TexasCHLforum.com

android wrote:

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...

Have not been charged with a crime yet. If you want to use a corrupt foriegn country like California as your example then we don't have much to discuss.

http://www.fox16.com/news/local/story/P ... SFi3Q.cspx

http://t.newsone.com/newsone/#!/entry/w ... d9d0baabe4

http://www.officer.com/video/10412561/d ... nslaughter

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local ... 42921.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/14/nyreg ... .html?_r=0

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/0 ... 66296.html

I've barely scratched the surface but I can continue if you'd like.

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?

You need to get your $$ back. If you are attacked and in the course of defending yourself against an attacker a bystander is injured the ATTACKER is legally responsible not you. Now we don't want to be negligent. And I sure as all get out don't want to ever have that happen, but in TX you are in the clear.

Sometimes injustice does occur, but on the whole in TX you are much more likely to find justice than elsewhere (like the statist cabal CA). I don't have to wait to have a bullet in my head or my children's head to defend myself. If a person is waving a gun around and making threats I am going to take actio

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?

Since none of us were there, the actual chain of events is pretty much 100% assumption. You can't say that the actors were NOT making threatening gestures any more than someone could say that they WERE.

In my mind, I pictured several guys dressed in tactical garb running around doing tactical stuff. If that were the case (or something close to it), the perceived threat could justify the use of deadly force.

If they were simply walking around & posing for pictures with folks, then the use of force or deadly force would not have been justified.

Now that we've cleared that up, the discussion can proceed to the "gosh, for such a pro-2a forum; you guys sure are jumpy about the sight of a (turns out to be fake) EBR" trail....

TexasCajun wrote: Now that we've cleared that up, the discussion can proceed to the "gosh, for such a pro-2a forum; you guys sure are jumpy about the sight of a (turns out to be fake) EBR" trail....

I had fully expected that discussion to occur at some point in this thread. While I wouldn't be jumpy at the sight of the fake EBR I truly think it depends on the circumstances surrounding the situation. A guy in tactical gear carrying a rifle in/or around a movie theater at the opening of what is expected to be huge superhero blockbuster would certainly get my attention simply because there is always someone out there looking for 15 minutes of fame. We can blame the media for that phenomena.

bauer wrote:

TexasCajun wrote: Now that we've cleared that up, the discussion can proceed to the "gosh, for such a pro-2a forum; you guys sure are jumpy about the sight of a (turns out to be fake) EBR" trail....

I had fully expected that discussion to occur at some point in this thread. While I wouldn't be jumpy at the sight of the fake EBR I truly think it depends on the circumstances surrounding the situation. A guy in tactical gear carrying a rifle in/or around a movie theater at the opening of what is expected to be huge superhero blockbuster would certainly get my attention simply because there is always someone out there looking for 15 minutes of fame. We can blame the media for that phenomena.