TexasCHLforum.com

I watched the interview with the woman (a school teacher) at the center of this video tape. She is an activist who claims that she must "shut down Facists". I see it as a parallel to the BLM activites. She was at the UC Berkely protest and proudly proclaimed her success there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gle7ysu7eY

My conclusion from this video tape is that she is guilty of assault and should have been taken away in handcuffs. That fact that she wasn't and that some of her fellow protesters fed off of her and attacked the object of her ire tells me all that I need to know about how to conduct myself in a similar situation. Withdrawal is the only option - as far and as fast as possible. Only if I would trying to do everything possible to put distance between myself and these loonies and felt like I was not going to be able to get away fast enough would I consider using deadly force.

We are at a point when there is no "stand your ground" in a public situation for anyone who does not rabidly follow Liberal view points. I know that I can make my voice heard at the ballot box and through my other activities. There is nothing to be gained from being anywhere near a protest/counter protest situation. While I don't think it is correct under the Constitution, there is so much else that falls into that same category that is more important to me that I'm not willing to accept the risks from this one.

Well, he may be going to jail, but he is still alive. Without using his firearm as a threat, he might have been beaten to death.
So jail is better than dead.

I find it interesting that with his past experience of getting broken bones after being attacked by a crowd, this judge found that he still did not have enough case to draw his firearm when beat down #2 was coming up. I will stay out of Oregon.

I find it interesting that with his past experience of getting broken bones after being attacked by a crowd, this judge found that he still did not have enough case to draw his firearm when beat down #2 was coming up. I will stay out of Oregon.

What one person sees as reasonable, another person may not. We live in strange times, where too many people are driven not by timeless values but by mob mentality, heeding rabid calls of "equity" too often originating from enemies of Liberty and indeed the timeless values that formed the cornerstone of our society. It is now unreasonable to assume that others might think and act as you do, or that they can even imagine themselves in your circumstances. It has never been more true that the best fight is the one you avoid.

It's difficult for me to tell exactly what happened from the video's that were posted here, but it does look like he is backing away from the protestors. He then draws after one of the protestors drops their backpack in preparation for a fight (that move brought back some memories from Middle School). From those videos alone, I would say that he was in danger. The potential attacker appeared to be well within the 21 feet "danger zone" when the guy drew his weapon.

I'm sure there was other evidence presented at trial. Hopefully not just the videos and testimony from the protestors. From the videos alone it would be tough to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the CHL holder was not justified.

Middle Age Russ wrote:

I find it interesting that with his past experience of getting broken bones after being attacked by a crowd, this judge found that he still did not have enough case to draw his firearm when beat down #2 was coming up. I will stay out of Oregon.

What one person sees as reasonable, another person may not. We live in strange times, where too many people are driven not by timeless values but by mob mentality, heeding rabid calls of "equity" too often originating from enemies of Liberty and indeed the timeless values that formed the cornerstone of our society. It is now unreasonable to assume that others might think and act as you do, or that they can even imagine themselves in your circumstances. It has never been more true that the best fight is the one you avoid.

The only way to win a fight is to not be there when it happens. Otherwise the best you can hope for is to not lose too much in the fight.

Middle Age Russ wrote:

I find it interesting that with his past experience of getting broken bones after being attacked by a crowd, this judge found that he still did not have enough case to draw his firearm when beat down #2 was coming up. I will stay out of Oregon.

What one person sees as reasonable, another person may not. We live in strange times, where too many people are driven not by timeless values but by mob mentality, heeding rabid calls of "equity" too often originating from enemies of Liberty and indeed the timeless values that formed the cornerstone of our society. It is now unreasonable to assume that others might think and act as you do, or that they can even imagine themselves in your circumstances. It has never been more true that the best fight is the one you avoid.

Agreed.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:It's difficult for me to tell exactly what happened from the video's that were posted here, but it does look like he is backing away from the protestors. He then draws after one of the protestors drops their backpack in preparation for a fight (that move brought back some memories from Middle School). From those videos alone, I would say that he was in danger. The potential attacker appeared to be well within the 21 feet "danger zone" when the guy drew his weapon.

I'm sure there was other evidence presented at trial. Hopefully not just the videos and testimony from the protestors. From the videos alone it would be tough to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the CHL holder was not justified.

I'm sure there were plenty of volunteers to testify against him.