TexasCHLforum.com

Excaliber wrote:What you were told may well not have been department policy. It may have been just a civilian dispatcher making it up as he went along or wanting to reduce his / her workload. This happens.

If I were told that, I would politely ask to speak with the shift commander. I'd be willing to bet I'd get a much more satisfactory response and the dispatcher would receive some "counseling" after the dispatch recordings were reviewed.

See... That's useful information. I have no problem asking for a supervisor. I'm on scene; the dispatcher isn't. The dispatcher realistically does not have a full grasp of urgency of a given situation. Now, when someone calls 911 because a burger stand won't serve them fries, that's an abuse of the system. But when a taxpayer calls with a complaint that they are basically being held hostage by the presence of belligerents, then that constitutes urgency. If the 911 dispatcher doesn't have the sense to understand the difference, then perhaps they're not qualified for the job.... or perhaps he or she simply lacks experience. In either case, it's a citizen out there who is having a problem and is being frustrated by official intransigence.

WildBill wrote:

Excaliber wrote:

WildBill wrote:There is a recent thread about a group of thugs sitting on a car so the owner felt he couldn't safely get in his car and drive home. Shouldn't a person have the right to physically remove them from their property without being arrested for assault? Do the police have this right?

Sometimes there's a significant difference between a right and a good idea.

I think this is a good example.

I am still interested in the discussion. For example, if you were in a remote area and you had no cell phone. Would you wait for hours until the thugs left before you could drive home? It may not be a good idea to be in a remote area without a cell phone, but it does happen.

Let's think through the situation you posed, even though it's really unlikely because inner city folks who engage in this type of behavior don't spend a lot of time in areas not covered by cell service.

You see these folks on your car. You've got no backup or help that you can call.

You start as a reasonable man and ask the folks to get off your car so you can depart. They demur with language that's not appropriate for use on this Forum.

You escalate to an order. One responds by taking out a set of keys, remarking on what a pretty paint job you have, and asking if you'd like to keep it that way. The rest go silent and fix their eyes on you like wolves checking out a fawn.

Two of the group of eight slide off the car and split from the rest of the group, following a semicircular path that you correctly recognize as a flanking maneuver which will put both of them behind you in about 10 seconds.

You can play this forward any number of ways, but I think you get the idea that this will not turn out in a way you'll be happy with.

There are 4 things to keep in mind in situations like this:

1. The further you are from help, the more you need to take care of yourself if you want anything done at all.

2. When you're far from help and taking care of things yourself, if you stir up a hornet's nest and need help you're not going to get any in time to do you any good.

3. The wise man never initiates a fight whose outcome could go either way unless there's something that's worth losing or taking a life for at stake and there's absolutely no other way out.

4. In some circumstances it's best to accept for the time being some things you don't like in order to get out of the situation in the same shape as when you went in.

Using it as a learning experience for coming up with a plan for a better outcome next time beats the heck out of death, serious injury, or a protracted (read: expensive) legal tangle.

Excaliber wrote:

Let's think through the situation you posed, even though it's really unlikely because inner city folks who engage in this type of behavior don't spend a lot of time in areas not covered by cell service.

OTOH, it's unlikely, though possible, that this scenario will occur in rural areas or hunting/fishing/hiking/camping or otherwise 'outdoorsy' locations.

Stay alert, wherever you are, because you just never know...

WildBill wrote:There is a recent thread about a group of thugs sitting on a car so the owner felt he couldn't safely get in his car and drive home. Shouldn't a person have the right to physically remove them from their property without being arrested for assault? Do the police have this right?

PC 9.41

A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property

A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property

Cobra Medic wrote:

WildBill wrote:There is a recent thread about a group of thugs sitting on a car so the owner felt he couldn't safely get in his car and drive home. Shouldn't a person have the right to physically remove them from their property without being arrested for assault? Do the police have this right?

PC 9.41

A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property

A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property

That you sir.

WildBill wrote:

Cobra Medic wrote:

WildBill wrote:There is a recent thread about a group of thugs sitting on a car so the owner felt he couldn't safely get in his car and drive home. Shouldn't a person have the right to physically remove them from their property without being arrested for assault? Do the police have this right?

PC 9.41

A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property

A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property

That you sir.

IANAL and just out of curiosity, is "force" and "deadly force" treated the same by the courts?

WildBill wrote:There is a recent thread about a group of thugs sitting on a car so the owner felt he couldn't safely get in his car and drive home. Shouldn't a person have the right to physically remove them from their property without being arrested for assault? Do the police have this right?

Let's pursue the deadly force angle. How many thugs do you think you can take on before you get hit by a round? Who else will be shot in the process? Do you think merely brandishing your weapon would cause them to disperse? What's the legal grounds for brandishing at that point? What would be the legal grounds for the use of deadly force?

Those are all questions you need to answer before you go outside to confront them.

baldeagle wrote:

WildBill wrote:There is a recent thread about a group of thugs sitting on a car so the owner felt he couldn't safely get in his car and drive home. Shouldn't a person have the right to physically remove them from their property without being arrested for assault? Do the police have this right?

Let's pursue the deadly force angle. How many thugs do you think you can take on before you get hit by a round? Who else will be shot in the process? Do you think merely brandishing your weapon would cause them to disperse? What's the legal grounds for brandishing at that point? What would be the legal grounds for the use of deadly force?

Those are all questions you need to answer before you go outside to confront them.

I was discussing rights and the principle of such situations, not tactics. Nothing in the post suggested that they were armed. They just looked scary. If the thugs were armed and you were outnumbered, it would be foolish to engage.

Oldgringo wrote:IANAL and just out of curiosity, is "force" and "deadly force" treated the same by the courts?

A good CHL instructor will teach Texas Law.

A great CHL instructor will teach Texas Law and provide additional food for thought.

A poor CHL instructor will teach their opinion instead of Texas law.

The scenario as presented doesn't call for deadly force. Wading in with an axe handle ala Buford Pusser to disperse the gathering is also questionable. The best bet, IMO, is to call the local constabulary and report an unlawful gathering on and about your vehicle. Who knows the "thugs" you perceive may be a band of Hara Krishnas holding a prayer meeting.

Another idea, wild as it seems, is to avoid neighborhoods where thugs, methheads, crackheads, hookers and assorted other undesirables hang out.

Good night, Mrs Calabash...wherever you are.

PS:

(There are a couple of "oldies" hidden in here, anybody see 'em?)

Cobra Medic wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:IANAL and just out of curiosity, is "force" and "deadly force" treated the same by the courts?

A good CHL instructor will teach Texas Law.

A great CHL instructor will teach Texas Law and provide additional food for thought.

A poor CHL instructor will teach their opinion instead of Texas law.

Agreed with exception: teaching and sharing one's interpretation are not necessarily synonymous. While Texas law apparently will allow anybody to sit as a County Judge; it, by contrast, has specific requirements pertaining to education and experience to "TEACH" at the various level of academia...I think.

PS:

I wish I could make my computer do that [url] thinghy. That is so cool.

Oldgringo wrote:There are a couple of "oldies" hidden in here, anybody see 'em?

I got a couple. Walk tall with your schnozzola in the air.

WildBill wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:There are a couple of "oldies" hidden in here, anybody see 'em?

I got a couple. Walk tall with your schnozzola in the air.

Good job! The airport flower people were who...?

Oldgringo wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:There are a couple of "oldies" hidden in here, anybody see 'em?

I got a couple. Walk tall with your schnozzola in the air.

Good job! The airport flower people were who...?

I can't discuss religion or those guys wearing the saffron robes with shaved heads and the little ponytail in back.

Cobra Medic wrote:

WildBill wrote:There is a recent thread about a group of thugs sitting on a car so the owner felt he couldn't safely get in his car and drive home. Shouldn't a person have the right to physically remove them from their property without being arrested for assault? Do the police have this right?

PC 9.41

A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property

A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property

There's no argument about the law. The problem is that legal justification doesn't always define the best course of action. In other words, just because it's legal doesn't make it smart.

The challenge here is to identify a course of action that will not lead to extremely adverse consequences.

To illustrate, let's take this scenario in the indicated direction:

You go striding towards your vehicle cloaked with justification under the law, walk up to the closest guy sitting on the front fender, and push him off onto the ground.

How do you figure the rest will respond?

And your next move might be?.....