Whataburger takes stand against Texas' new open carry law

AP ^ | July 12, 2015 | By SETH ROBBINS

[waterhill]

You were up against Californians, they just don’t have the fight in them.... not fair you bully Texan! They cannot help it, they are just pansies! God made them that way!

[editor-surveyor]

But there was no problem with open carry until a small handful started making an issue of it at Starbucks.

Now it is being prohibited in numerous states, even states where concealed carry is solid.

Seems like they are taking us backward.

[Future Snake Eater]

And that’s why I’m not a fan of open carry. It’s tactically foolish.

[Crystal Palace East]

“tactically foolish”

Exactly.

I’m 71, 6’ 3’ 220, still a good head of hair and (occasionally a BAMF when I want to be.)

But, if I’m ever in that situation, I’ll become a little old man sitting in the corner... drooling.... memorizing everything.... with my left hand hitting 911 from memory on my cell phone in my left front pocket... (Cops will hear what’s going on.)

And until if and when the fit hits the shan.... with my hand staying in my right front pocket... and I won’t be playing with Mr. Happy.

[kiryandil]

I think what "our friend" is trying to tell you is that if you want to "spray and pray", get a shiny badge, and a Magic Blue Suit.

Then, it's ALL GOOD. Peasants need not apply for special consideration from The Ruling Class.

You have to be one of the malicious, unaccountable incompetents who draw a paycheck from The State to get a "pass" from the local persecutor prosecutor...

[Smokin' Joe]

I cannot ethnically have any further comments on this.

Ethnicity is irrelevant.

If you are going to use lethal force to intervene on behalf of a third party who is being attacked, it is an incredible responsibility.

At the very least, you have the option to get the attacking parties to cease and desist. If they start to attack you. then you have a first person self-defense case--and can shoot them then (keep some distance).

I don't say this lightly. I have already considered the implications of two lovers acting out a late-night sex fantasy in a public place where one is moaning "Stop. Rape!" or words to that effect.

It's dark--not so dark you can't see the apparent perp, but dark enough the details may be obscured.

Do you take the shot? I now carry a small, but powerful flashlight, too. When the light goes on it has the dual effect of making it more difficult for the person of interest to see you, but you can assess the situation. If they quit and flee, mission accomplished--call 911.

I, for one, would prefer to never shoot an innocent, but would have to live with an equally heavy burden if I could have saved a life and did not intervene.

[Smokin' Joe]

Bottom line: I’ve just made their witness my best witness!

Well, counselor, your entire line of rhetoric had me convinced you were a lawyer even before I checked your about page.

If you had subpoenaed my targets you would have been disappointed--every now and then I get a flyer in the 9 ring. The rest are 10 or X ring shots. But the seminal question would be "What is an 8 year-old doing out in that neighborhood at that time of night?"

At combat ranges, (usually under 10 yards), one sidestep could change the angle of the bullet path enough to avoid any child behind the perp unless the bullet is deflected--in which case, the round is likely to have lost mass and energy significantly enough to seriously reduce its efficacy, even against a child.

This is part of the reason a defensive handgun should be selected not for penetrating power like the .357 Magnum, but for energy transfer with the appropriate ammunition, to reduce through and through penetration and keep the wound channel in the perpetrator.

As much as the 9mm is decried for alleged lack of stopping power, proper shot placement makes even the lowly .22 an effective caliber, and a combination of ammunition availability, selection, and the wide number of firearms to choose from makes the 9mm a good basic choice.

While I have a variety of calibers available, some lighter, some considerably heavier, I carry either a 9mm or a hammerless airweight .38 special (parka pocket winter gun) when in town. Both are very controllable to reduce follow-up shot time and keep on target if follow up shot(s) are needed.

That said, I like to make sure what is going on before a finger goes in the trigger guard.

[FreedomTx]

You’re not missing anything with In N Out. Completely tasteless. They look purty but no flavor at all.

[Hulka]

I refer to Texas Law on matters concerning the use of deadly force, not an Internet lawyer making uninformed statements:

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor: (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used: (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or (C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery; (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used. (b) The use of force against another is not justified: (1) in response to verbal provocation alone; (2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c); (3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other; (4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless: (A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and (B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or (5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was: (A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or (B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05. (c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified: (1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary. (d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34. (e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section. (f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

9.32: DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

Clearly, you may use deadly force to defend your life or the life of another.

One would think someone like you, stating clearly you carry weapons for defense, would understand the basics—maybe where you live you must sit and die rather than defend your life or the life of another, not in Texas, or maybe you are confused.

Crystal Palace bio: “Am proud to own minimally battle worn WWII, operationally perfect M-1 Garand for house defense with 3 cases of Cor-Bon 30.06 DPX Hunter 168 Grain Tipped DPX, and a M-1 folding stock carbine for car. It and 6 30 round banana mags of .30 Cor-bon DPX and three canteens will be all I ever need to get home by car or on foot if danger strikes afield. Carbine is in a very nice 2 gauge stainless nickel-steel locked box in the fender well, accessible from trunk or backseat.”

— Why have those weapons unless, as you state, you plan to shoot bad guys that threaten (at least) your life or the life of another? Interesting.

Good-bye.

[Crystal Palace East]

You ask a good question.

The reply:

According to your reading of the law, would Deadly Physical Force be justified in the case of a 8 year old stealing your plasma TV?

That’s the legal question?

Regardless of such possible legal justification, would you shoot such an 8 year old?

That’s the moral question

Assuming I did not see him as a physical threat to me or another’s person, I would not. But I would physically restrain him. Theft of a TV does not carry the death oenalty for an 8 year old.

Secondly, moving beyond legality and morality, my main issue was with the idiots here who think the smart thing to do if you witness an armed robbery in a crowded place is to draw and start blasting!

[Crystal Palace East]

PS. 2 other items. If you are legally to shoot but kill/wound a bystander, your legal right to shoot at your target does NOT relieve criminal or civil responsibility if you hit a non-perishable innocent bystanders.

2. Tactical assessment failures account for many fighters dying bravely. ... and quickly

[Grams A]

Last few places we’ve eaten hamburgers out seemed to me they were pretty much all tasteless. Perhaps my taster is wearing out with the rest of me.

[archy]

An iconic Texas restaurant chain will not allow the open carrying of guns on its properties, and industry experts say other restaurants will likely take the same stand against a new state law legalizing the practice in many public places.

US Code, Title 18, the U.S. Criminal Code, Section 241:

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

[archy]

You have NO authority to start shooting unless you can prove YOU or someone you are in relationship with is in IMMEDIATE MORTAL DANGER or, IN SOME JURISDICTIONS, SHOOTING TO PREVENT A VIOLENT FELONY

Or, in Texas, if someone is cutting a stockman's fence.

Better check the applicable state statutes [title 6, Section 143] and case law.

Violation of the Penal Code

To alter or remove a fence used to confine livestock is a state jail felony. Specifically, it is criminal mischief if, a person commits an offense if, without the consent of the owner;

(a) he intentionally or knowingly damages or destroys the tangible property of the owner;

(b) he intentionally or knowingly tampers with the tangible property of the owner and causes pecuniary loss or substantial inconvenience to the owner or a third person<

If the pecuniary loss to the owner of the property is less than $1,500.00, but the property damaged was a fence used for the production or containment of “cattle, bison, horses, sheep, swine, goats, exotic poultry,” then the offense is a state jail felony. If the offense results in the release or introduction of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, commonly known as mad cow disease, the offense is increased to a first degree felony.

You don't EVEN want to know about Wyoming!

[Crystal Palace East]

Agreed as to code, but where in that law are people given the right to shoot such law breakers, other than the general justification of preventing the ongoing felonious cutting of fences? Not challenging, just asking. My general worry here is that shooting, and thereby taking a life is so permanent, such a totality, that I worry when some here seem to take it so lightly. Example, you catch a 8 year-old kid stealing your $500 TV set. Shoot? Probably legal to do so, but do not take that as legal advice. Morally? To me, theft of a TV set by an 8 year-old dies not invoke a death sentence. Just my thoughts.

[archy]

Agreed as to code, but where in that law are people given the right to shoot such law breakers, other than the general justification of preventing the ongoing felonious cutting of fences? Not challenging, just asking.

Note what I said about case law precedent. Which in Texas, has included the theory that once a fence has been cut, the crime continues until it has been repaired; this both provides for a tort in the event livestock eventually come to the fence cut and later escape or are taken, and also extends the statute of limitations for the crime. Texas law, originally based on that of the previous tenant Mexico, and that country's Code Napoleon are of course archaic, but not entirely mooted; as in land title disputes.

My general worry here is that shooting, and thereby taking a life is so permanent, such a totality, that I worry when some here seem to take it so lightly. Example, you catch a 8 year-old kid stealing your $500 TV set. Shoot? Probably legal to do so, but do not take that as legal advice. Morally? To me, theft of a TV set by an 8 year-old dies not invoke a death sentence. Just my thoughts. The more likely reality in Texas is that the 8-year-old who is stealing the set does so because he has done so before, probably with others, often siblings. And if an older sibling is cartel connected or a working sicario the kid is pretty well guaranteed that no other witnesses will come forth. Accordingly in Texas, the more likely outcome would be that the hijo would be fatally shot, then denied medical attention or public burial, and the body of evidence would then be disposed of in the fashion known in Texas as *The Three S procedure.*

Such realities, moreso in rural areas but encroaching in urban areas, gives new additions to the language, offered by those who experience such things earliest or the most: los desaparecidos. Rural Texas ranching has a long tradition of bringing such terms into the public vocabulary, as with Texas rancher Samuel Maverick, who three centuries ago lent his name to those Texans who paid little attention to the law as written, but let it be known that they would enforce that which they thought was right. And mostly, a jury of twelve fellow citizens would have agreed with him, had it come to that. The Texas term for such fellers is prickley. The result may be that rhetorical beef or television-stealing eight-year-olds might not be shot on the spot, but very likely could be hanged from a nearby cottonwood tree.

I do not suggest that there should be no written laws to enforce; nor do I think that every man should enforce them, or hios own code, as he sees fit. But when lawless times worsen, and when many in the government itself pay no attention to the rule of law, you will see such things again, just as they were not uncommon in earlier lawless or semi-lawless times.

Oh, and sometimes, it is the governmental enforcers of the law themselves who have to take care of the cut fences and fencecutters, as in the case well-known in Texas involving Texas Ranger Ira Aten.

[Crystal Palace East]

If you came home and you saw a 8 year-old stealing your TV, would you shoot him?

[Crystal Palace East]

P.S., not trying to be “nasty” with question. It’s just that there are so many legal questions that really need to also be reviewed in the “cold light of day, the real world.”

It’s like Slick Willie and The Hildabeast. To them, and so many like them, if something is (barely) legal, then it is perfectly fine to do it.

They have no extra-legal sense of right and wrong.

[Crystal Palace East]

P.S., not trying to be “nasty” with question. It’s just that there are so many legal questions that really need to also be reviewed in the “cold light of day, the real world.”

It’s like Slick Willie and The Hildabeast. To them, and so many like them, if something is (barely) legal, then it is perfectly fine to do it.

[archy]

If you came home and you saw a 8 year-old stealing your TV, would you shoot him?

I'd rather wait and watch what the dogs do to him. And if he hurts one of them, he's gone.