TexasCHLforum.com

PRO wrote: The lost of a life is a tragic waste...

I don't agree.
In some cases.

PappaGun wrote:

PRO wrote: The lost of a life is a tragic waste...

I don't agree.
In some cases.

To me, the life is lost long before the last breath leaves the body. It was lost when the parents didn't take the time or effort to raise them right, they made the choice to cross the line into crime and disregard for all but themselves and their own wants and in some ways, the life of the person who was forced to take it is lost.

Many things lead up to the muzzel flash and the holder of the weapon, normally will never be the same. It's a situation we should all dread. Not fear but avoid.

I personally would like to bring back public hangings. Allow all ages to watch as they drop to the end of the rope, hear the snap. watch the legs twitch and kick and smell the release. I doubt the kids will idolize being a gangster or their gangster rap.

I just pity the executioner.

PappaGun wrote:

PRO wrote: The lost of a life is a tragic waste...

I don't agree.
In some cases.

To me it's the life or lives that are saved that makes it a "winning" situation. It's horrible for someone to die in a situation like this, but I look at things a little different than some folks. Once a person (Remember, a BG could be anyone, even a close family member who would "Never hurt anyone") makes the decision to commit a crime, they create their own destiny with the consequences of their actions. I have no problem shooting someone who had the option of not becoming a thief but chose to anyway, fully knowing the potential risks and consequences of his/her actions. We all have the option of becoming a criminal, but most of us won't. We can weigh the possible consequences and make an educated decision. No thief/mugger/rapist/murderer just starts committing crimes and never once thinks of being arrested or killed for their actions. They put themselves in that situation knowing the potential risks of their actions, yet they commit the crime anyway. I hate to kill another human being, but they had their choice, and now I have mine... I choose to live. Right or wrong, I believe this justifies shooting a criminal, at least in my mind.

I know we work hard to afford a decent living for our family. Why in the world those who are bent on violent criminal activities don't do the same? This is puzzling? It is a shameful to be criminal, why not be a proud great dad?
Just look at some of the comments of those who knew the criminal, they are effectively saying armed robbery is no big deal. Why murder the criminal? Just a hint of the mentality of family raised on crimes.

PRO wrote:

PappaGun wrote:

PRO wrote: The lost of a life is a tragic waste...

I don't agree.
In some cases.

To me, the life is lost long before the last breath leaves the body. It was lost when the parents didn't take the time or effort to raise them right, they made the choice to cross the line into crime and disregard for all but themselves and their own wants and in some ways, the life of the person who was forced to take it is lost.

In matters of life and death, one must define the terms carefully and think through all potential consequences of one's proffered solutions. What is a life and what defines it as such? Potential? Material quality? Wealth? Health? Current feelings of gratification? What is our justification for taking another's life? At what point is another justified to take ours?

I firmly believe that a unique life with inalienable rights begins at conception, that we do not ever have the right to take another's life with the intent of causing death, and that wars (on battlefields or backyards) must be justly entered and ethically sustained. This is not a pacifistic position. If someone is putting your life in danger, you have a right to protect your life with whatever means of stopping the threat are available. Sometimes that includes the death of another. But there's a big, big difference in the fuzzy "his life was lost a long time ago" and specific terminology about why lethal force against a human being was just in this instance.

If you don't define your terms and draw a line in the sand, it could be you whose life is determined to be over "long ago" next. I know I don't want to be euthanized/murdered because I had a stroke or cancer and someone else decided my life wasn't worth living. It's a very different application, but it is the same root issue. What is life? What is our justification for taking the life of another?


They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
-Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

PRO wrote:It's the back shot thats going to cause the most problems for Mr. Hall.

When I lived in England, a farmer went to jail for a back shot. The two perps had burgled his home multiple times, abused him, etc. but it was the back shot that sent him down. Of course, in poor light it can be difficult to tell if an actor is running towards you or away from you. And, in truth, the court didn't care. Tony Martin was sent to prison for a gross act of lese majesty, in seeking to defend himself rather than waiting for the authorities to pick up the pieces.

A thought an anecdote.

I read some of the commentary on the DMN site (saw yours too Beiruty...good post) and what a lot of people failed to note was that Mr. Hall did not shoot until he was in imminent danger. He submitted to the robber and did not draw and fire until fired upon. Sounds like a pretty high threshold to me.

I worked a motor pedestrian accident one time where the "victim" was DRT (dead right there). Going through his wallet for an I.D. the police and I found a card showing he was a registered sex offender with "sex with a minor" or similar language on it. This guy was 50 or more. I went to the distraught driver and asked her to consider, as she was healing, how many lives were saved this night. I prayed with her and her fiancee' and left feeling she would be alright. The point being as has been mentioned, how many lives were saved with this one shooting?

Dragonfighter wrote:A thought an anecdote.

I read some of the commentary on the DMN site (saw yours too Beiruty...good post) and what a lot of people failed to note was that Mr. Hall did not shoot until he was in imminent danger. He submitted to the robber and did not draw and fire until fired upon. Sounds like a pretty high threshold to me.

I worked a motor pedestrian accident one time where the "victim" was DRT (dead right there). Going through his wallet for an I.D. the police and I found a card showing he was a registered sex offender with "sex with a minor" or similar language on it. This guy was 50 or more. I went to the distraught driver and asked her to consider, as she was healing, how many lives were saved this night. I prayed with her and her fiancee' and left feeling she would be alright. The point being as has been mentioned, how many lives were saved with this one shooting?

So true... What if the BG went on to mug and kill another victim? I know that it is all just speculation as to what happens in the future, but the BG had a rap sheet that was getting progressively worse... Usually what happens after armed robbery is attempted murder/ manslaughter...

3dfxMM wrote:

PRO wrote:

Keith B wrote:
Police officers and cities don't have the defense to civil liability in a shooting, even in a justified case, like CHL'ers do.

This is why I'm on this forum. I've been out of the loop for years and didn't know the protections afforded CHL'ers. Does make me wonder why a law firm in Houston offering CHL insurance states they will represent you in the criminal and civil process. I'll email them, because I know this is the land of the lawsuit and if someone can sue you they will sue you.

With the aforementioned exceptions for LEOs and governments, I believe those protections extend to all justified shootings by law-abiding citizens, not just to CHL'ers.

You are correct, not just CHL'ers if they are justified.

Dragonfighter wrote:A thought an anecdote.

I read some of the commentary on the DMN site (saw yours too Beiruty...good post) and what a lot of people failed to note was that Mr. Hall did not shoot until he was in imminent danger. He submitted to the robber and did not draw and fire until fired upon. Sounds like a pretty high threshold to me.

I worked a motor pedestrian accident one time where the "victim" was DRT (dead right there). Going through his wallet for an I.D. the police and I found a card showing he was a registered sex offender with "sex with a minor" or similar language on it. This guy was 50 or more. I went to the distraught driver and asked her to consider, as she was healing, how many lives were saved this night. I prayed with her and her fiancee' and left feeling she would be alright. The point being as has been mentioned, how many lives were saved with this one shooting?

While I understand why you would tell a grieving and distressed woman this to help her re-frame her thoughts concerning an accident and to heal, I must again point out that in intellectual and removed conversation on the matter like is being had here that this is a scary criteria to apply to the taking of another's life. His potential for the future was statistically more likely to include crime than to include boy scouting so it was good that he was killed? The implications of that are enormous and have tentacles on your own life.

The taking of life is never good (and I recognize that you, Dragonfighter, did not use that word. I'm responding to what appears to be an ethos among many on the board, not just to you). The taking of life can be just. I'm sure many of the veterans will attest that they didn't feel warm fuzzy goodness after taking an enemy's life on the battlefield, or in the ensuing days or months or years in which they could think about what happened, even when it was just.

If we say that a person's future statistical potential is what determines if his life is present or worth saving, then the new healthcare initiative's death panels, and decisions to not treat certain illnesses over a certain age because it isn't economically beneficial, and support for the removal of food, water, and lifesaving medication like antibiotics from those who would be able to live with those primary and fundamental resources of life, then you and your aging parents and your children in car accidents are going to be next on the list of lives not worth living because your statistical potential isn't what someone else deems is worth living.

We must use our words carefully. A man's life was being threatened and even attacked. He responded in a way that intended to end the threat on his life. That is just. Because of his knowledge of and practice of his RKBA, he had the means of leveling the playing field in doing so. That can be called good. Praise TX for its CHL laws. Praise him for carrying. Praise him for acting with a cool head in the midst of trouble. Praise him for protecting himself. There's a big difference between that and praising the man's death, and a huge difference in the potential implications of the diverging ideologies. In the former, if more people adopted it, you would see more guns and more RKBA. In the latter, your own death might be hastened next.

Hoi Polloi wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote:A thought an anecdote.

I read some of the commentary on the DMN site (saw yours too Beiruty...good post) and what a lot of people failed to note was that Mr. Hall did not shoot until he was in imminent danger. He submitted to the robber and did not draw and fire until fired upon. Sounds like a pretty high threshold to me.

I worked a motor pedestrian accident one time where the "victim" was DRT (dead right there). Going through his wallet for an I.D. the police and I found a card showing he was a registered sex offender with "sex with a minor" or similar language on it. This guy was 50 or more. I went to the distraught driver and asked her to consider, as she was healing, how many lives were saved this night. I prayed with her and her fiancee' and left feeling she would be alright. The point being as has been mentioned, how many lives were saved with this one shooting?

While I understand why you would tell a grieving and distressed woman this to help her re-frame her thoughts concerning an accident and to heal, I must again point out that in intellectual and removed conversation on the matter like is being had here that this is a scary criteria to apply to the taking of another's life. His potential for the future was statistically more likely to include crime than to include boy scouting so it was good that he was killed? The implications of that are enormous and have tentacles on your own life.

The taking of life is never good (and I recognize that you, Dragonfighter, did not use that word. I'm responding to what appears to be an ethos among many on the board, not just to you). The taking of life can be just. I'm sure many of the veterans will attest that they didn't feel warm fuzzy goodness after taking an enemy's life on the battlefield, or in the ensuing days or months or years in which they could think about what happened, even when it was just.

If we say that a person's future statistical potential is what determines if his life is present or worth saving, then the new healthcare initiative's death panels, and decisions to not treat certain illnesses over a certain age because it isn't economically beneficial, and support for the removal of food, water, and lifesaving medication like antibiotics from those who would be able to live with those primary and fundamental resources of life, then you and your aging parents and your children in car accidents are going to be next on the list of lives not worth living because your statistical potential isn't what someone else deems is worth living.

We must use our words carefully. A man's life was being threatened and even attacked. He responded in a way that intended to end the threat on his life. That is just. Because of his knowledge of and practice of his RKBA, he had the means of leveling the playing field in doing so. That can be called good. Praise TX for its CHL laws. Praise him for carrying. Praise him for acting with a cool head in the midst of trouble. Praise him for protecting himself. There's a big difference between that and praising the man's death, and a huge difference in the potential implications of the diverging ideologies. In the former, if more people adopted it, you would see more guns and more RKBA. In the latter, your own death might be hastened next.

I understand the feelings of folks who are horrified by criminal acts and feel that our society is better off when one of the folks who commit these acts is sent to meet his Maker by an intended victim or Good Samaritan. It's hard not to feel that justice is served in these cases, and in many of them it may well be. However, if this line of thinking is used as part of the decision process for when deadly force should or should not be used, it is a step off a moral cliff that brings the purported defender much closer to the moral level of the person being defended against.

We are not judges, juries, and executioners, nor are we God or his avenging angels. We may lawfully and morally use deadly force under certain limited circumstances because the laws of both God and man (in Texas, anyway) recognize that the negative consequences of not allowing the preservation of innocent life by even deadly means exceed the negative consequences of doing so.

If someone steps outside of that limited justification and acts on some fantasy of "culling the herd", even if the circumstances are technically within the law, in my view he or she is way off the reservation and in territory that will likely deny him peaceful rest on many occasions for the remainder of his years. I also suspect that it may necessitate a long and uncomfortable explanation at the end.

Seeing someone die from a violent act is a life changing experience, and not at all like the sterile video game like bad guys' deaths in the movies. It's seldom instantaneous. The images and sounds are horrific and never go away. Knowing that one caused that death is a moral burden, even when one knows for sure there was no other way to protect innocent life. Knowing deep down that one had other options and decided to kill instead is not something I would want to live with afterward.

The loss of any life is tragic whether it was justified or not. I believe Mr. Hall from what I read was justified in defending himself I hope the grand jury lets him off. With that said I have worked with inner city kids for years. About 5 years ago I was introduced to a young man that had gotten out of prison for armed robbery, he was running with some bad dudes, they decided to rob a store at gun point. In my opinion the owner of that store had the right to use deadly force, but in this case he was not armed and the boys didnt shoot him. Needless to say they were caught and incarcerated. He is now married with two little girls and works hard for a man that will hire felons. He has turned his life around. This doesnt always happen but that is the way I see life, in many circumstances I say "there go I but for the grace of God". With that said it just means I have compassion for people, but it doesnt mean if my life or my families life is in danger I wont pull the trigger. I just dont believe we have the right to pre-determine who is here and who is not, it is not for us to decide, it is not for us to judge, and I would hope God would give me grace and mercy for my bad deeds in life. With that said I believe in self defense and the use of deadly force when necessary to preserve innocent life, whether that be your life, or someone elses.

Then perhaps from an investigative point of view. I have little fact to go on here except the shot placement, however, that tells volumes.

1. A round to the butt, the back and to the head. There was distance between the suspect and the victim. Adrenaline and fear aside, he would have had a tighter gouping if the suspect was within 7 feet, so the suspect was a ways off and fleeing. At this point, the crime of robbery was over. That justification is gone and now he was shooting at a fleeing felon.
2. If the suspect wanted to kill his victim, why would he do it shooting behind his back when he was just face to face? Does it sound like the suspect wanted to kill or flee?
3. 3 rounds, 3 hits including a head shot. Was the victim running for cover, diving to the ground because he was being fired upon or was he standing in a Weaver stance, both hands on the weapon? Maybe he’s a former Navy Seal but I doubt it.
4. No witnesses?? Who fired first?
These questions alone lead me to think there is something fishy about the story and I’m leaning towards this being a CHL’er who’s ego was bruised by the robbery, got it into his head that, “The law says I can shoot him,” so he shot him in the back. I do not believe his life was in much jeopardy until he started firing at someone whose back was turned. I hope I’m wrong as it would be a pity if the CHL’ers had the mentality that, “I can kill so I will!”

I personally will hold myself to a higher standard.

The article I read said stomach, head, and butt (not back, back of head, and butt). That would indicate a man at close distance (to get three shots into him) at either a side stance or who changed positions between shots.

PRO wrote:Then perhaps from an investigative point of view. I have little fact to go on here except the shot placement, however, that tells volumes.

1. A round to the butt, the back and to the head. There was distance between the suspect and the victim. Adrenaline and fear aside, he would have had a tighter gouping if the suspect was within 7 feet, so the suspect was a ways off and fleeing. At this point, the crime of robbery was over. That justification is gone and now he was shooting at a fleeing felon.
2. If the suspect wanted to kill his victim, why would he do it shooting behind his back when he was just face to face? Does it sound like the suspect wanted to kill or flee?
3. 3 rounds, 3 hits including a head shot. Was the victim running for cover, diving to the ground because he was being fired upon or was he standing in a Weaver stance, both hands on the weapon? Maybe he’s a former Navy Seal but I doubt it.
4. No witnesses?? Who fired first?
These questions alone lead me to think there is something fishy about the story and I’m leaning towards this being a CHL’er who’s ego was bruised by the robbery, got it into his head that, “The law says I can shoot him,” so he shot him in the back. I do not believe his life was in much jeopardy until he started firing at someone whose back was turned. I hope I’m wrong as it would be a pity if the CHL’ers had the mentality that, “I can kill so I will!”

I personally will hold myself to a higher standard.

From your statements it appears to me you have never been in an actual self-defense situation. During that time, there are so many things going on you will more than likely NOT have a tighter grouping. When running and ducking for cover, there are extremely good shooters who will miss the toroso completely, even at 7 yards (21 feet). This isn't practice shooting at a cardboard bad guy holding a pistol; it's real world life-or-death.

You seem to keep thinking this CHL is the guilty one. Why? It doesn't sound like he has anything to hide. Apprently the police investigating this incedent have no suspicions on it not being a good shoot. Why the negativity toward the victim defending himself??

As for holding youself to a higher standard, if you are not willing to defend yourself with your CCW, as this guy apparently did when he was shot at, then you shouldn't be carrying IMO.