TexasCHLforum.com

tomtexan wrote:

JP171 wrote:

seamusTX wrote:I haven't said hello, so hello.

This was discussed a while back: http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=13128" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The significant change between earlier years and now is the Texas presumption of what is generally called Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground. If someone breaks into your home, business, or vehicle, the use of deadly force is presumed to be reasonable.

Grand juries seem to go along with this 99% of the time, if the question even gets to a grand jury.

It's something of a cliché, but you have to decide whether you would rather be prosecuted, sued, killed, robbed, kidnapped, or (this applies mostly to women) raped.

- Jim

how is that you think that only applies to women???

it applies to everyone male or female

I believe he said mostly, not only.

Why yes, yes he did. And it is probably true.

I think he was referring to "Rape"

or (this applies mostly to women) raped.

Male or females can be the victim of rape now , don't discount your possibilities of being a victim .

there are a lot more men raped than people know and not just by other men, it happens it is very seldom reported less than 10% of male rapes are ever reported and less than that are ever prosecuted, so the remark of Mostly to women seems like a blow off to men statement that's all

Sign of the times .

tim2599 wrote:(First off, this may not be the right place to put this but I couldnt find an appropriate place to post.)

Has anybody at any point had the thought cross their mind that if they shoot someone and it is 100% lawful and justified that they will still end up screwed, criminally and likely civilly. It's been on my mind for some unknown reason. Is it normal to wonder about that(worrisome thinking)? I just don't want this to affect my judgement and put myself and others at unnecessary risks by hesitating

Can anyone give me some "advice" or wisdom or something to help ease my nerves.
Its really been bothering me.

Thanks!

Know the law. Try for inside & out. You probably won't get that far that fast. But a goal is a goal. And eventually you'll get to be pretty fluent in the use of force/deadly force statutes. This forum is a great resource in that regard. So keep asking questions & keep a copy of the chl-16 (or whatever the new document will be called that will reflect the changes from the latest legislative session).

Read as many self-defense accounts as you can & try to 'what if' them to give yourself mental practice for a range of different scenarios.

Instead of thinking about when you can shoot, start thinking about deadly force self defense from the perspective of what you can do to make sure that drawing and firing your gun are the absolute last resort without putting yourself in an unwinnable situation.

MaxBerlin wrote:I think it's silly to shoot someone for graffiti.

while I understand that there are other factors to consider (such as a gang tagging their turf), as a general rule I agree with you. My point was that the law was clear on it and juries (well the grand jury in that case) tended to go with the law.

JP171 wrote:... so the remark of Mostly to women seems like a blow off to men statement that's all ...

Let me put this in mature, adult terms:

Boo. Hoo. <sniff>

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

JP171 wrote:... so the remark of Mostly to women seems like a blow off to men statement that's all ...

Let me put this in mature, adult terms:

Boo. Hoo. <sniff>

- Jim

then please let me respond in more adult mature terms, grow up!

this I thought was a forum for discussion, not juvenile snobbery, if you like that I have just the forum for you, you'll enjoy it there its quiet they give you crayons and nice vitamins. If you don't like what I said then by all means you may be excused, but please don't go away mad, but just go away

tbrown wrote:

tim2599 wrote:(Can anyone give me some "advice" or wisdom or something to help ease my nerves.
Its really been bothering me.

I think it's something people should consider before carrying a gun. If they would rather end up dead than maybe face criminal and civil trials, they can avoid that fate worse than death by not carrying. On the other hand, if somebody would rather deal with the legal system than be killed by a criminal, they need to be prepared to deal with the legal system. It's up to each individual to decide what they're willing to deal with.

Late getting to this thread, but when I read the OP your words are almost exactly what was going thru my mind. Of course for many the concerns expressed by the OP is why they will only use their weapon to protect themselves or their family. Anyone else is up a creek. Still working thru that myself. Was never a question about putting myself out on a limb for a stranger before we had kids. Now don't really know what I would do until faced with the situation.

MaxBerlin wrote:I think it's silly to shoot someone for graffiti. It's not life threatening by any measure and the idea of "criminal mischief at night" complicates matters for everyone.

There should be the imminent threat of harm or death, kids setting off fireworks or flaming bags of pooh doesn't deserve the death penalty yet alone an 'emotional response' by a trigger happy CHL holder. It dilutes all of us. The reasonable CHL holders that want to only use this responsibility as a true last resort.

We know, "He was such a good boy". "He was only in a gang for his own protection". "He was going to kick the drug habit any day now". "He had such a bright future" (once he gets off parole). "Couldn't the bar owner have fired a 'warning shot'"?
Did I miss any?

jmra wrote:

MaxBerlin wrote:I think it's silly to shoot someone for graffiti. It's not life threatening by any measure and the idea of "criminal mischief at night" complicates matters for everyone.

There should be the imminent threat of harm or death, kids setting off fireworks or flaming bags of pooh doesn't deserve the death penalty yet alone an 'emotional response' by a trigger happy CHL holder. It dilutes all of us. The reasonable CHL holders that want to only use this responsibility as a true last resort.

We know, "He was such a good boy". "He was only in a gang for his own protection". "He was going to kick the drug habit any day now". "He had such a bright future" (once he gets off parole). "Couldn't the bar owner have fired a 'warning shot'"?
Did I miss any?

He could have shot him in the leg.

This is one of the great things about this forum. Its a chance to discuss and decide calmly then in the heat of action. Hesitation can slow you down and its best to resolve these issues for yourself now.

JJVP wrote:

jmra wrote:

MaxBerlin wrote:I think it's silly to shoot someone for graffiti. It's not life threatening by any measure and the idea of "criminal mischief at night" complicates matters for everyone.

There should be the imminent threat of harm or death, kids setting off fireworks or flaming bags of pooh doesn't deserve the death penalty yet alone an 'emotional response' by a trigger happy CHL holder. It dilutes all of us. The reasonable CHL holders that want to only use this responsibility as a true last resort.

We know, "He was such a good boy". "He was only in a gang for his own protection". "He was going to kick the drug habit any day now". "He had such a bright future" (once he gets off parole). "Couldn't the bar owner have fired a 'warning shot'"?
Did I miss any?

He could have shot him in the leg.

That's it. I know I was forgetting something.

I wrote: Let me put this in mature, adult terms: Boo. Hoo. <sniff>

I apologize for this snarky comment.

That said, I and other people tried to answer the question of the original poster in a reasonable way. The question was not how many males are victims of sexual assault.

It's too bad we don't have CHL Forum outings any more. The number of currently active forum members that I have met in person is now in the single digits.

As for growing up, I am a 57-year-old Christian, white, male, American who has been married to one woman for 33 years and keeping my nose clean, working, paying taxes, and voting for longer than I want to think about.

- Jim