TexasCHLforum.com

This incident occurred several months ago, but is just now coming to light because of the doctor's court appearance today (Tuesday, July 21).

http://www.theexaminer.com/main.asp?Sec ... cleID=3383

The article states that the good doctor "has a license to carry lawfully." I'm not exactly certain what that means. Does he have a CHL or doesn't he? I assume he does. Was he within his rights to openly display his gun or not? Should he have been arrested?

Sounds to me like the tree-cutting guy cannot be located or ID'ed. I would doubt that the charges would go much further unless he shows up in court.

I just knew someone would erroneously use the "Castle Doctrine" in their article...

whether he (Gordon) was licensed or not, it was on his property.

even if he(Gordon) pointed his gun at them(Hall, et al), that is the threat of deadly force, which by law is only force, and you can use force to get trespassers off your property, right?
they(hall et al) wouldn't leave by asking, and they wouldn't leave by calling the cops, and it's not like he(Gordon) could physically make them leave, so there you have it.
he(Gordon) should sue the bajeebus out of that company and this numskull (Hall) should be charged with making a false police report.
then flogged for his insolence.

Stuff like this just makes me angry. Maybe I'm wrong, but as I understand it, displaying the weapon constitutes force and Sec. 9.41 should cover his conduct.

I agree with DoubleJ.

Could they (tree trimmers) claim the right to be there based upon the easement? Therefore not trespassing?

Ryan

AggieMM wrote:Could they (tree trimmers) claim the right to be there based upon the easement? Therefore not trespassing?

Ryan

Don't they have to identify themselves first; show some sort of work order? If they don't, how does one know they are legally there and not trespassing or acting with malicious intent?

AggieMM wrote:Could they (tree trimmers) claim the right to be there based upon the easement? Therefore not trespassing?

Ryan

According to my understanding of the article, they tried to, but were wrong, due to the stipulation that the work they were doing was supposed to be ONLY on public property, nothing to do with easements and what-have-ya.
the trees were no in the easements, IIRC.

Drewthetexan wrote:I agree with DoubleJ.

*day noted on calender*

DoubleJ wrote:According to my understanding of the article, they tried to, but were wrong, due to the stipulation that the work they were doing was supposed to be ONLY on public property, nothing to do with easements and what-have-ya.
the trees were no in the easements, IIRC.

Ah, missed that part. Thanks.

Ryan

np

Wow, I'd be shocked if the case wasnt dismissed by the middle of the afternoon...

What amazes me about this story is that the detectives did not interview him and let him know charges were possible. Seems like the PD has lots of free time.