see the link I provided
quote:
In concealed handgun courses, the point is made that the weapon can be drawn any time the permit holder feels that they are at risk of "serious bodily injury", which could be as simple as another man clenching his fist and saying he's going to punch you.
quote:
Come the hell on. It was a simple little brawl and he drew a friggin sword. He was corp [sic], he should have been able to defend himself without using a friggin sword, dull or not. That's beyond redicules [sic]. Can you imagine if someone drew a sword every time there was a simple little brawl on North Gate. And it was a damn CHEERLEADER.
quote:
So, what you are saying then is that Hood felt threatened, therefore he was justified in what he did, and it would be justified if it were a saber, handgun, switchblade, etc... am I reading you correctly?
quote:
Hood = Butt of Aggie Jokes everywhere. A&M is still suffering from the image of this idiot.
quote:
there is no way that pulling a saber on those cheerleaders was immediate and necessary to defend himself
quote:
Now, if I actually *use* the weapon and retaliate, that's a whole other kettle of fish and will require at a bare minimum an investigation by law enforcement.
quote:
everything you just posted is moot...
quote:
It could be argued that is necessary...He had allready been assualted once and he was surrounded by the smu cheerleaders, how was he to know he wouldn't be assualted again?
quote:
1) Hood was assaulted. The SMU "cheerleader" (a male) pushed Hood to the ground before Hood got up and drew his saber. Anyone has the right to defend themselves.