At what point do you draw your pistol

[bagged02]

not a problem. I get hell all the time for asking questions. It does not bother me anymore. it use to get to me, now I have to calm them down, relax, breathe, Bagged02 is not a bad guy just asking question, then I can get a nice PM "sorry bagged, I get uptight sometimes". lol

 

[coboblack]

not a problem. I get hell all the time for asking questions. It does not bother me anymore. it use to get to me, now I have to calm them down, relax, breathe, Bagged02 is not a bad guy just asking question, then I can get a nice PM "sorry bagged, I get uptight sometimes". lol

I'm not offended or worried about it. I "get it", some people have a need to "problem solve" when asked a question. They don't get that I don't have any problem I want solved, Im just interested in talking about it.

The funny thing is...I do what they are doing here, in real life. My wife tells me a problem and like any man, I try to solve it for her and tell her what she should do, then she doesn't accept it and so I get frustrated because I'm trying to solve what I thought was a problem and she is just wanting to vent and talk about it...lol

Thats why I've tried to make it clear over and over, I don't have any problem, Im not looking for advice that I need to use immediately or anything. I'm was hear to just talk about it like I would if I had a couple of buddies over and we were talking about any other thing.

 

[Big country]

I'm Sorry if this has been mentioned already but if he didn't shoot Mr t then didn't he use the threat of deadly force and not deadly force? In affect (if Mr.T was bigger than him or something) he could use the threat of deadly force to stop an attack that he perceived as deadly force? Right? Once again sorry if it's been brought up or if It's wrong. I'm just asking.

tap talked from a phone yeah im on my phone! it's crazy!

 

[coboblack]

I'm Sorry if this has been mentioned already but if he didn't shoot Mr t then didn't he use the threat of deadly force and not deadly force? In affect (if Mr.T was bigger than him or something) he could use the threat of deadly force to stop an attack that he perceived as deadly force? Right? Once again sorry if it's been brought up or if It's wrong. I'm just asking.

tap talked from a phone yeah im on my phone! it's crazy!

That was what I've been saying the whole time. I believe it happened in Virginia though...so I'm not sure what the laws are there. But that was my point here. I think the guy was an idiot obviously, but according to the laws I posted...it seems like he could of legally used the threat of deadly force in that situation.

From what I've read and quoted, it seems like if someone is raising their fist to punch you from behind, you can threaten the use of deadly force with the purpose of causing the attacker to fear you using the gun if necessary. But because of all the stupid mistakes he made before he pulled it... a lot of people feel as though he is not covered under that law.

 

[Big country]

I still don't think he should have pulled his gun or continued to park his vehicle in that space. But I do think that the "threat of deadly force" is a possible defense. I don't think it will work but hey I'm not on the jury. LOL.

tap talked from a phone yeah im on my phone! it's crazy!

 

[coboblack]

I still don't think he should have pulled his gun or continued to park his vehicle in that space. But I do think that the "threat of deadly force" is a possible defense. I don't think it will work but hey I'm not on the jury. LOL.

tap talked from a phone yeah im on my phone! it's crazy!

I can't figure out why he would park in someone else spot, if it was all assigned parking. That means he has his own spot too. To be honest, after re-reading it...there is really no telling what in the world happened. The only thing that the gun owner has on his side, is that the other person left a note threatening him.

That is clear evidence for him to say he had a reason to believe the person would attempt to harm him. People say "well, if that is true he shouldn't of confronted the guy". Well that is true, but that isn't what happened in the story...What happened in the story was, he was walking to his car to leave and the other guy was there AT his car, writing another note to stick on his car.

So its not like he went there with the intention to confront him, he was just going to his car and the guy happened to be there. As retarded as parking in someones spot is, (especially when you probably have you own) and as immature as having note wars, if he was just walking to his car to go to work or something and the guy was there waiting on him, previously threatened him and then raised his hands to attack him...it sounds like in Texas he could of use the threat of deadly force legally.

 

[Big country]

Uhhuh. I'm just running off at the key board. LOL.

tap talked from a phone yeah im on my phone! it's crazy!

 

[TxDad]

I can't figure out why he would park in someone else spot, if it was all assigned parking. That means he has his own spot too. To be honest, after re-reading it...there is really no telling what in the world happened. The only thing that the gun owner has on his side, is that the other person left a note threatening him.

That is clear evidence for him to say he had a reason to believe the person would attempt to harm him. People say "well, if that is true he shouldn't of confronted the guy". Well that is true, but that isn't what happened in the story...What happened in the story was, he was walking to his car to leave and the other guy was there AT his car, writing another note to stick on his car.

So its not like he went there with the intention to confront him, he was just going to his car and the guy happened to be there. As retarded as parking in someones spot is, (especially when you probably have you own) and as immature as having note wars, if he was just walking to his car to go to work or something and the guy was there waiting on him, previously threatened him and then raised his hands to attack him...it sounds like in Texas he could of use the threat of deadly force legally.

But this guy kept parking in the others spot, provoking the situation. He cant hide behind his gun in this instance. There's absolutely no reason to claim self defense, I was going to get my ass beat, or whatever, he kept egging the situation on. Why did he park there a 2nd time? Because he wanted to show how he can do whatever he wants. Thats not proper for anyone, let alone a CHL holder, to be doing. You read the note and realize that I'm not Billy bad-ass, I need to park somewhere else so as not to escalate the situation. Its not a sign of weakness as some may think. (assuming thats what he thought)
That guy has hurt concealed handgun licensees in my opinion. He jumped the "gun" on that move.

 

[coboblack]

But this guy kept parking in the others spot, provoking the situation.

Yeah, that doesn't make any sense to me. If it is assigned parking, I would assume that he had his own spot too, right? That leads me to believe there are some details left out. But that is all the details we have, so for discussions sake, we have to assume he was doing it to be a dick.

He cant hide behind his gun in this instance. There's absolutely no reason to claim self defense, I was going to get my ass beat, or whatever, he kept egging the situation on. Why did he park there a 2nd time?

I agree that he shouldn't of egg it on, but lets flip the roles and play devils advocate. (and all you guys taking this too serious relax, this is just for the point of discussion and to try and see if there is legally a defense for him whether its moral or not..just whether or not its possible) Had he not pulled the pistol and the note writer beat him up. The note writer would of got assault charges, correct? He can't say, "Well, the guy was being a dick and parking in my spot" and then get away with assault. What that means is, the parking spot guy being a dick head isn't relevant to the charge. It would of been assault, and you are legally allowed to defend yourself from assault.

Well, if that's true and he was trying to assault him, then dick head or not..he legally has the right to defend himself from being unlawlfully assaulted. Its not against the law to be a dick head. You can't go around beating up people, just because they are dick heads. The biggest **** on earth still has the right to defend himself from being murdered.

NOW, had the pistol owner walked up and PUSHED the guy first...then HE was the physical instigator and then I'm positive he would have no defense.

Because he wanted to show how he can do whatever he wants. Thats not proper for anyone, let alone a CHL holder, to be doing. You read the note and realize that I'm not Billy bad-ass, I need to park somewhere else so as not to escalate the situation. Its not a sign of weakness as some may think. (assuming thats what he thought)

Thats why I think that maybe there was a dispute on whos spot it was. But then again, maybe your right...maybe the pistol owner was just a total douche and was like "Screw this guy, I have a pistol, I dare him to try and mess with me". And if so, then that is ridiculously un called for.

That guy has hurt concealed handgun licensees in my opinion. He jumped the "gun" on that move.

Ahhh nice, no pun intended =D

Yeah, they both sound pretty ridiculous to me. A sticky note war? lol

 

[M. Sage]

I agree that he shouldn't of egg it on, but lets flip the roles and play devils advocate. (and all you guys taking this too serious relax, this is just for the point of discussion and to try and see if there is legally a defense for him whether its moral or not..just whether or not its possible) Had he not pulled the pistol and the note writer beat him up. The note writer would of got assault charges, correct? He can't say, "Well, the guy was being a dick and parking in my spot" and then get away with assault. What that means is, the parking spot guy being a dick head isn't relevant to the charge. It would of been assault, and you are legally allowed to defend yourself from assault.

Devil's advocate to your Devil's advocate: Some people need an ass-whupping. People who like to park in someone else's assigned spot are on that list.

 

[bagged02]

im still trying to figure out what color the sticky notes were. Yellow blue pink green. Cant find that anywhere.

 

[Whiskey_Rocka_Rolla]

The original story is, as one person said, too vague to make an adequate judgement. I haven't had time to read the entire thread, so maybe I missed something. I've thought about this subject quite a bit, because it is something you must really consider. Nobody wants to be the next Raul Rodriguez (Or George Zimmerman, even if he was justified, his life still sucks). If I suddenly was startled by someone approaching me from behind, to hit me, I'd have drawn too. I would not wait for someone to hit me. Some people's fists themselves are deadly weapons. And also, once they hit you once they usually hit you more, and the chance of you getting your ass whipped increases greatly. With a gun on you, that can be a deadly confrontation, if the person is crazy and strong enough, and gets your gun from you.

If I saw a person acting in an ever increasing threatening manner, like talking shit and coming closer to me like they wanted a fight, I'd tell them to back up in a stern, yet non confrontational voice. If they came closer, I'd tell them again, this time letting them know I'm not playing. (depending on how fast they are moving). 3rd time is a charm and if I had to draw my weapon to get the point across to someone, well I would make damn sure I had already told them 2wice to leave me alone, and that I had no other option. Still, it is very important to ALWAYS remember, as a gun owner/CHL holder, shooting someone is a LAST RESORT, and everything you can possibly do, to avoid that, must be done. Just don't ever forget that God Forbid any of us ever have to use our gun in SD, even if we are clearly justified, our lives as we know it would end that very second. It would be more drama and bullshit than any of us can even imagine, and it is something I hope neither myself or anyone in here ever has to experience. But I am glad to know that all of us are adequately armed and part of the growing population of people who have decided not to be a victim, which is the key. So if I had to draw my gun to get a person not to beat me up, I would, and if they backed off, I wouldn't shoot. If they kept coming, I guess I'd be left with no or very little choice, no telling how that would turn out, but I'd pray to God never to be put in that position.

Now, lets say someone walks up and starts beating me out of nowhere. Well let me say this, I would still take any opportunity to stop the assault, without shooting anyone, that was available to me. But if they are already the aggressor, you're justified, and you did what you had to do, by shooting. See this is where it gets really fuzzy with the George Zimmerman case..nobody truly knows if he was the aggressor, or if Trayvon Martin did in fact attack him from behind. And even still, even if Trayvon did attack him from behind, GZ would have to have taken the shot DURING the beating to legitimately claim self defense. If TM gave him a second to get up, GZ drew his pistol, and TM saw the gun and didn't come back for more punches, and Zimmerman fired at THAT SECOND, it can in fact be considered murder by some. Because it can be believed that GZ had the situation defused and the assault had stopped once the gun was shown, yet he took the shot anyway, which would be seen as an act of anger most likely.

Because it would be easy to say he shot TM out of anger for beating him up. Now, if TM was approaching him to beat him some more, SD, hands down. The evidence that will make or break that case will be bullet trajectory, angle of entry, GZ's position when he took the shot, etc....Of course, to many, GZ is guilty no matter what happened, he's guilty just for being on the street and calling the police on TM for "racially profiling" him. But we don't need to go back down that road so I'll stop right there lol...but it is pertaining to this topic. As for Raul Rodriguez, sure he may have been "defending himself" the minute he took the shot, but he, as everyone saw, provoked the situation which excludes him from SYG protection.

I've always said if I am somewhere I have a right to be, and someone brandishes a deadly weapon (gun, knife, stick, bat) for obvious criminal intentions, although I can't say exactly what I'd do in every situation, I can say that I would probably be in genuine fear for my life, and would act accordingly. If it was a guy with a knife holding up people in a convenient store and I could escape easily, with my family, I probably would...but I'd feel really bad leaving innocent people in there to be terrorized, just because the world is so anti self defense. If it is someone with a gun I would probably go into full survival mode and do whatever I had to do to make sure me and my family are protected. There is no "retreating" (ie "duty to retreat") when someone has a gun drawn and is threatening to shoot. Unless you are Superman and can run "faster than a speeding bullet". Don't get me wrong, I am running every single day, sprinting trying to get my running speed up to 800+ FPS so I can, in fact, outrun a bullet one day, but I'm just not there yet haha.

 

[Big country]

Devil's advocate to your Devil's advocate: Some people need an ass-whupping. People who like to park in someone else's assigned spot are on that list.

Fer sure.

tap talked from a phone yeah im on my phone! it's crazy!

 

[coboblack]

Devil's advocate to your Devil's advocate: Some people need an ass-whupping. People who like to park in someone else's assigned spot are on that list.

I ain't gonna argue with that brother =D

 

[coboblack]

The original story is, as one person said, too vague to make an adequate judgement. I haven't had time to read the entire thread, so maybe I missed something. I've thought about this subject quite a bit, because it is something you must really consider. Nobody wants to be the next Raul Rodriguez (Or George Zimmerman, even if he was justified, his life still sucks). If I suddenly was startled by someone approaching me from behind, to hit me, I'd have drawn too. I would not wait for someone to hit me. Some people's fists themselves are deadly weapons. And also, once they hit you once they usually hit you more, and the chance of you getting your ass whipped increases greatly. With a gun on you, that can be a deadly confrontation, if the person is crazy and strong enough, and gets your gun from you.

If I saw a person acting in an ever increasing threatening manner, like talking shit and coming closer to me like they wanted a fight, I'd tell them to back up in a stern, yet non confrontational voice. If they came closer, I'd tell them again, this time letting them know I'm not playing. (depending on how fast they are moving). 3rd time is a charm and if I had to draw my weapon to get the point across to someone, well I would make damn sure I had already told them 2wice to leave me alone, and that I had no other option. Still, it is very important to ALWAYS remember, as a gun owner/CHL holder, shooting someone is a LAST RESORT, and everything you can possibly do, to avoid that, must be done. Just don't ever forget that God Forbid any of us ever have to use our gun in SD, even if we are clearly justified, our lives as we know it would end that very second. It would be more drama and bullshit than any of us can even imagine, and it is something I hope neither myself or anyone in here ever has to experience. But I am glad to know that all of us are adequately armed and part of the growing population of people who have decided not to be a victim, which is the key. So if I had to draw my gun to get a person not to beat me up, I would, and if they backed off, I wouldn't shoot. If they kept coming, I guess I'd be left with no or very little choice, no telling how that would turn out, but I'd pray to God never to be put in that position.

Now, lets say someone walks up and starts beating me out of nowhere. Well let me say this, I would still take any opportunity to stop the assault, without shooting anyone, that was available to me. But if they are already the aggressor, you're justified, and you did what you had to do, by shooting. See this is where it gets really fuzzy with the George Zimmerman case..nobody truly knows if he was the aggressor, or if Trayvon Martin did in fact attack him from behind. And even still, even if Trayvon did attack him from behind, GZ would have to have taken the shot DURING the beating to legitimately claim self defense. If TM gave him a second to get up, GZ drew his pistol, and TM saw the gun and didn't come back for more punches, and Zimmerman fired at THAT SECOND, it can in fact be considered murder by some. Because it can be believed that GZ had the situation defused and the assault had stopped once the gun was shown, yet he took the shot anyway, which would be seen as an act of anger most likely.

Because it would be easy to say he shot TM out of anger for beating him up. Now, if TM was approaching him to beat him some more, SD, hands down. The evidence that will make or break that case will be bullet trajectory, angle of entry, GZ's position when he took the shot, etc....Of course, to many, GZ is guilty no matter what happened, he's guilty just for being on the street and calling the police on TM for "racially profiling" him. But we don't need to go back down that road so I'll stop right there lol...but it is pertaining to this topic. As for Raul Rodriguez, sure he may have been "defending himself" the minute he took the shot, but he, as everyone saw, provoked the situation which excludes him from SYG protection.

I've always said if I am somewhere I have a right to be, and someone brandishes a deadly weapon (gun, knife, stick, bat) for obvious criminal intentions, although I can't say exactly what I'd do in every situation, I can say that I would probably be in genuine fear for my life, and would act accordingly. If it was a guy with a knife holding up people in a convenient store and I could escape easily, with my family, I probably would...but I'd feel really bad leaving innocent people in there to be terrorized, just because the world is so anti self defense. If it is someone with a gun I would probably go into full survival mode and do whatever I had to do to make sure me and my family are protected. There is no "retreating" (ie "duty to retreat") when someone has a gun drawn and is threatening to shoot. Unless you are Superman and can run "faster than a speeding bullet". Don't get me wrong, I am running every single day, sprinting trying to get my running speed up to 800+ FPS so I can, in fact, outrun a bullet one day, but I'm just not there yet haha.

Great well thought out answer. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts brother.

 

[coboblack]

im still trying to figure out what color the sticky notes were. Yellow blue pink green. Cant find that anywhere.

Definitely sounds like they were pink

 

[bagged02]

cool. ANd yes, that write up above was basically how my view on those subjects are as well.

 

[coboblack]

cool. ANd yes, that write up above was basically how my view on those subjects are as well.

Yeah, I think there were a few minor things I would lean a little less on....but for the most part it was a reasonable, logical answer that made sense legally and from a self defense stand point.

 

[bagged02]

WAIT, CRAP. THE THREAD is dying down, WE HAVE TO SAVE IT AND KEEP IT GOING......ROLMFAO.

"OP QUESTION BEEN ANSWERED WE CAN END THIS THREAD NOW"<<<<LOL That always cracks me up when someone says that.

 

[Sugar Land]

RIP it was a good one.