TexasCHLforum.com

PeteCamp wrote:

You are POTENTIALLY a rapists are you not? That really isn't that hard to understand is it? Is it true or not? Try to focus on the word POTENTIALLY. ( I used that bit of bull, due to it having been used just like this in a college newspaper that printed the names of all “potential” rapists on campus ((the name of every male registered at that school)) while I was teaching at OSU… It was deemed an accurate and protected bit of speech, if not inflammatory and misleading)

Sophmoric. I am definitely not a potential rapist. That action would require me to decide to commit the crime of rape. Now if two of us were standing there, I might assume that the other person might have the potential to commit rape because I have no direct control over his actions. It is all about behavior. Was it inflammatory or misleading when the OP posted the actions of the people he encountered in Wal Mart?

Sure you are, we all are,, man or woman
Definition of POTENTIAL
1: existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality.
Rape requires no "special equipment" just a mind set and or an action.

You are a potential rapists, more so you have a piece of equipment commonly used to commit rape against men and women.. .. the obvious parallel analogy to your statements would be.
Due to you carrying your specific piece of equipment, You sir are more likely to potentially cause or participate in a rape then a person with out that common piece of equipment.

Yes it's a silly position to argue from I admit it.. the words are used correctly by definition but the idea strung together with them is poorly constructed and misleading.

Much like your use of the word potential in this discussion above.. IMHO.

PeteCamp wrote:

The statement is essentially true , but it does not mean it is valid or value added to the discussion..

Have you read the discussion?

Every word.

PeteCamp wrote:

Much like saying the simple presence of a fire arm at a confrontation = more potential to have a deadly result.

That is exactly what I am saying. For exactly the same reason as above. Look, don't blame me if that concept is taught at almost every police academy in the United States. Go tell them they're wrong.

The BEHAVIOUR, the mind set, the actions of the people involved, not the method is what sets the potential for a deadly encounter. IMHO.

Bingo! We have a winner!

I think most are just poking at semantics, but really the ideas presented are not all that different in thought.

You're exactly right, although it is not simple semantics. It is serious business when you carry a deadly weapon and confront aggressive individuals. Therein lies the POTENTIAL.

I think we agree more then disagree... And I thank you for a polite discussion.

PeteCamp wrote:

My premise is that in a confrontation, the fact that the actors posses firearms do not make the encounter more deadly.

Encounters can and often do turn deadly without the presence of firearms. The presence of a firearm, as I stated before, is not what makes confrontations deadly. Our actions and responses are what makes encounters deadly.

I don't see what you don't understand about the word POTENTIALLY. We are talking about BEHAVIOUR + THE PRESENCE OF DEADLY WEAPON(S) = A POTENTIALLY DEADLY SITUATION. That really isn't that hard to understand is it? Is it true or not? Try to focus on the word POTENTIALLY.

I grant you the very obvious truth that a couple of pistols laying on a table are very unlikely to get in an argument and shoot each other without human instrumentality. I also grant you the obvious truth that people can and do kill one another without a firearm. Put a couple of folks exhibiting BAD BEHAVIOUR at the table with a couple of firearms and you have a POTENTIALLY DEADLY CONFRONTATION. The same would be true of a Bowie knife or my mother-in-law's black pepper cake

Your are repeating what the antis are saying. "Why if we allow CC/OC these gun nuts will just start shooting each other/ innocent people/ bystanders/ save the children/ whatever."

That is not what I'm saying. I cannot speak for them, but I seriously doubt anyone else on here is saying that either. Trust me.

By the way, I am at a loss to explain "more deadly." More dead than dead? Sorry, forget it, we've managed to run a good discussion completely off the road.

You are POTENTIALLY a rapists are you not? That really isn't that hard to understand is it? Is it true or not? Try to focus on the word POTENTIALLY. ( I used that bit of bull, due to it having been used just like this in a college newspaper that printed the names of all “potential” rapists on campus ((the name of every male registered at that school)) while I was teaching at OSU… It was deemed an accurate and protected bit of speech, if not inflammatory and misleading)


The statement is essentially true , but it does not mean it is valid or value added to the discussion..

Much like saying the simple presence of a fire arm at a confrontation = more potential to have a deadly result.

The BEHAVIOUR, the mind set, the actions of the people involved, not the method is what sets the potential for a deadly encounter. IMHO.
In any case, no one here from what I have read is able, willing, willing and able to have their mindset changed with a polite discourse on the topic.

I think most are just poking at semantics, but really the ideas presented are not all that different in thought.

Disarm the situation.. DONE;;; CHECK
Aggression continues, Warn actor.. "Sir, you need to back off, I will not fight with you, but I will defend myself". Simultaneously backing off, creating more reaction space, and .. honestly.. a defense for your trial if it comes to it.. " I said leave me alone and did not want to fight, warned him i would defend myself and tried to get away.. he came at me and continued to threaten me"

Actor continues to threaten or be aggressive, call for help, warn actor and draw weapon,,,, if he aggressively moves to you, shot to stop the threat.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

Deadly force against you is NOT just a gun or knife, it can be a chair, lamp, or fist... DID the OP BELIEVE at the time of the event, the person aggression him was capable of striking him, or otherwise which could result in the OP or his sons death? The actor was a Marine by his own admission, so a trained killer, a fighting force of one(thats what the TV ads say anyway), humans have been killing each other with just fists or blunt objects at hand for many years.. YES an unarmed person can be a deadly threat against your person. Every case? NOPE...But reality is, its not that hard to stun an opponent and then then deal a deadly blow.
http://www.independent.co.ug/index.php/ ... shillings-
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/crime ... 73775.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 118931.ece
http://www.thegrio.com/news/four-arrest ... -party.php
http://www.wpbf.com/r/24728676/detail.html