force.