TexasCHLforum.com

RoadRunnerTR21 wrote:A bit left and not quite right shall I say?

I like that. I'm gonna have to remember that...

Whoever thought that was a good idea needs Taser® therapy.

An obvious & shameless attempt to grab headlines for the venue. I'm glad that this didn't end in a tragedy, but I hope that the locals are vocal in their opposition to such a dumb stunt.

JJVP wrote:

Capital 8 Theaters manager Bob Wilkins told ABC 17 News this was planned months in advance and only a few people were upset, but hundreds were entertained.

If this is actually true, the sheep haven't learned much.

I wonder if there was anybody carrying in that theater and if so, how close they were to plugging this guy? What an incredibly stupid thing to do.

jocat54 wrote:What a stupid act.
I probably would be in jail right now for shooting some stupid actor.(Hmmmmm, maybe that makes me stupid)

So you would shoot at somebody that was not threatening and had not fired a shot?
Did they not cover use of lethal force in your CHL class?

android wrote:

jocat54 wrote:What a stupid act.
I probably would be in jail right now for shooting some stupid actor.(Hmmmmm, maybe that makes me stupid)

So you would shoot at somebody that was not threatening and had not fired a shot?
Did they not cover use of lethal force in your CHL class?

You can't really use "had not fired a shot" as justification for not plugging the guy (if a stranger walks up to you and points a gun at you for no reason but never pulls the trigger, what is your first reaction going to be? I'd bet you'd pull and put a few center mass). None of us were there so we can't say whether the actor acted in any threatening manner. Did he walk in and pull his "fake gun" up in an "action pose" or anything else that could be construed as threatening?

In the aftermath of Aurora, you never know when or where a copycat is going to pop up. If a CHL had shot the guy I have a feeling they would have been no billed. Everyone there could potentially perceive that their life was in danger (hence why many called 911).

android wrote:

jocat54 wrote:What a stupid act.
I probably would be in jail right now for shooting some stupid actor.(Hmmmmm, maybe that makes me stupid)

So you would shoot at somebody that was not threatening and had not fired a shot?
Did they not cover use of lethal force in your CHL class?

I just had my CHL class and we covered use of force quite a bit. It comes down to whether you reasonably believed that force was immediately necessary to prevent the use of unlawful force against them. The very first thing on the examples of reasonableness is if weapons are visible.

So if a guy in tactical gear comes into the theater holding a rifle the alarm bells are going to be sounding loud and clear. What he does from that point would make the determination on what I would do. If he's yelling, sweeping the crowd and making it fairly obvious he's not a cop well...

You certainly don't have to wait for a shot to be fired. And I don't think you can say he's not threatening at all but without being there it is hard to say.

I just read through the comments some and found a link to photos from the theater.

https://m.facebook.com/AmberAndAmandaPh ... er=6410498" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This by itself seems fine. I think the issue is there was somebody dressed in gear in the parking lot which is what triggered the alarm.

My guess is it was one of the actors arriving or leaving and not with the group. I don't have an issue with the lobby display but they probably could have organized it better so that actors in costume weren't roaming the parking lot.

SQLGeek wrote:

android wrote:

jocat54 wrote:What a stupid act.
I probably would be in jail right now for shooting some stupid actor.(Hmmmmm, maybe that makes me stupid)

So you would shoot at somebody that was not threatening and had not fired a shot?
Did they not cover use of lethal force in your CHL class?

I just had my CHL class and we covered use of force quite a bit. It comes down to whether you reasonably believed that force was immediately necessary to prevent the use of unlawful force against them. The very first thing on the examples of reasonableness is if weapons are visible.

Carrying a rifle openly is not an illegal act in Texas, so if your instructor told you that, you should probably go somewhere else for your refresher when it comes up.

I am not saying this should not get your immediate and undivided attention until you figure out what is going on, but this is not in and of itself a threat or justification to shoot. Shoot first ask questions later only works for cops, they have qualified immunity, you do not.

android wrote:Shoot first ask questions later only works for cops

Can you explain that statement.

jmra wrote:

android wrote:Shoot first ask questions later only works for cops

Can you explain that statement.

Cops, rightly or wrongly, can sometimes get away with stuff for which anyone else would be arrested.

jmra wrote:

android wrote:Shoot first ask questions later only works for cops

Can you explain that statement.

An officer has qualified immunity and can make mistakes as long as they are not breaking the law.

You do not have that luxury, if you accidentally shoot somebody or accidentally shoot a bystander even if you are justified in shooting a threat, you are both legally and criminally accountable.

Are they not teaching the same CHL class I took or are you guys just not paying attention?

Dave2 wrote:

jmra wrote:

android wrote:Shoot first ask questions later only works for cops

Can you explain that statement.

Cops, rightly or wrongly, can sometimes get away with stuff for which anyone else would be arrested.

I understand that in an officer's performance of his duties, such as apprehending a suspect, he will be required to act more aggressively than a civilian. But to suggest that a civilian does not have the same rights to self defense as an LEO is absolutely absurd.
If someone walks into a theater with a rifle, any action taken by that individual which would result in a justified shooting by an officer would also be justified by a CHL.

android wrote:

jmra wrote:

android wrote:Shoot first ask questions later only works for cops

Can you explain that statement.

An officer has qualified immunity and can make mistakes as long as they are not breaking the law.

You do not have that luxury, if you accidentally shoot somebody or accidentally shoot a bystander even if you are justified in shooting a threat, you are both legally and criminally accountable.

Are they not teaching the same CHL class I took or are you guys just not paying attention?

If I were you I'd ask for my money back. I'd also lose the attitude. Qualified immunity does not allow an officer to shoot first and ask questions later. That is simply asinine.

jmra wrote:

android wrote:

jmra wrote:

android wrote:Shoot first ask questions later only works for cops

Can you explain that statement.

An officer has qualified immunity and can make mistakes as long as they are not breaking the law.

You do not have that luxury, if you accidentally shoot somebody or accidentally shoot a bystander even if you are justified in shooting a threat, you are both legally and criminally accountable.

Are they not teaching the same CHL class I took or are you guys just not paying attention?

If I were you I'd ask for my money back. I'd also lose the attitude. Qualified immunity does not allow an officer to shoot first and ask questions later. That is simply asinine.

Tell Margie Carranza and Emma Hernandez that.

The officers that shot up their truck and shot Emma in the back twice were not charged with any crime and have no personal liability. The City of Los Angeles is paying the settlement of $4.2 million dollars. The officers don't even appear to be getting a slap on the wrist.

The incident was called a "tragic misinterpretation" by the LAPD Chief.

I stand by my statement.

Stand by for "isolated incident" response to the example...