TexasCHLforum.com

Bravo, Pete!

Talk about "confrontation." It appears to be an almost automatic and unthinking response by some members of this forum.

Elmo

With respect to all the commentators, and bouncing back to the OP, we are all well-advised to avoid reading certain specific advice as being generally applicable. In general, the 1st Amendment protects the use of profanity in public. The line tends to be drawn at “fighting words”— words “which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” Not a very distinct line there, even with regard to the OP's situation. I do think it is fair to predict that this test is with respect to a "reasonable man," and not with respect to one overly disposed to view words as "fighting words."

Also with respect the legislature in Austin, it has been demonstrated time and again the fact that something is enacted by the legislature, and signed by the governor, is rather poor support for its constitutionality. (Fighting words??)

dewayneward wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

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 known that you did not have a weapon, other than your words?

I did answer that question earlier in these posts :-) I wouldnt have done anything differently....

I will say that I am a little surprised at some of the responses, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

I have been privately asked if my earlier post meant that I agreed with the OP. Not at all. My earlier post complimented the thread, not the OP. I would not want others to have the misapprehension my friend had. I had intentionally avoided taking a position on the various sides shown by the thread to avoid offending someone. I did this perhaps too subtly, which is a too-common failing on my part.

For example, the OP later observed (in the above quote) that he has now twice stated that he would not have done anything differently had he not been carrying a deadly weapon.

To look at his first post, which started this valuable exchange, would he have "put my hand at the ready" or "my hand went to my weapon"?

Not at all. It is more likely that all his mental turmoil put before us would never have occurred. It is also more likely that the mere thought of exercising deadly force, or displaying a deadly weapon as a deterrent, would not have entered his mind. I think it might have been more likely that he would have ended the incident early and reasonably.

While we may all be entitled to our own opinions, as stated by the OP, we must, particularly we, as armed men and women, be careful to recognize that strongly held opinions, though they may be wrong, often lead to equally wrong actions.

While I do not agree with what this exchange has prompted me to believe the OP's opinions might be, does not mean this is not a helpful exchange, which I am sure has caused many to think about some important things.

Elmo

esxmarkc wrote:I honestly believe this is an exceptionally good thread.

I could not agree more.

The interchange here has been excellent, and was an exceedingly helpful review of the limitations on the use of deadly force. I have taken the renewal course three times, each from a different instructor, and only at the last one was there an indepth look at this ultimate issue. In fact, the last course was almost 100% on this subject, rather than the typical quibbling about 30.06 signs -- really not worth the effort at a renewal course.

The first two renewal courses barely touched on this subject, if at all. After receiving my last course I have, perhaps unfairly, concluded that there was a very good chance that the instructors just did not feel competent to get into this in the depth we all need.

This old man hopes to be able to attend Charles' next refresher on the subject, and I intend to watch the forum carefully to get a time and place. After all, this is the ultimate, and most critical, issue we might face.

Elmo