TexasCHLforum.com

KD5NRH wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:I have been hunting and using guns all my life, my experience with shooting game animals tells me one cannot turn sideways at the sound of a shotgun blast from a few feet away quick enough to cause the impact to change from the front of the chest to the side of the back. But I guess I am letting the facts influence my beliefs again.

And, since one cannot jump up at the sound of a gun quickly enough to get into the path of the shot, Cheney must have intended to shoot his buddy in the head?

Great...another completely unrelated comment. Good lord...this is about as foolish as the comment about rape in a different thread. Just to point out how unrelated your comment is I will ask you. So now your saying Joe Horn claims he shot them on accident?

KD5NRH wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:I have been hunting and using guns all my life, my experience with shooting game animals tells me one cannot turn sideways at the sound of a shotgun blast from a few feet away quick enough to cause the impact to change from the front of the chest to the side of the back. But I guess I am letting the facts influence my beliefs again.

And, since one cannot jump up at the sound of a gun quickly enough to get into the path of the shot, Cheney must have intended to shoot his buddy in the head?

Or more directly: One can turn, dodge, duck based on seeing a muzzle orient on you (especially at 10-15 feet) and seeing the body language and facial expressions, even the hand movements of someone in the process of firing.

Martial artists who were said to "dodge bullets" don't dodge the bullet, they dodge the aim.

Paradoxically, it is easily to dodge (less distance needed for a larger angle) the CLOSER you are to the shooter. (But don't try this at home children. )

HerbM wrote:

KD5NRH wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:I have been hunting and using guns all my life, my experience with shooting game animals tells me one cannot turn sideways at the sound of a shotgun blast from a few feet away quick enough to cause the impact to change from the front of the chest to the side of the back. But I guess I am letting the facts influence my beliefs again.

And, since one cannot jump up at the sound of a gun quickly enough to get into the path of the shot, Cheney must have intended to shoot his buddy in the head?

Or more direction: One can turn, dodge, duck based on seeing a muzzle orient on you (especially at 10-15 feet) and seeing the body language and facial expressions, even the hand movements of someone in the process of firing.

Martial artists who were said to "dodge bullets" don't dodge the bullet, they dodge the aim.

Paradoxically, it is easily to dodge (less distance needed for a larger angle) the CLOSER you are to the shooter. (But don't try this at home children. )

I must have forgotten to read the part where the Colombian had trained with Chuck Norris. Some of you folks have been playing way to many video games. OK...so let's assume the Columbian who was shot in the side of the back had martial arts skills. I guess the one shot dead in the back was running backwards Michael Jackson style in an effort to confuse poor scared Joe Horn.

03Lightningrocks wrote:Great...another completely unrelated comment.

Well, I've been doing my gosh-darned best to get this puppy back on a relevant and constructive topic. Because I think we, as CHL holders, need to learn everything we can from this case, not simply bicker over it.

Keith, maybe you shouldn't have closed the other, original Topic.

Anyone know of a site where folks can talk about concealed carry?

You know, without the hostility and arguing.

Mike1951 wrote:Anyone know of a site where folks can talk about concealed carry?

You know, without the hostility and arguing.

No.

Quite frankly....there is no hostility on this thread. Only healthy debate about a topic that affects all gun owners. There are bound to be strong sentiments on both sides. If the thread makes you feel uncomfortable....why would you read it?

You may be the only one that doesn't see the hostility.

The battering back and forth has gone way past anything constructive.

Mike1951 wrote:You may be the only one that doesn't see the hostility.

The battering back and forth has gone way past anything constructive.

Not the only one.

I think both sides on this make pretty clear that when one is involved in a defensive shooting, that everyone is going to view what happened a little bit differently.
There have been lots of "evidence" put forth to demonstrate this.
If one doesn't like the mood of these forums I suggest checking out.

tx.guns
alt.politics.guns
talk.politics.guns

The climate there is decidedly different.

Liberty wrote:I think both sides on this make pretty clear that when one is involved in a defensive shooting, that everyone is going to view what happened a little bit differently.

"Defensive?" This may be prejudging the fundamental question here. Omit that one word and I could not agree more.

With respect,

Jim

Gents, I have read PC Chapt 9 pretty carefully... I can't find a single place it tells you WHERE you can or can not shoot someone if you are justified in using deadly force...

If I have missed this somehow, would someone be kind enough to show it to me?

Thanks

Chuck

cxm wrote:Gents, I have read PC Chapt 9 pretty carefully... I can't find a single place it tells you WHERE you can or can not shoot someone if you are justified in using deadly force...

If I have missed this somehow, would someone be kind enough to show it to me?

Thanks

Chuck

where as in location on the body?
answer: it doesn't specify which is good imo cause if it gave specifics and you missed accidentally you could be even more liable.

or where as in location you're standing when you fire the shot?
It makes no reference to location like this. The only thing really close that I know of is the stipulation that DF be IMMEDIATELY necessary, but that's more a question of timing rather than geographic location.

LedJedi wrote:

cxm wrote:Gents, I have read PC Chapt 9 pretty carefully... I can't find a single place it tells you WHERE you can or can not shoot someone if you are justified in using deadly force...

If I have missed this somehow, would someone be kind enough to show it to me?

Thanks

Chuck

where as in location on the body?
answer: it doesn't specify which is good imo cause if it gave specifics and you missed accidentally you could be even more liable.

At least one of my CHL instructors (most recent for sure), said absolutely clearly and specifically that 'shooting in the back' was permitted -- we all knwo that this might complicate the explanation of why deadly force was necessary, but that the side you choose to shoot was technically irrelevant.

or where as in location you're standing when you fire the shot?
It makes no reference to location like this. The only thing really close that I know of is the stipulation that DF be IMMEDIATELY necessary, but that's more a question of timing rather than geographic location.

Agreed x 2 and ditto. It's much easier to explain that you were in fear of your life in your own home after the front door is broken down, but IF your situation has reached the level where deadly force is justified then physical or geographic location doesn't matter.

You must be really lucky if you have been hunting for years and no animal has ever moved in the fraction of a second between the decision to shoot and the bullet leaving the barrel.

HerbM wrote: Agreed x 2 and ditto. It's much easier to explain that you were in fear of your life in your own home after the front door is broken down, but IF your situation has reached the level where deadly force is justified then physical or geographic location doesn't matter.

Uh Ohhh

Being in fear for your life is not justification for shooting someone in Texas.