MAJOR black eye for all of us

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by Buckmark.35

Well wewo... sometimes you gotta throw hands.. lol.

Seriously though, you're right. Overbearing parents, and power-tripped coaches seriously hurt organized sports, and, at the elementary age, a child's perception of sports and competition. Both the coach and the dad were completely out of line to start fighting.

I would, however, expect that if someone was invited to a fight... and they accepted the invitation, that pulling a gun is something a criminal would do. It's along the same lines as two guy fighting, and one guy's friends jumping the other guy... If you're going to fist fight.. then fist fight..

I don't buy the fact that the guy pulled the gun in self defense.. He pulled the gun because he's a coward who got himself in over his head.

Couldn't agree more, Buck, and that's why I mentioned in a previous post that this situation didn't sit well with me.

[GRIZZLYBEAR]

Originally Posted by wewo

I know it sounds wussy, but I simply can not buy in this day and age that some arguments must be settled in a fight, thats B.S. pride, teenage crap, not "fighting like men". If you cant talk it out, walk away.

Wewo, you've got your opinion but let me tell you this. As long as it's an argument it doesn't have to settled in a fight BUT if in the course or heat of the argument you invade my personal no fly zone (for lack of a better words) you have opened the dance. Just remeber one thing, I don't fight by any Englishman's rules, I fight to win.


grizz

[wewo]

Originally Posted by GRIZZLYBEAR

Wewo, you've got your opinion but let me tell you this. As long as it's an argument it doesn't have to settled in a fight BUT if in the course or heat of the argument you invade my personal no fly zone (for lack of a better words) you have opened the dance. Just remeber one thing, I don't fight by any Englishman's rules, I fight to win.


grizz

ANd I saw your collection, dont worry, I wont be tryin to cut in on the dance floor

[The Drew]

Originally Posted by Buckmark.35

who got himself in over his head.

But again, how do you know that the coach didn't come unhinged and would've beaten him to death? you don't. None of us do. Just because you enter into a fight, doesn't negate your right to defend your life and limb with a firearm. All he has to prove is that he feared for his life. And clearly if he was being beaten to a pulp, witnesses will confirm that to be a reasonable fear.

[dgg9]

Originally Posted by The Drew

But again, how do you know that the coach didn't come unhinged and would've beaten him to death? you don't. None of us do. Just because you enter into a fight, doesn't negate your right to defend your life and limb with a firearm. All he has to prove is that he feared for his life. And clearly if he was being beaten to a pulp, witnesses will confirm that to be a reasonable fear.

Again, legally, that's simply not true. If I mug you, and you turn the tables and start to kill me, I DON'T have a legal right to self defense there, since I was the one attacking you to begin with, thus I 100% created the scenario in the first place.

There is some continuum between complete right to self defense and complete loss of that right. When you instigate and agree with much of the build-up preceding the fight, you lose SOME right to self defense....probably resulting in some mid-tier charge.

[Buckmark.35]

Originally Posted by The Drew

But again, how do you know that the coach didn't come unhinged and would've beaten him to death?

Why do you assume that he did?

From the article: "When the coach gained the advantage in the fight, Derkotch pulled his gun. He had had a license to carry a concealed weapon for eight years, he told Henwood."

The coach gained the advantage. It doesn't say that he was savagely beating the guy, or that the coach became "unhinged". It says that they coach gained the advantage. That sounds to me like the guy realized he wasn't going to beat up the coach and pulled his weapon.

All we have to go on is the newspaper account... so we can't assume anything outside of what's written in the paper. If the guy were getting beaten bloody, I'm sure that the paper would have said so.

[dgg9]

This is why it's so important, when carrying, to remember that you now forego the right to engage in chicken---- escalation over petty beefs. No road rage; no parent rage. Someone flips you off on the road, or your kid isn't getting enough minutes on the playing field -- let it go. Don't even argue. If you argue, and things escalate, then witnesses will describe you as contributory to a consensual altercation. At a bare minimum, your CCW is history, and then it gets worse from there. Always ask yourself: will Joe Witness describe me as 100% blameless? If the answer is 'no,' you must walk away.

It's odd in a way, but you have fewer rights when carrying. The "right" to be ill-tempered and childish are the first to go.

[DPB]

Not to hijack, but this needs to be addressed.

Wewo stated: "I simply can not buy in this day and age that some arguments must be settled in a fight, thats B.S. pride, teenage crap, not "fighting like men". If you cant talk it out, walk away"

In 5000 odd years of recorded human history, this has never been true, why do you believe it is true today?

Wewo, I agree with you in principle, and that is the way things should be, however, you are making a potentially fatal assumption. Specifically, you are assuming that everyone else shares your level of self control and your respect for the laws and customs of civilization.

There are a great many human animals on this planet who either have no respect for you as a fellow human being, or lose all such respect when the lose their temper. Not all of these people live in some third world cesspool, a significant number of them live very near to you. If you don't believe me, read the arrest reports in tomorrows newspaper.

Not wanting to fight is perfectly allright, and if you are carrying a concealed weapon, you have a great responsibility to avoid and de-escalate potential confrontations, because you are carrying the power of life and death, and that is a tremendous responsibility. Clearly, the armed parent in this situation had no business instigating the argument. But sometimes the fight comes to you, and you had better be prepared to respond. Some people will not let you walk away, some people cannot be reasoned with, and some people do have to fight because the only thing they understand is violence.

I would always choose to not fight, if there is another acceptable alternative. If there is no acceptable alternative, well, we'll find out who brought their A game that day.

Somehow, I think Mr. GrizzlyBear understands this.

doug

[Frenchy]

An other one in Washington... http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/crim...&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

[dgg9]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

An other one in Washington... http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/crim...&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

In this case, the guy with the gun was a convicted felon, not a lawful CCW holder. Of course, that didn't prevent the reporter from phrasing it in the usual misleading way.