Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Ignoring the rest of the bad advice (there are single stack 9mms that conceal just as easy as any .22...there's no reason to carry a .22 for defense..) this part is just grossly untrue.drjoker wrote:The Red Bull can is thinner than a regular soda can. It is roughly the thickness of a human spinal cord
Experience with mob hits?posse wrote:Even if he meant the spinal column, it may be as wide as a Red Bull can front to back, but it's narrower side to side, which is the most likely angle if someone is closing on you to stab you. There's also a lot between you and the spine unless you shoot them in the back, and a .22LR or .380ACP might not have enough penetration to reach the spine with much energy.
The eye socket is probably a better choice, especially with a 22.
Actually, this other person on THR or on this board (I forgot which), brought his Texas CHL handbook with the statute highlighted and showed it to the arresting officer and the DA. Both of these guys laughed at him and the DA decides to prosecute him anyways. It was the judge on the grand jury that actually threw out the case. These guys KNOW that you've committed no crime. They just want to harass you and make you cough up a large legal bill to make a political statement as an "anti".Keith B wrote:There have only been a couple of incidents I am aware of where someone was arrested for legal concealed carry and in both of those cases the DA dropped the charges. I don't believe they ever went to court even on civil damages.PrideAndJoy54 wrote:Has anyone ever heard of a successful lawsuit by a CHL holder for false arrest?
As someone who patches up gun shot wound victims in the E.R., I KNOW that a spinal cord is thinner than a Red Bull can. Notice that I said "roughly" the same thickness as a Red Bull can. I know of no other soda cans thinner than Red Bull cans. Also, notice that I said that I recommended a .380 over a .22 because it is much more effective. The point that I was trying to make is one of realism. It is unrealistic to expect that the average paycheck Joe who is having trouble making ends meet in this recession (or depression) buy a new gun at the drop of a hat. If you have the money for a new gun, fine. BUT if you can't afford it, don't sweat it if you already have a .22, which most people already do have. This is because a .22 is very affordable both for the gun and the ammo. Almost everybody already has one and if they don't have one, you can get one cheaply. Academy sells a .22 Heritage Arms revolver every year at their "Black Friday" sale for $99. Throw in a box of 500 ammo for $17 and you're set. When you can afford it, you can then get a magnum cylinder for it for $35 to $50. Anything is better than a .22, BUT at the end of the day, having a gun is better than not having one at all.74novaman wrote:Ignoring the rest of the bad advice (there are single stack 9mms that conceal just as easy as any .22...there's no reason to carry a .22 for defense..) this part is just grossly untrue.drjoker wrote:The Red Bull can is thinner than a regular soda can. It is roughly the thickness of a human spinal cord
The spinal cord is as thick as a red bull can? Maybe on a mammoth...
I might still have to sue if I were arrested in one of those situations and here is why...I don't want ANY arrest showing against my name. I am NOT a law-breaker...I don't steal stuff, I don't do illegal substances, I don't assault folks, and I even try to keep my foot from getting the best of me when behind the wheel. In fact, I've only ever had ONE speeding ticket, given to me in 1993 well outside Sherman on Highway 82 where the country club is located because the speed limit there goes down due to "city limits". So, if some ill-informed or over-zealous LEO arrests me when I haven't done anything wrong, they better be ready to expunge my record as well if there are no charges filed against me. I will NOT be made to look like a criminal if I did nothing wrong. That is one of the reasons we have lawyers as much as we may not like some of them at times, either.C-dub wrote:Yup. No successful lawsuit for a CHL for false arrest because the DA's were smart enough to drop the charges before they cost their cities a bundle of money.Keith B wrote:There have only been a couple of incidents I am aware of where someone was arrested for legal concealed carry and in both of those cases the DA dropped the charges. I don't believe they ever went to court even on civil damages.PrideAndJoy54 wrote:Has anyone ever heard of a successful lawsuit by a CHL holder for false arrest?
My thoughts exactly.Heartland Patriot wrote:I might still have to sue if I were arrested in one of those situations and here is why...I don't want ANY arrest showing against my name. I am NOT a law-breaker...I don't steal stuff, I don't do illegal substances, I don't assault folks, and I even try to keep my foot from getting the best of me when behind the wheel. In fact, I've only ever had ONE speeding ticket, given to me in 1993 well outside Sherman on Highway 82 where the country club is located because the speed limit there goes down due to "city limits". So, if some ill-informed or over-zealous LEO arrests me when I haven't done anything wrong, they better be ready to expunge my record as well if there are no charges filed against me. I will NOT be made to look like a criminal if I did nothing wrong. That is one of the reasons we have lawyers as much as we may not like some of them at times, either.C-dub wrote:Yup. No successful lawsuit for a CHL for false arrest because the DA's were smart enough to drop the charges before they cost their cities a bundle of money.Keith B wrote:There have only been a couple of incidents I am aware of where someone was arrested for legal concealed carry and in both of those cases the DA dropped the charges. I don't believe they ever went to court even on civil damages.PrideAndJoy54 wrote:Has anyone ever heard of a successful lawsuit by a CHL holder for false arrest?
UNT recieves funding from the state.03Lightningrocks wrote:Would it be illegal for anyone who is verbally 30.06ed? The reason I ask is if you ask them and they say it is not allowed, what then? Or does it fall under a different code than a business or something?
I have heard of DA's conditioning dismissal upon a stipulation that the arrest was a good one, IOW, probable cause to arrest, which, upon your stipulation, precludes you from suing the city. If you don't stipulate, you go to trial. You're at risk of a conviction, it's very expensive, time consuming, etc. If it ends well, it still may not be worth it because now you have to invest more time and money into suing the city. What are your provable damages? Is it a simple mistake by the officer, nothing egregious? The jury may be loath to collar the city with a huge award like you are hoping for. The cost can run into many tens of thousands of dollars, all the discovery, investigation to get all the witnesses, expert testimony, depending.C-dub wrote:Yup. No successful lawsuit for a CHL for false arrest because the DA's were smart enough to drop the charges before they cost their cities a bundle of money.Keith B wrote:There have only been a couple of incidents I am aware of where someone was arrested for legal concealed carry and in both of those cases the DA dropped the charges. I don't believe they ever went to court even on civil damages.PrideAndJoy54 wrote:Has anyone ever heard of a successful lawsuit by a CHL holder for false arrest?
Interesting, so as a non-lawyer to the Prosecutor/DA so he would drop charges in the JP/Municipal/County/District Court, I would stipulate that there was probable cause to arrest??? I can't see that holding water for long if tested.JALLEN wrote:I have heard of DA's conditioning dismissal upon a stipulation that the arrest was a good one, IOW, probable cause to arrest, which, upon your stipulation, precludes you from suing the city. If you don't stipulate, you go to trial. You're at risk of a conviction, it's very expensive, time consuming, etc. If it ends well, it still may not be worth it because now you have to invest more time and money into suing the city. What are your provable damages? Is it a simple mistake by the officer, nothing egregious? The jury may be loath to collar the city with a huge award like you are hoping for. The cost can run into many tens of thousands of dollars, all the discovery, investigation to get all the witnesses, expert testimony, depending.C-dub wrote:Yup. No successful lawsuit for a CHL for false arrest because the DA's were smart enough to drop the charges before they cost their cities a bundle of money.Keith B wrote:There have only been a couple of incidents I am aware of where someone was arrested for legal concealed carry and in both of those cases the DA dropped the charges. I don't believe they ever went to court even on civil damages.PrideAndJoy54 wrote:Has anyone ever heard of a successful lawsuit by a CHL holder for false arrest?
Not many people really want to play "Victory or Death" like that, or realistically, can, which is why they put you in that spot.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=49133&p=603067&hili ... al#p603067" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Since a "good faith" arrest can NOT be made for anything which is NOT illegal, I hope the officers, ... are aware of the above, and trained/informed accordingly, so the Governments don't waste money due to a Federal §1983 civil rights lawsuit. (42 USC 1983) http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1983.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
UNT. The Un-Texas.TxLobo wrote:I know 3 young people that grew up normal, then went to UNT.. they have graduated into the smartest liberal's they think they could ever be. I think it's part of the hidden agenda..
Hey now. I went there, but I was a science major, not any of LIBERAL arts stuff.Ameer wrote:UNT. The Un-Texas.TxLobo wrote:I know 3 young people that grew up normal, then went to UNT.. they have graduated into the smartest liberal's they think they could ever be. I think it's part of the hidden agenda..
