TexasCHLforum.com

Oldgringo wrote:OTOH, and in other places, there is this.

But OTOH, there's the case of the off-duty cop working store security who almost got shot by a CHL holder because the woman he was attempting to detain was yelling rape. And I remember a case a long time back where a cop in plainclothes was atop a woman yelling rape, but she was actually stabbing the cop, and a security guard, mistaking the situation, shot and killed the cop. What trouble might these guys be in if the woman yelling rape wasn't the victim?

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.

MechAg94 wrote:I don't work out or train much at all. I am not likely to fight easily. However, if pushed to fight, I see no reason to hold back until the fight is over.

That said, in this case, if it was just a purse snatch, there would be a lot of people out to hang you if you pulled and used a gun to defend the old lady. IMO, it shouldn't be that way, but it is.

Actually, someone did just that recently and was hailed as hero. Same set up, purse snatcher jumped out of a car, snatched a purse, CHL guy drew gun, held them for police. Granted, he didn't shoot anyone. I don't recommend it myself but....... The other thing here to me is that you don't know if the person in the car is armed or not, so intervention is not risk free even if you're a SEAL.

RoyGBiv wrote:

CHLLady wrote: If she's punching you with a closed fist like a man, I'm all for equal force. If she's slapping, I can hardly see a face punch knocking her out or breaking her jaw as equal force. Subdue with equal force, if at all possible. This is the karate philosophy my kids have learned and I agree with it 100%.

if someone is committing assault against me, by slapping or with a closed fist, I'll deal with it in whatever way ends the assault with the least amount of additional danger to me.

if it's a woman slapping me with an open hand after she tried to steal my wallet, I don't intend to take on added risk by using less force than needed to end the assault expeditiously. First she's slapping, next she's reaching into her back pocket for a straight razor. I refuse to wait for that razor because of some politically correct moral code.

You're welcome to think there's some moral high ground in fighting back with "equal force", but I consider assault a potentially life-ending event. If you start a physical confrontation with the intent to assault or rob me, you have given up any moral standing you have to be treated like anything other than a criminal and an immediate threat to my physical safety.

Karate philosophy is for dealing with bullies in school. Not for responding to being feloniously assaulted.

IMO, YMMV, EIEIO

I agree, and should have qualified my remarks better. I was addressing more of a situation where someone pushes you in the store because you're in their way, or a woman slaps you in some heated argument. In a robbery or some other criminal act, you use all the force at your disposal to end the assault quickly and in your favor. In a criminal assault the equal force notion sounds like the old "don't sink to their level" nonsense to rationalize not defending yourself. It's the philosophy in places like the UK where self-defense is prohibited...and if someone uses their fists, you're supposed to use your fists, and a knife, you can't use more than a knife, or if a baseball bat, a bat...etc. I think shock and awe (within the law) is a better strategy against criminals and thugs.

CHLLady wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

suthdj wrote:I was raised not to hit a "Lady" the female attacker was not a lady and if wanted to take on a man then she should be treated like a man. I am sure some will blast me for this opinion but that is the cold hard facts of the world today, we are not in the dark ages anymore women can be as much of a threat as a man.

No no no, I'll blast you for being too nice. After all, haven't the feminists told us that women are equal or superior to men, and that women need men like a fish needs a bicycle? It would be sexist not to strike back at a woman attacker as you would a man, and discriminatory. You don't want to be a bigoted sexist do you? I sure don't.

I agree with you to a point. If she's punching you with a closed fist like a man, I'm all for equal force. If she's slapping, I can hardly see a face punch knocking her out or breaking her jaw as equal force. Subdue with equal force, if at all possible. This is the karate philosophy my kids have learned and I agree with it 100%.

Many of you raise an excellent point about becoming involved as a person of opposite race and or gender. Sad fact that if there's not a video to represent facts clearly, I can see it easily becoming a case of persuasion and who has the better attorney, a la OJ Simpson.

Yes, I agree. Just as I would a man, if she pushed me, I'd push back. If she kicked me I'd kick back. If she slapped me I'd slap back. And if she slugged me I'd slug her back. I would not immediately go for a knockout punch with a man either, unless it was obvious he intended to attack more viciously. In fact, I might not even return just a push, but just issue a warning hoping to de-escalate. A second push after that though, I don't know, it would depend on the specific situation and my perception of intent whether I pushed back or hit back. I think most women that are the type to hit a man figure that because they're a woman and men are trained not to hit women, there won't be a push back and they can get away with it (and with me they'd be wrong....only my wife and perhaps a few other women I know can hit me without a push back)....otherwise, short of a few crazies, they wouldn't do it. And for those that aren't crazy, a like response by the man usually shocks them into reality......this ain't their grandpa's world anymore. Feminism killed chivalry except for some holdouts in small-town America and a few places in the Confederacy.

I will qualify this though by saying that there may be some situations where equal force may get you seriously injured or killed....for instance, when there are more than one potential attacker, and rapidly taking down the first one may help deter the others. Or it's obvious from the start it's going to be a fight for your life.

TomsTXCHL wrote:

suthdj wrote:Don't knock your ability that 73 yo woman put up a good fight.

Yeah, I'd have tried, or at least I like to think I'd have instinctively charged-with-intent-to-separate-them, but if the stocky bitch had taken me down, well, hopefully the old lady would have had her purse and gotten safely into her car by then.

I sometimes carry w/Gunderwear which means you almost gotta drop your shorts to get at the gun. A "last resort" sorta carry option cuz really quick-draw is not possible.

Come on guys, give yourselves more credit. Thugs like that don't know how to fight. With a little training you can put one like that down with one blow. Don't charge to separate, charge to end the assault immediately by disabling the attacker.

BTW, don't forget about the thug driving the car.....that thug may have been armed.

suthdj wrote:I was raised not to hit a "Lady" the female attacker was not a lady and if wanted to take on a man then she should be treated like a man. I am sure some will blast me for this opinion but that is the cold hard facts of the world today, we are not in the dark ages anymore women can be as much of a threat as a man.

No no no, I'll blast you for being too nice. After all, haven't the feminists told us that women are equal or superior to men, and that women need men like a fish needs a bicycle? It would be sexist not to strike back at a woman attacker as you would a man, and discriminatory. You don't want to be a bigoted sexist do you? I sure don't.

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...

Those are some of the factors, but there are some others to consider as well. I think uncertainty is a bigger factor than fear, but here are some others.....For one, location. This was in a large urban area...I think intervention is much more likely in small town America. Two, parking lots are the most dangerous places in America for the average person, and especially for women, and especially in large urban areas. The further away you park from the entrance the greater the likelihood you can be isolated and attacked, and the thugs can get away more easily. Three, this was over pretty fast, so there wasn't a lot of time to process what was happening and react. Four, for decades now, Americans have been trained by the educational system and the media to be docile, obedient, passive observers, and rely on others, "trained professionals," for protection (and the only "trained professionals" can do something attitude carries over to just about everything else now too). That, I think, is one of the reasons the urban environment is worse....people in rural areas tend to be more self-sufficient and take care of themselves...partly because they have to.