TexasCHLforum.com

Oldgringo wrote:

Bart wrote:I agree. The "Batman License" comment is as insulting and as childish as the "Sheeple" comment. I also have thought a lot about the "Sheepdog" mentality and it only makes sense if the protected are sheep, so it's a more subtle insult but an insult all the same.

How about a "Green Hornet" license?

That's insulting to fans of Seth Rogen...

Is is just me or does it seem that some members post responses just to start arguments or agitate others on this site? I understand its the nature of the interent and the anonymityof it all. Personally I'm trying to make an effort to move on to another post if I disagree with something someone has said. In addition, starting today, I'm not going to respond to folks asking me to clarify what I meant or try to justify what I meant or who in my opinion are fishing for a "gotcha" moment.

texanron wrote: starting today, I'm not going to respond to folks asking me to clarify what I meant or try to justify what I meant or who in my opinion are fishing for a "gotcha" moment.

What did you mean by that exactly.?



But seriously.....

Some issues are worth arguing about. I mean argument in the sense of intellectual debate, not hurling childish taunts. Otherwise, in the worst case, we are just going to let one faction say, "That is a settled issue, and there's no reason to discuss it."

On the other hand, no one is obligated to argue about anything. Free speech includes the freedom to stay out of a debate.

- Jim

I guess it's still not apparent what my original intent was in starting this thread, although I thought I made it pretty darned clear. The thought was to bring to light how childish (in my opinion) we are, collectively, in using catch phrases and labels. I never posted in the thread that tipped my scales on the issue of "labels", and, so as NOT to divert the discussion away from the intent of that thread I started THIS one - specifically to air my concern for the CHL community in how our language can possibly be detrimental to our cause. I don't expect everyone, or possibly even anyone to agree with my opinions, but I would have greatly appreciated that the topic I was trying to bring up was the center of discussion rather than dragging dirty laundry about purely hypothetical situations from other threads in.

I would ask that this thread be locked and forgotten as it never did seem to be worthy of discussion here.


surv

Mr Surveyor,
I disagree. Your post and the discussion that followed are why I am here.

Although your original intent may have not been taken, I have learned A LOT from this thread.

I think this entire thread has been handled very professionally and I appreciate the comments.

Ty

Mos tof us came to CHL in defense of our families. Becoming involved in stopping a criminal activity in which you have no stake can remove you from your family forever, either thru death, or the legal system. It can also cost a small fortune defending yourself in the legal system which will have an adverse reaction for your family. Think before you step into something that you do not understand.
Is that person running out of the bank waving a gun a robber or another CHL chasing after robbers. Stay out of judgement calls. Do what you set out to do and only defend yourself or family when in fear of life and injury.
We are not the police and do not have the training that they do.

People are not sheep. Looing at them in this fashion is elitist of those who carry.

seamusTX wrote:I am sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings.

...

Texas law has three levels of justification for conduct that otherwise would be criminal:

• exception—The action is not an offense at all.
• affirmative defense to prosecution—The action is justified to the extent that it should be prosecuted only in exceptional circumstances; and the prosecution must prove that the justification is not valid.
• defense to prosecution—You can be charged, indicted, and brought to trial, and you have to prove your innocence.

If you shoot at someone, you have committed the elements of aggravated assault. It he dies, you have committed the elements of homicide or manslaughter. You can be compelled to prove your justification.

...

- Jim

These are NOT correct definitions of the burden of proof in the Texas Penal Code. They are explained correctly in the TXPC Chapter 2, titled appropriately enough... "Burden of Proof".

- Affirmative defense is worse (for the defendant) than a Defense. At trial an Affirmative Defense must be proved to exist by a preponderance of the evidence. A Defense, must be refuted by the prosecution, beyond a reasonable doubt. You have to submit the Defense at trial, but then it's up to the prosecution to prove your Defense didn't exist.

- Carrying a handgun under CHL, or by a Peace Officer for that matter, is a Defense, not an exception. This is because 46.15 non-applicability has been held (by case law) to be a Defense. So I suppose technically a Peace Officer could be charged, indicted, and go to trial for carrying on duty in a alcohol licensed store, like Kroger (3rd degree felony in TXPC 46.02). However, a Defense is a pretty strong presumption of innocence and I'd be surprised if you'd get too many true bills where one existed, although theoretically you could be forced to go to trial to present your Defense. The prosecutor doesn't have to present it to the Grand Jury.


EDIT: Oh yeah...to keep it on topic, I don't think we need to "Grow Up" and we should be able to call people Sheep if we want too. As I have found, you don't get to control your thread once you launch it.

You're right. I got defense and affirmative defense backward. That's what I get for relying on my memory.

The bottom line is that the prosecutor can go for an indictment if the facts of the case support it. That is what happened to every CHL holder who was prosecuted and subsequently no-billed or found not guilty.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:You're right. I got defense and affirmative defense backward. That's what I get for relying on my memory.

The bottom line is that the prosecutor can go for an indictment if the facts of the case support it. That is what happened to every CHL holder who was prosecuted and subsequently no-billed or found not guilty.

- Jim

I believe other states define affirmative defense differently...and more toward your original description. I was reading recently about affirmative defense in Virginia law...

I wonder if the County Prosecutors have ever called a CHL a "Batman License" in a Grand Jury....

There are about 7 BILLION people on the planet. That's a big number, but to put it in perspective, if a person could stand on another's head, followed by another person , and another continuing all the way to the moon, you would be able to have over 25 towers of people reaching from earth to the moon. The population of the USA would make up one of the 25.

With that many people, how can you hope to have total harmony of thought and purpose? In a forum this large and visible, I fully expect Brady people to visit and try to stir up things. They are not friends of the forum, are they?

Control yourself, try to find common interests, remember that peace feels better than strife.

Please don't come to my rescue! I beg of you! I feel perfectly capable of defending myself and if I am doing this and see you run in my direction with a firearm... you have a good chance that I will engage you in a fire fight! Please call the cops instead as I will have my hands full doing my best Rambo impression.

Please don't take on armed robbers in stores where my loved ones are shopping! You have no training as a police officer and while I realize video games and internet chat rooms make us all experts at everything, I simply don't trust your judgment.

Even when you think you know what is happening, you never can be sure of who is who. There are times when it may be necessary to intervene in a situation that looks like a person is being raped or killed, there are times when your intervention could very well escalate a situation from a simple armed robbery or assualt, to a double homicide... yours being one of them.

When a CHL requires two years of Police training, I will stop telling folks it is not their job to protect and serve!

Oh yeah... this post is not directed at anyone in particular. It is directed at anyone who may decide to become Batman for the day.

sugar land dave wrote:There are about 7 BILLION people on the planet. That's a big number, but to put it in perspective, if a person could stand on another's head, followed by another person , and another continuing all the way to the moon, you would be able to have over 25 towers of people reaching from earth to the moon. The population of the USA would make up one of the 25.

I am afraid I will need some kind of proof for this claim.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

sugar land dave wrote:There are about 7 BILLION people on the planet. That's a big number, but to put it in perspective, if a person could stand on another's head, followed by another person , and another continuing all the way to the moon, you would be able to have over 25 towers of people reaching from earth to the moon. The population of the USA would make up one of the 25.

I am afraid I will need some kind of proof for this claim.

Of course! I will just do it as approximate numbers to keep it neat.

7,000,000,000 people x 5 feet per person = 35,000,000,000 feet of people

35,000,000,000 feet / 5000 feet per mile = 7,000,000 miles of people

7,000,000 miles / 250,000 miles to the moon = 28 towers of people reaching to the moon (approximately)

Impressive how many of us there are, eh?

Now I wish I hadn't ask.