TexasCHLforum.com

It always amazed me how someone can get angry at being called a name or even being shown a single digit, particularly when coming from a stranger.

Perhaps their mothers never taught the rhyme "Stick and stones can break my bones but names will never hurt me. Or heard the song "These are only words" There are enough things in our lives going on to make us angry, but getting angry about , middle fingers or unfriendly words from a stranger. doesn't cause really anyone any harm. Our CHLs are issued to allow us to protect our lives and well being, not to ensure we get the last word.

goheeled wrote:I guess technically he did de-escalate the situation. Not the smartest move but in the end they all walked away, steering clear of violence. I hope he's had time to look back on it and realize he could have made a better decision.

Given that he is still bragging about it to strangers a year later, I think it is safe to say this doofus has learned nothing.

Really dumb on too many levels to count. If true he is lucky he got away un-injured. I used to know some real bikers.
Never bluff. Avoidance is the best tactic.

This is the very thing I struggle with the most. How much do I take before I do something? If I'm alone I think I could back down quite a bit, but if my wife and or my daughter and my grand daughter are with me, I don't know.

danpaw wrote:but if my wife and or my daughter and my grand daughter are with me, I don't know

If you or they are not in physical danger, then you take it all.

The words won't get you killed and shouldn't get them killed.

danpaw wrote:This is the very thing I struggle with the most. How much do I take before I do something? If I'm alone I think I could back down quite a bit, but if my wife and or my daughter and my grand daughter are with me, I don't know.

"How much I will take" is pretty well stated in Chapter 9.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... m/PE.9.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I don't recall it saying to defend a woman's ears by threatening force, nor deadly force or escalating to a point to which either would be necessary. But to prevent serious physical harm, kidnapping etc, sure.

Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:

"Watch it buddy" implies an "or else"
Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... m/PE.9.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
PENAL CODE
TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

Sec. 9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH. (a) A person is justified in using force, but not deadly force, ...

Lots of good stuff in that chapter worth knowing ... I find myself reviewing it, but still go by Mr. Miaggi's advice "Best defense ... not be there"

I agree. I always avoid places where trouble is likely to be but I know it's not 100%.

I'm inclined to think the CHL holder (not the topic creator) made the whole thing up but then I sometimes underestimate the stupidity of people.

rspeir wrote:I'm inclined to think the CHL holder (not the topic creator) made the whole thing up but then I sometimes underestimate the stupidity of people.

Too much of that story just doesn't seem plausible.

olafpfj wrote:

rspeir wrote:I'm inclined to think the CHL holder (not the topic creator) made the whole thing up but then I sometimes underestimate the stupidity of people.

Too much of that story just doesn't seem plausible.

I certainly thought of that too. However, I've been in the business of talking and listening to people for 35 plus years. This account seemed real to me as best I could tell. I just don't think the person telling the story realized how wrong he may have been and that there were other options for him. It worked out ok for him then, but it may not, if there is a future like incident. I posted it for a few reasons. First, to point out a scenario where someone did not act in the best manner, IMO. Secondly, to see if anyone knew of any laws that may have been broken. Lastly, to be a reminder to me and others that de-escelation is an important aspect of CHLers. Those are good reminders for us all, no matter if the story was true or not.

CC Italian wrote:It's a slang term that usually means someone is easily influenced or manipulated as far as I remember. I am in my early 30s and I am sorry to say I think this is something my generation and maybe people a few years older started. As far as I know the first time I heard it was in the early-mid 90s during my 8th grade or freshmen year. I think it was one of those things that spawned off from grunge culture but I could be wrong.

I am sorry to also say that we used the term as a form of hazing to kids who were loaners and followers who tried to enter our groups or cliques without knowing us.

It's a reference to a specific part of the male anatomy. The term has been in use for quite a long time. I was probably in my 20s the first time I can recall hearing it, and I'm 59 now.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

CC Italian wrote:It's a slang term that usually means someone is easily influenced or manipulated as far as I remember. I am in my early 30s and I am sorry to say I think this is something my generation and maybe people a few years older started. As far as I know the first time I heard it was in the early-mid 90s during my 8th grade or freshmen year. I think it was one of those things that spawned off from grunge culture but I could be wrong.

I am sorry to also say that we used the term as a form of hazing to kids who were loaners and followers who tried to enter our groups or cliques without knowing us.

It's a reference to a specific part of the male anatomy. The term has been in use for quite a long time. I was probably in my 20s the first time I can recall hearing it, and I'm 59 now.

55yo here, and it's always been used as a substitute for the short form of Richard...as in "that guy is a real "tool"!

danpaw wrote:This is the very thing I struggle with the most. How much do I take before I do something? If I'm alone I think I could back down quite a bit, but if my wife and or my daughter and my grand daughter are with me, I don't know.

If one isn't prepared to take a lot of verbal abuse, even if it involves them hearing the vilest of verbal abuse. They may want to concider not carrying.

We often vent our anger not because it does any good other than it makes us feel better. A man who keeps the peace, shows more love than someone who reacts on their anger and gets hurt killed or arrested. When this happens we lose our ability to care and protect.

Sticks and stones will break our bones but names will never hurt me nor will it hurt our loved ones.

olafpfj wrote:

rspeir wrote:I'm inclined to think the CHL holder (not the topic creator) made the whole thing up but then I sometimes underestimate the stupidity of people.

Too much of that story just doesn't seem plausible.

I think I have to call bully-bull on the story. I think this phrase, which I have used before, applies here: "The empty vessel makes the most noise".

RPB wrote:Lots of good stuff in that chapter worth knowing ... I find myself reviewing it, but still go by Mr. Miaggi's advice "Best defense ... not be there"

Especially Sec. 9.31.(b)(4)

"The use of force against another is not justified [...] if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force"