TexasCHLforum.com

MechAg94 wrote:If I could know that pulling my cash out of my wallet and handing it over would make him go away, it would be very easy to just do that. That would work that one time. However, profit always brings repetition and attracts more participants. That probably isn't something for self defense though.

That's a big part of my concern. In the micro scheme of things, being a good, compliant victim works to your advantage (except when it doesn't). In the macro, rewarding bad behavior just leads to more and more of the same - to everyone's detriment in the community.

RHenriksen wrote:

MechAg94 wrote:If I could know that pulling my cash out of my wallet and handing it over would make him go away, it would be very easy to just do that. That would work that one time. However, profit always brings repetition and attracts more participants. That probably isn't something for self defense though.

That's a big part of my concern. In the micro scheme of things, being a good, compliant victim works to your advantage (except when it doesn't). In the macro, rewarding bad behavior just leads to more and more of the same - to everyone's detriment in the community.

To me, the macro vs micro thing is the distinction between my job and the job of the police. My job is to do whatever is most likely to ensure that I and my family survive that moment unharmed. That might involve the use of my weapon or it might not. It is the job of the police to investigate after the crime has occurred, catch the perps and apprehend them. In other words, I protect me and mine, not the police. The police take action to lessen crime overall, not me.

I don't ask the police to do my job and I don't plan on doing theirs.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

RHenriksen wrote:

MechAg94 wrote:If I could know that pulling my cash out of my wallet and handing it over would make him go away, it would be very easy to just do that. That would work that one time. However, profit always brings repetition and attracts more participants. That probably isn't something for self defense though.

That's a big part of my concern. In the micro scheme of things, being a good, compliant victim works to your advantage (except when it doesn't). In the macro, rewarding bad behavior just leads to more and more of the same - to everyone's detriment in the community.

To me, the macro vs micro thing is the distinction between my job and the job of the police. My job is to do whatever is most likely to ensure that I and my family survive that moment unharmed. That might involve the use of my weapon or it might not. It is the job of the police to investigate after the crime has occurred, catch the perps and apprehend them. In other words, I protect me and mine, not the police. The police take action to lessen crime overall, not me.

I don't ask the police to do my job and I don't plan on doing theirs.

And that's a personal choice that you have every right to make in light of your family and circumstances. That said, Texas law allows persons to defend other people (TPC §9.33) and to prevent certain crimes being committed, whether against you or other persons. (TPC §9.32(a)(2)) The law doesn't require non-LEOs to get involved in other people's problems, but it makes doing so lawful under certain circumstances. While I agree with you that it's law enforcement's job (but not legal duty per the SCOTUS) to protect people and prevent crimes, I also feel that everyone who is capable of doing so has the moral and Christian duty to do come to the aid of others.

I still remember a great example from law school when the professor was talking about a person's duty to help others, or the lack thereof. The setting is a public swimming pool and you are laying on a towel by the edge of the pool. A two year old child falls into the pool right next to you and is drowning. If the child is not yours and you did not agree to take care of the child for someone else, the law does not require you to save the child. Even though doing so would require you to merely reach over and pick the child up, you are under no legal obligation to do so. You can watch the child die. (The story goes on to talk about starting to save the child, then abandoning the effort, but that's not relevant to this discussion.)

I cannot stand idly by and let an innocent person be victimized. I also agree with RHenriksen that not resisting evil encourages it. As Dietrich Bonhoefferr said, "“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." This is just my opinion and others believe differently. Sadly, too many people feel differently and that's one reason why violent criminals are growing more bold and more violent.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: And that's a personal choice that you have every right to make in light of your family and circumstances. That said, Texas law allows persons to defend other people (TPC §9.33) and to prevent certain crimes being committed, whether against you or other persons. (TPC §9.32(a)(2)) The law doesn't require non-LEOs to get involved in other people's problems, but it makes doing so lawful under certain circumstances. While I agree with you that it's law enforcement's job (but not legal duty per the SCOTUS) to protect people and prevent crimes, I also feel that everyone who is capable of doing so has the moral and Christian duty to do come to the aid of others.

I still remember a great example from law school when the professor was talking about a person's duty to help others, or the lack thereof. The setting is a public swimming pool and you are laying on a towel by the edge of the pool. A two year old child falls into the pool right next to you and is drowning. If the child is not yours and you did not agree to take care of the child for someone else, the law does not require you to save the child. Even though doing so would require you to merely reach over and pick the child up, you are under no legal obligation to do so. You can watch the child die. (The story goes on to talk about starting to save the child, then abandoning the effort, but that's not relevant to this discussion.)

I cannot stand idly by and let an innocent person be victimized. I also agree with RHenriksen that not resisting evil encourages it. As Dietrich Bonhoefferr said, "“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." This is just my opinion and others believe differently. Sadly, too many people feel differently and that's one reason why violent criminals are growing more bold and more violent.

Chas.

Thank you sir.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

RHenriksen wrote:

MechAg94 wrote:If I could know that pulling my cash out of my wallet and handing it over would make him go away, it would be very easy to just do that. That would work that one time. However, profit always brings repetition and attracts more participants. That probably isn't something for self defense though.

That's a big part of my concern. In the micro scheme of things, being a good, compliant victim works to your advantage (except when it doesn't). In the macro, rewarding bad behavior just leads to more and more of the same - to everyone's detriment in the community.

To me, the macro vs micro thing is the distinction between my job and the job of the police. My job is to do whatever is most likely to ensure that I and my family survive that moment unharmed. That might involve the use of my weapon or it might not. It is the job of the police to investigate after the crime has occurred, catch the perps and apprehend them. In other words, I protect me and mine, not the police. The police take action to lessen crime overall, not me.

I don't ask the police to do my job and I don't plan on doing theirs.

And that's a personal choice that you have every right to make in light of your family and circumstances. That said, Texas law allows persons to defend other people (TPC §9.33) and to prevent certain crimes being committed, whether against you or other persons. (TPC §9.32(a)(2)) The law doesn't require non-LEOs to get involved in other people's problems, but it makes doing so lawful under certain circumstances. While I agree with you that it's law enforcement's job (but not legal duty per the SCOTUS) to protect people and prevent crimes, I also feel that everyone who is capable of doing so has the moral and Christian duty to do come to the aid of others.

I still remember a great example from law school when the professor was talking about a person's duty to help others, or the lack thereof. The setting is a public swimming pool and you are laying on a towel by the edge of the pool. A two year old child falls into the pool right next to you and is drowning. If the child is not yours and you did not agree to take care of the child for someone else, the law does not require you to save the child. Even though doing so would require you to merely reach over and pick the child up, you are under no legal obligation to do so. You can watch the child die. (The story goes on to talk about starting to save the child, then abandoning the effort, but that's not relevant to this discussion.)

I cannot stand idly by and let an innocent person be victimized. I also agree with RHenriksen that not resisting evil encourages it. As Dietrich Bonhoefferr said, "“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." This is just my opinion and others believe differently. Sadly, too many people feel differently and that's one reason why violent criminals are growing more bold and more violent.

Chas.

Well said! Neutrality is immoral. Thank you!

Kinda says it all.

That does not mean I advocate getting involved in policing every criminal act with your gun. But those who have the ability to help, should choose to take upon themselves the responsibility to help.

with Charles and Edmund Burke. I don't want evil to triumph on my watch.