Real scenario from the news: License holder pulls gun during Black Friday melee

This is a discussion on Real scenario from the news: License holder pulls gun during Black Friday melee within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by Hopyard Based on the results, know to us at this time, I would agree that the judgment of the officer on the ...

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 345678910 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 147
Like Tree192Likes

Thread: Real scenario from the news: License holder pulls gun during Black Friday melee

  1. #91
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,967
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Based on the results, know to us at this time, I would agree that the judgment of the officer on
    the scene is the only one that counts. We probably won't know
    if on reflection there are charges lodged later. Just because he wasn't immediately arrested doesn't mean he is entirely in the clear.

    It is also possible that another officer at the scene
    may have viewed this particular use of force as unreasonable. See, that is the problem with
    our law-- it is too vague.

    I read the story and think one thing, others think something else, and the law as worded gives
    little guidance. It addresses that you may use force against force but it doesn't address
    proportionality in any way at all.

    If instead of the punch the man was shoved, would that justify the same response-- force against force?
    Embedded within that phrase "reasonably believes" I think one can find a concept of proportionality.

    Part of the problem we are struggling with is that the TX law defined pointing a gun at someone
    as something other than the use of lethal force. This recent change is a significant departure from the prior code and from the use of force laws found in other states.

    Read too literally one could point a gun in very many circumstances where only a slight
    shove (or walking away) would suffice.

    I think it will be very interesting to see how the case law shakes out on this, as
    in its present form the code is deeply flawed, IMO. ymmv
    I think the proprtionality issue is addressed by "when and to the degree" in the statute.
    Part of the problem anytime force is used is that words written on a page in Austin in some certain session of the legislature are not always going to fit each situation perfectly. The laws have to be vague to a degree or else we would have to have exponentially more laws than we already have.

    I think one way to address the issue is in training. Instead of harping on "minimum force necessary" I think the model should "maximum force allowed". Unless one always starts at the bottom of the scale there is no way of knowing if a lower level of force than the one first used could have sufficed. So we don't know if that first level of force was actually the "minimum force necessary". So any force above saying please first could in fact be an excessive use of force if we stick with the minimum necessary model. If we train on the maximum force allowed model we know that if BG does "C" we can use anything up to "D". We don't have to second guess ourselves if we could have ended the situation with "B" or "C". That is not to say that "A" "B" and "C" are not still viable options, just that we should be able to know that "D" is a legally accepted proportional response to "C".
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #92
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,659
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    I think the proprtionality issue is addressed by "when and to the degree" in the statute.
    Part of the problem anytime force is used is that words written on a page in Austin in some certain session of the legislature are not always going to fit each situation perfectly. The laws have to be vague to a degree or else we would have to have exponentially more laws than we already have.

    I think one way to address the issue is in training. Instead of harping on "minimum force necessary" I think the model should "maximum force allowed". Unless one always starts at the bottom of the scale there is no way of knowing if a lower level of force than the one first used could have sufficed. So we don't know if that first level of force was actually the "minimum force necessary". So any force above saying please first could in fact be an excessive use of force if we stick with the minimum necessary model. If we train on the maximum force allowed model we know that if BG does "C" we can use anything up to "D". We don't have to second guess ourselves if we could have ended the situation with "B" or "C". That is not to say that "A" "B" and "C" are not still viable options, just that we should be able to know that "D" is a legally accepted proportional response to "C".
    OK, but we have NO legal guidance on what the maximum force allowed is, so how can you train
    to that standard. "When and to the degree" and "reasonably believes" are weasel phrases
    that can quickly become your ticket straight to the jail house.

    OTOH if you start by training to the minimum force necessary standard, you are less likely to
    "overshoot," no pun meant, and exceed a reasonable amount of force. You also don't risk "accidental or negligent" discharges which might turn "force" to "lethal force" at times when "lethal force" isn't justified.
    Similarly, you don't risk rash emotionally driven actions which may result in a death.

    There are other problems when words are put to paper in Austin. No one is safe. But that's a different topic for a different forum.
    DefConGun likes this.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  4. #93
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,777
    Quote Originally Posted by 9BPLE View Post
    linuss, I agree. A lot of posts in this thread are failing to separate the threat of deadly force with the use of deadly force. Big difference.
    Well, to be fair, in many states there isn't a specified difference (in the statutes). But then, since this situation occurred in Texas, it's TX statutes and sensibilities that matters.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  5. #94
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    I'm inclined to agree with Hopyard....he got punched....is there no reason he couldnt leave? Retreat?

    The gun only endangers people around him; I think he reacted in anger which IMO is absolutely the wrong reason to draw.

    I guess people could try to defend this under Stand Your Ground....dont know TX law tho. I wouldnt support it for the reasons I wrote above.
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  6. #95
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    Not judging this one, cause I wasnt there. But, I have seen a punch result in the death of someone. But this is a perfect case for pepper spray.
    From what little the article says, seems like it's also the perfect case to walk away...is itnot preferable to de-escalate in an already volatile crowd? Deploy pepper spray unnecessarily in a crowd (because again, it seems like he can just walk away)?

    Escalation just endangers everyone else in the area. But hey...."he punched me!"
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  7. #96
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Lish View Post

    On the other hand, if you punch me in the face...I can see me going for my weapon...
    Holy Cow

    People keep writing this in this thread! I'm only on the 2nd or 3rd page.

    You got punched. What if you didnt have a gun?????

    Either you would retaliate otherwise or...since it was a BS random maneuver to cut in line and not even personal....WALK AWAY.

    So far, not a single person has mentioned this option. Or attempting it.

    And if we are carrying, then it is even MORE IMPORTANT to take the High Road and remove yourself. You dont just haul out a gun because you get punched....not if you can NOT pull the gun and leave.

    Wut????
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  8. #97
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Bark'n View Post
    In the end... Why people who believe they are prudent and responsible ccw permit holders continue to put themselves in situations like this is beyond me. Because the evidence would seem to be a little contradictory. Going to a Black Friday event to save a few bucks is a clear violation of "The Rule of 3 Stupids." If you willingly put yourself in a situation where stupid people are swarming all around you doing stupid things, you can't act surprised when a "no-win" bad situation pops up out of nowhere.
    Not to mention that if people start screaming "GUN!" and another person with a gun decides he needs to get involved? Guy with a gun against guy with no gun? Who's going to be the target of the 2nd Gecko 45?
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  9. #98
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    While I agree with the concept that anyone in a retail establishment on Black Friday is violating one of the three stupids rules, Texas law, I believe very narrowly interprets the stupid places rule.

    So while retreat is frequently a very real and viable solution to the problem, if you are described by (e) retreat is strictly at your discretion.
    Ah...someone mentions 'retreat.'

    How much ego is involved where you'd choose to draw a lethal weapon that endangers everyone in the area....or backing off? Your place in line is more important?

    I'm going with the cop's discretion in this case, as he got the info on the scene....but nothing I've read indicates that the armed citizen couldnt have just gotten out of Dodge and avoided anymore conflict...."strictly at his discretion."
    Hopyard likes this.
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  10. #99
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,659
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    Ah...someone mentions 'retreat.'

    How much ego is involved where you'd choose to draw a lethal weapon that endangers everyone in the area....or backing off? Your place in line is more important?

    I'm going with the cop's discretion in this case, as he got the info on the scene....but nothing I've read indicates that the armed citizen couldnt have just gotten out of Dodge and avoided anymore conflict...."strictly at his discretion."
    I do not understand the LEOs decision on the scene. Our newspaper today (if you believe they got the story right) stated
    that it was the gun owner who was acting rowdy and started the incident.

    From today's "The Eagle" page A9-- "Witnesses reportedly told police that before he pulled out the gun, he had
    behaved rudely and had provoked the situation."

    Duh---Don't know if the paper messed the story up or what the heck actually happened there. If the above is true I don't see
    why the license holder wasn't arrested.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  11. #100
    Distinguished Member Array lchamp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Florida's Space Coast.
    Posts
    1,604
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I do not understand the LEOs decision on the scene. Our newspaper today (if you believe they got the story right) stated
    that it was the gun owner who was acting rowdy and started the incident.

    From today's "The Eagle" page A9-- "Witnesses reportedly told police that before he pulled out the gun, he had
    behaved rudely and had provoked the situation."

    Duh---Don't know if the paper messed the story up or what the heck actually happened there. If the above is true I don't see
    why the license holder wasn't arrested.
    We'll probably never know what actually happened. The story was written by a "reporter", and we all know how accurate thay have become.

    One thought occurred to me is that a bully who has a gun becomes a bigger (and more dangerous) bully.
    Hopyard likes this.

  12. #101
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    16,258
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Uh, not so sure you are correct. Cops come and there is no complainant alright because he ran off.
    BUT, in the course of talking to witnesses they could determine that a crime was committed, even
    if the victim is nowhere to be found. The absence of the victim doesn't mean no crime happened.
    If 20 people are saying they saw someone point a gun at an innocent who then ran off, a crime
    was committed. I would guess, but don't know, that the witness statements could add up
    to probable cause for an arrest and charge. Just my guess, IANAL.
    You're confusing the heck out of me. Who are you calling the "victim"? The guy who got punched, or the guy who threw the punch. The article, as poorly written as it is, implies the man who threw the punch ran off. He is NOT the "victim." Evidently the man with the gun stayed around as the police knew he had a permit. The permit holder is the victim of the battery.
    Gun Bunny likes this.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  13. #102
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,659
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    You're confusing the heck out of me. Who are you calling the "victim"? The guy who got punched, or the guy who threw the punch. The article, as poorly written as it is, implies the man who threw the punch ran off. He is NOT the "victim." Evidently the man with the gun stayed around as the police knew he had a permit. The permit holder is the victim of the battery.
    Well, the story is confusing. This line from the paper, "Witnesses reportedly told police that before he pulled out the gun, he had
    behaved rudely and had provoked the situation, " can be read in a couple of different ways depending on who
    the "he" after the word "gun" is referring to.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  14. #103
    Member Array Pinlifter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    32
    Bottom line is that it is incredibly irresponsible to start waving a gun around in a crowd. Even in Texas, you're going to start a panic.

    There was no threat of anyone losing their life, and pulling a gun was incredibly irresponsible. I don't care what the guy who threw the punch may have said.

  15. #104
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Pinlifter View Post
    Bottom line is that it is incredibly irresponsible to start waving a gun around in a crowd. Even in Texas, you're going to start a panic.

    There was no threat of anyone losing their life, and pulling a gun was incredibly irresponsible. I don't care what the guy who threw the punch may have said.
    Something that I think people dont always realize is that the instant you introduce a gun to a situation...right or wrong...it changes the entire dynamic of the situation. People react differently....people take more extreme action...and people cant always tell who the good guy is.
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  16. #105
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Pinlifter View Post
    Bottom line is that it is incredibly irresponsible to start waving a gun around in a crowd. Even in Texas, you're going to start a panic.

    There was no threat of anyone losing their life, and pulling a gun was incredibly irresponsible. I don't care what the guy who threw the punch may have said.
    In my limited experience, a punch to the jaw, face or side of the head, even if one is wearing some protective gear, can be
    very disorienting. With zero regard for whether the license holder was justified or not, I think many of us
    are deceiving ourselves if we think we could take a serious punch to the head and remain "together" enough to fight back with a gun while maintaining the needed level of self-control (not firing). I think the license holder was a miracle away from a murder
    charge.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 345678910 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

black friday melee

,

powered by mybb african american art for sale

,

powered by mybb bra training for men

,

powered by mybb drawing head

,
powered by mybb free legal forms wa
,

powered by mybb head injury attorneys

,

powered by mybb michigan state

,
powered by mybb nevada business license
,

powered by mybb post falls animal control

,

powered by mybb real numbers

,

powered by mybb sell your art online

,

powered by mybb texas state

Click on a term to search for related topics.