TexasCHLforum.com

Abraham wrote:"And an LEO has no duty to protect you says the Supreme Court"

But you do?

I do?

By virtue of getting a CHL, one adopts the mantle of righting violent wrongs wherever they announce themselves?

Go through the effort of getting a CHL and I now have the burden of protecting one and all?

Do I have that right?

If I do, we'll have to agree to disagree.

To some point I agree to disagree. I don't believe its up to me to save the world but I don't think its right to allow someone to beat someone within an inch of their life so I would step up. Would I try to stop a grab and run robbery, no I don't think so. I think every circumstance is different and my answer would depend, sometimes being a good witness is the better way.

As for the AutoZone guy, I hear he has a new job so it worked out for him.

Abraham wrote:"And an LEO has no duty to protect you says the Supreme Court"

But you do?

No.

Abraham wrote:I do?

No.

Abraham wrote:By virtue of getting a CHL, one adopts the mantle of righting violent wrongs wherever they announce themselves?

That's a mischaracterization of the discussion. We're not talking about "righting violent wrongs wherever they announce themselves". We're talking about being confronted with a violent situation and making decisions based upon the elements of that confrontation.

In point of fact, the genesis of this discussion was whether or not the actions of the store clerk were right or wrong. Your contention was that he should not have re-entered the store since it wasn't his duty to do so. The opposing contention is that we have a moral duty as human beings that transcends any legal duty we might think we have. That moral duty compels us to intervene in those situations where we are confronted with a choice to act. How we choose to act speaks volumes about our moral compass.

Abraham wrote:Go through the effort of getting a CHL and I now have the burden of protecting one and all?

Absolutely not. Again, you're mischaracterizing the discussion.

Abraham wrote:Do I have that right?

You do not. You have grossly mischaracterized the opposing view.

Abraham,
You have basically stated that you will not get involved in a 3rd party force or deadly force to protect any life other than yours or your family even if the 3rd party is about to be killed.

That is your choice & it is legal for you to make it. The moral ethics of your position has now been challenged w/ good arguments.

No one has said you or any one should get involved in a domestic slapping or the like.

Stop streatching or mis-stating the facts or be willing to have others state them correctly.
LT

Fair enough.

I do think many take the position that possessing a CHL obligates them beyond the boundaries of what they're about, if that makes any sense...?

And yes, at times I tend to exaggerate to make my point. Perhaps, in this latest, to a fault.

Many times the responses teach me something new.

Truth be told, I would step up to the plate were it necessary, (how could I not?) but I find it instructive to be a devil's advocate...

You know, I think this situation is harder to figure than I thought.
1. If he stays put and someone gets killed, he has to live with that.
2. If he runs outside and someone gets killed, much of the same.
3. If he runs outside and returns, thus ending the situation, he must know he'll live with that too.
I guess he can always get another job, he can't get another life. All in all, a very difficult situation all around.

Abraham wrote:Fair enough.

I do think many take the position that possessing a CHL obligates them beyond the boundaries of what they're about, if that makes any sense...?

<SNIP>

I was who I am and do what I do long before CHL's. It is only that there is another tool and another option to carry out the actions and choices I have made since the CHL.

Dragonfighter wrote:

Abraham wrote:Fair enough.

I do think many take the position that possessing a CHL obligates them beyond the boundaries of what they're about, if that makes any sense...?

<SNIP>

I was who I am and do what I do long before CHL's. It is only that there is another tool and another option to carry out the actions and choices I have made since the CHL.

Very correct DragonFighter. I teach in class that a gun on you hip will not change your character. Adversities do not build character, they reveal it.
The young man from AutoZone revealed his character.
So have several through this thread.
Several yrs ago, Clinton era, I was standing in a group of men just listening to the discussion. It was about what folks would do to defend the Nation after the ban & then confiscation. An older Veteran finally interrupted them & said something like, you will find out who the real men are because they will come out of the woods w/ ax handles if that is all they have to fight with.
I did not say anything then & never have to him. I have made a point to visit him pretty regular though.

Abraham wrote:"And an LEO has no duty to protect you says the Supreme Court"

But you do?

I do?

By virtue of getting a CHL, one adopts the mantle of righting violent wrongs wherever they announce themselves?

Go through the effort of getting a CHL and I now have the burden of protecting one and all?

Do I have that right?

If I do, we'll have to agree to disagree.

No, but a person does have a choice. If one finds themselves in a situation it is up to them to decide whether to act or not.