Shooting at Applebee's in Lady Lake this morning. (Tuesday).

[jimjamuser]

The fact that even that ridiculous organization that calls itself the viIIage new$ does not even comment on the long violent criminal record of the man rightfully shot to death, speaks volumes of the non freedom of speech our press is pressured to follow by the powers that be.

If a typical villager were the shot man, we would know every speeding ticket, jay walking ticket received as well as what he paid for his house.
The "powers that be" have decided that the BEST course of action is to stay as quiet as possible, silence the event, downplay it, and hope it goes away. The less the media knows the better - which is also a main tenant of all fascist policy. The last thing wanted is that Al Sharpton gets wind of this shooting and IF he sees a racist component, he then decides to visit this area with the intent of bringing some sunshine through media exposure to this situation.
..........We live here and we know NOTHING about what really went on that night. The only thing that we know is that SOMETHING very BAD went on in OUR backyard and it is STINKING UP the neighborhood.

[Taltarzac725]

Not sure if it was bad or not. And the Lady Lake PD is doing the right thing and waiting out with the investigation. These things take a lot of time especially if they have not identified the people who were shooting outside of Applebee's. It would be valuable to know what was going on out there and how the slain man was connected to these men or women or both.

Did he come into Applebee's to avoid them and prevent himself from getting shot? Or did he come into Applebee's to do harm to the people in there? Was he reaching for his phone? Was he even armed? And what did the shooter know about any of this?

The person who let him in probably had some idea.

The "powers that be" have decided that the BEST course of action is to stay as quiet as possible, silence the event, downplay it, and hope it goes away. The less the media knows the better - which is also a main tenant of all fascist policy. The last thing wanted is that Al Sharpton gets wind of this shooting and IF he sees a racist component, he then decides to visit this area with the intent of bringing some sunshine through media exposure to this situation.
..........We live here and we know NOTHING about what really went on that night. The only thing that we know is that SOMETHING very BAD went on in OUR backyard and it is STINKING UP the neighborhood.

[ThirdOfFive]

Not sure if it was bad or not. And the Lady Lake PD is doing the right thing and waiting out with the investigation. These things take a lot of time especially if they have not identified the people who were shooting outside of Applebee's. It would be valuable to know what was going on out there and how the slain man was connected to these men or women or both.

Did he come into Applebee's to avoid them and prevent himself from getting shot? Or did he come into Applebee's to do harm to the people in there? Was he reaching for his phone? Was he even armed? And what did the shooter know about any of this?

The person who let him in probably had some idea.
Agree.

Remember back in the day, when “Uncle Walter” Cronkite was The Most Trusted Man In America? Things were different then. Three major networks reporting pretty much the same news in pretty much the same way five days per week for 1/2 hour each evening (an hour, later on, with MacNeil - Lehrer), with the punditry and opinionizing saved for Sunday mornings. There was news; short, sweet, and (we assumed) factual. There were the opinion shows on Sunday. And never the twain shall meet. Things were pretty clear.

Not so, today. Today there are dozens of “news” printers and broadcasters all vying for she same dollar, tailoring their product to this or that demographic or political point of view to the extent that virtually no domestic news outlet can be trusted for “just the facts”. Virtually everything is colored, spun, twisted and sensationalized to keep and satisfy their patrons as well as to attract more to their particular brand of “news”. I have no problem imagining that any one particular story can be disseminated by, say, five different outlets, and depending on the political slant of the outlet as well as how the story is phrased and spun, listeners or viewers can walk away with five totally different emotional reactions to the story that are more or less independent of the facts. A good example of this might be a story about a retiring member of Congress. Same story. Same facts. Same everything except for maybe two words. One story is about the “venerable statesman “ retiring from a lifetime of public service. The other concerns the same person, same facts, etc. but describes him as an “aging politician”. Dunno about the rest of you, but “venerable statesman” conjures up, for me anyway, a mental image of maybe Winston Churchill. “Aging politician”? Teddy Kennedy.

So too with these “stories” about shootings, often no more than wild conjecture based on very little few if any facts, but designed and spun to appeal to a certain demographic and thus guarantee and/or boost patronage. I recall many of them back in Minnesota. George Floyd. BLM. The “mostly peaceful” (gotta love that one!) demonstrations. Media had the population so stirred up that there were very few people who DIDN’T claim to know the story—but the “story” they knew was the one that they chose to listen to, and thus believe. INFORMATION didn’t matter. What mattered was VALIDATION. And you could pick and choose to find a source that validated any point of view that you might have.

Kudos to Lady Lake PD for handling this shooing in the way that they’re doing. Low-key. Get the facts first. Don’t sensationalize. Remember that this is a legal process, NOT a soap opera, no matter how many of us see it as a soap opera.

Come to think of it, shouldn’t ALL news be disseminated in that way?

[Taltarzac725]

Agree.

Remember back in the day, when “Uncle Walter” Cronkite was The Most Trusted Man In America? Things were different then. Three major networks reporting pretty much the same news in pretty much the same way five days per week for 1/2 hour each evening (an hour, later on, with MacNeil - Lehrer), with the punditry and opinionizing saved for Sunday mornings. There was news; short, sweet, and (we assumed) factual. There were the opinion shows on Sunday. And never the twain shall meet. Things were pretty clear.

Not so, today. Today there are dozens of “news” printers and broadcasters all vying for she same dollar, tailoring their product to this or that demographic or political point of view to the extent that virtually no domestic news outlet can be trusted for “just the facts”. Virtually everything is colored, spun, twisted and sensationalized to keep and satisfy their patrons as well as to attract more to their particular brand of “news”. I have no problem imagining that any one particular story can be disseminated by, say, five different outlets, and depending on the political slant of the outlet as well as how the story is phrased and spun, listeners or viewers can walk away with five totally different emotional reactions to the story that are more or less independent of the facts. A good example of this might be a story about a retiring member of Congress. Same story. Same facts. Same everything except for maybe two words. One story is about the “venerable statesman “ retiring from a lifetime of public service. The other concerns the same person, same facts, etc. but describes him as an “aging politician”. Dunno about the rest of you, but “venerable statesman” conjures up, for me anyway, a mental image of maybe Winston Churchill. “Aging politician”? Teddy Kennedy.

So too with these “stories” about shootings, often no more than wild conjecture based on very little few if any facts, but designed and spun to appeal to a certain demographic and thus guarantee and/or boost patronage. I recall many of them back in Minnesota. George Floyd. BLM. The “mostly peaceful” (gotta love that one!) demonstrations. Media had the population so stirred up that there were very few people who DIDN’T claim to know the story—but the “story” they knew was the one that they chose to listen to, and thus believe. INFORMATION didn’t matter. What mattered was VALIDATION. And you could pick and choose to find a source that validated any point of view that you might have.

Kudos to Lady Lake PD for handling this shooing in the way that they’re doing. Low-key. Get the facts first. Don’t sensationalize. Remember that this is a legal process, NOT a soap opera, no matter how many of us see it as a soap opera.

Come to think of it, shouldn’t ALL news be disseminated in that way?

They are talking the high road at Lady Lake PD.

My high school teacher's daughter was murdered on my birthday of 2-24 back in 1976 while I was a Junior at Earl Wooster HS in Reno, Nevada. Us students in her English classes were suspects and media was very much involved with this case as her husband was an English teacher at another high school in Reno, NV and the victim-- Michelle Mitchell-- was a 19 year old nursing student at the University of Nevada, Reno.

I had gone into libraries to help my fellow Earl Wooster HS students and myself cope with the investigation but could find NOTHING useful and starting planning on how I could do something about that niche of offering useful information.

They "solved" the murder in 1979 but wound up getting the wrong person which was discovered in a DNA test in 2014 of a cigarette that had been in evidence. Or, something like that. Turned out it was a SF area serial killer, Rodney Halbower, who had killed Michelle Mitchell. He had been in prison for a long time in Oregon for the rape of woman.

Paula Zahn did a program on the whole mess a few years ago interviewing the detective in charge of some of it. Her birthday is also 2-24. The murder of Michelle Mitchell was about twenty feet from the University of Nevada, Reno campus in a garage.

[Pairadocs]

Twelve people, the jury, who saw and heard ALL the evidence vs what the media wanted everyone to hear. Naturally the jury was wrong! Lets do away with trial by your peers and have trial by the biased, profit driven media.

The unsettling truth is, it appears we are headed in that very direction, from the pre trial by media headlines, to the prosecutors elected by WE the people and, in most cases, pay far more than most citizens ever hope to make in a year, and then, outright refuse to do their job (how does it go when a clerk at Walmart goes to work and then just outright refuses to do his/her responsibilities because they disagree with some of the assigned duties ?), to the ever growing number of law school students who violently object to presentation of various points of view in classes and special speakers, to reduction in police forces, the growing forces to completely do away with jails and prisons (?), to the willingness of public officials on all levels to bow to the loudest, most violent or vocal protests, it's not a optimistic picture. Problem is, most people see each of these trends as individual entities, without considering the what the total will mean to our whole system of justice ! Are we slowly being moved, in micro steps, toward a system of guilty until proven innocent in a court ? Are we moving away from a "jury of peers" to a more stream lined system of trial before a judge only ? And the final truth is, none of these (and MANY other outcomes) are ever considered as the average American heads to the polls. Many consider what they, or their families, have always been in relation to political party, others just don't ever look at the picture painted by the "gathering clouds". Back to 911, people were MORE than willing to give up substantial personal rights in exchange for 100% (?) safety ! Same as cell phones slowly progressed to personal tracking devices; people are actually anxious to download hundreds of "apps" to their phones in exchange for a 10% discount at stores, or a one time coupon for an item. It's really amazing what trinkets (a free medium fries) people will accept in exchange for liberty and personal rights ! It's a Mystery....

[Gpsma]

Im being patient with this situation. The police probably are still trying to figure it all out.

In the meantime Dishuan is dead. Im guessing he was a good person with a 20 year rap sheet who dinnit do nuffin.

[NoMoSno]

I doubt there will ever be a public follow-up report.
Maybe someone who goes to Applebee's can ask an employee for an update.

[Taltarzac725]

I doubt there will ever be a public follow-up report.
Maybe someone who goes to Applebee's can ask an employee for an update.

They have probably been told to keep quiet during the investigation.

[jimjamuser]

They have probably been told to keep quiet during the investigation.
Keep it quiet on the down-low so that it does NOT bring in the National Media or investigative reporters.

[ThirdOfFive]

Keep it quiet on the down-low so that it does NOT bring in the National Media or investigative reporters.
As it should be.

[Taltarzac725]

Keep it quiet on the down-low so that it does NOT bring in the National Media or investigative reporters.

If the facts warrant it, they will come.

[New Englander]

If the facts warrant it, they will come.

Only if there's money to be made.

[jimjamuser]

As it should be.
Is there a problem with a little SUNSHINE SHOWN on the crime? Some people that had positions in the past as Police personnel can have a TENDENCY to AUTOMATICALLY side with or believe that JUSTICE is BLIND and will NEVER be swayed by City Hall or government officials. I believe that MOST Police departments around the country are staffed by GOOD and HONEST American patriots that would NOT EVER consider embezzlement or using their position of TRUST in a SELFISH and ILLEGAL manner!
..........However, I am somewhat suspicious of Police Departments in small towns in Florida because of their HISTORY of unscrupulous abuse of their authority.
...........While I know of that proclivity in general for small towns in Florida - I have zero knowledge of whether that IS a FACTOR in the present Applebee's murder OR justifiable-killing situation. I am, however, very suspicious that a concerted effort to hide the facts, in this case, is evident!

[JMintzer]

Is there a problem with a little SUNSHINE SHOWN on the crime? Some people that had positions in the past as Police personnel can have a TENDENCY to AUTOMATICALLY side with or believe that JUSTICE is BLIND and will NEVER be swayed by City Hall or government officials. I believe that MOST Police departments around the country are staffed by GOOD and HONEST American patriots that would NOT EVER consider embezzlement or using their position of TRUST in a SELFISH and ILLEGAL manner!
..........However, I am somewhat suspicious of Police Departments in small towns in Florida because of their HISTORY of unscrupulous abuse of their authority.
...........While I know of that proclivity in general for small towns in Florida - I have zero knowledge of whether that IS a FACTOR in the present Applebee's murder OR justifiable-killing situation. I am, however, very suspicious that a concerted effort to hide the facts, in this case, is evident!

"concerted effort"... :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[karostay]

Nothing But trouble after midnight
Alcohol and drug mid set

[dewilson58]

Nothing But trouble after midnight
Alcohol and drug mid set

You forget we are a 24/7 society...............people are working 24 hours / three shifts a day.

[Taltarzac725]

You forget we are a 24/7 society...............people are working 24 hours / three shifts a day.

Not so much in the Villages. The squares are pretty empty by 9:30 PM.

[dewilson58]

Not so much in the Villages. The squares are pretty empty by 9:30 PM.

I kno.
I said Society.
There are non-Villagers eating & drinking there.
Think about workers at bars in TV, workers at Walmart, etc.

[NoMoSno]

This was posted on "Nextdoor" forum by a lady that lives in Delmar.
I don't know how accurate it is, just passing it on:

"My neighbor was in Applebees when this happened. It actually started in Gator’s. Hudson was harassing the bartender and they called the police. They left there and went to Applebees to get away from the problems. He did shoot outside of Applebees and after getting inside my neighbor said he fired into the ceiling. They all scattered. He said if it wasn’t for the guy with the carry permit that shot Hudson, he felt they would all have been shot."

[jimjamuser]

This was posted on "Nextdoor" forum by a lady that lives in Delmar.
I don't know how accurate it is, just passing it on:

"My neighbor was in Applebees when this happened. It actually started in Gator’s. Hudson was harassing the bartender and they called the police. They left there and went to Applebees to get away from the problems. He did shoot outside of Applebees and after getting inside my neighbor said he fired into the ceiling. They all scattered. He said if it wasn’t for the guy with the carry permit that shot Hudson, he felt they would all have been shot."
Well, if that IS true, I guess we won't be seeing our old buddy - Al Sharpton, after all. No matter what becomes of the Applebees incident, when the "haves" and the " have-nots" live in CLOSE PROXIMITY with no middle-class in America THEN stuff will happen. And when the haves and have-nots are BOTH "armed to the teeth" time to look up "the receipt for disaster".
........And would it be too compulsive of me to mention, once again, the NEED locally for more Police and Crime surveillance equipment? just wonder if enough people are aware of the crime and other problems created by a vanishing middle-class?

[ThirdOfFive]

Well, if that IS true, I guess we won't be seeing our old buddy - Al Sharpton, after all. No matter what becomes of the Applebees incident, when the "haves" and the " have-nots" live in CLOSE PROXIMITY with no middle-class in America THEN stuff will happen. And when the haves and have-nots are BOTH "armed to the teeth" time to look up "the receipt for disaster".
........And would it be too compulsive of me to mention, once again, the NEED locally for more Police and Crime surveillance equipment? just wonder if enough people are aware of the crime and other problems created by a vanishing middle-class?
How would "more Police and Crime surveillance equipment" have prevented this from happening?

Police response times are measured in minutes. Sometimes a whole lot of minutes. Incidents where people die or are horribly injured because of crime are often over in seconds. Other than posting a cop in every restaurant around closing time, there would appear to have been no way that a cop could have gotten on the scene before what happened, happened.

If the information in Post #269 is correct, then there are several people who may well owe this legally- and responsibly-armed citizen a debt of gratitude. One person died. The innocent ones lived.

[Taltarzac725]

I kind of doubt if this man came into Applebee's to do violence. It is more common sense that he came in to get away from the people who were doing the shooting outside.


How would "more Police and Crime surveillance equipment" have prevented this from happening?

Police response times are measured in minutes. Sometimes a whole lot of minutes. Incidents where people die or are horribly injured because of crime are often over in seconds. Other than posting a cop in every restaurant around closing time, there would appear to have been no way that a cop could have gotten on the scene before what happened, happened.

If the information in Post #269 is correct, then there are several people who may well owe this legally- and responsibly-armed citizen a debt of gratitude. One person died. The innocent ones lived.

[JMintzer]

I kind of doubt if this man came into Applebee's to do violence. It is more common sense that he came in to get away from the people who were doing the shooting outside.

Did you read the description just a few posts earlier that stated that Hudson "the dead man" WAS the one shooting outside and when he came inside he fired a round into the ceiling?

I understand that you desperately want Hudson to be innocent, but so far, all evidence points the other way...

Just in case you missed it, here is what was posted:

This was posted on "Nextdoor" forum by a lady that lives in Delmar.
I don't know how accurate it is, just passing it on:

"My neighbor was in Applebees when this happened. It actually started in Gator’s. Hudson was harassing the bartender and they called the police. They left there and went to Applebees to get away from the problems. He did shoot outside of Applebees and after getting inside my neighbor said he fired into the ceiling. They all scattered. He said if it wasn’t for the guy with the carry permit that shot Hudson, he felt they would all have been shot."

[Taltarzac725]

Did you read the description just a few posts earlier that stated that Hudson "the dead man" WAS the one shooting outside and when he came inside he fired a round into the ceiling?

I understand that you desperately want Hudson to be innocent, but so far, all evidence points the other way...

Just in case you missed it, here is what was posted:

This was posted on "Nextdoor" forum by a lady that lives in Delmar.
I don't know how accurate it is, just passing it on:

"My neighbor was in Applebees when this happened. It actually started in Gator’s. Hudson was harassing the bartender and they called the police. They left there and went to Applebees to get away from the problems. He did shoot outside of Applebees and after getting inside my neighbor said he fired into the ceiling. They all scattered. He said if it wasn’t for the guy with the carry permit that shot Hudson, he felt they would all have been shot."
There is nothing in the facts given by the media that supports this.

[Bill14564]

There is nothing in the facts given by the media that supports this.

But I read a post on the internet by someone who read a post by someone whose neighbor said..... It must be true.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Did you read the description just a few posts earlier that stated that Hudson "the dead man" WAS the one shooting outside and when he came inside he fired a round into the ceiling?

I understand that you desperately want Hudson to be innocent, but so far, all evidence points the other way...

Just in case you missed it, here is what was posted:

This was posted on "Nextdoor" forum by a lady that lives in Delmar.
I don't know how accurate it is, just passing it on:

"My neighbor was in Applebees when this happened. It actually started in Gator’s. Hudson was harassing the bartender and they called the police. They left there and went to Applebees to get away from the problems. He did shoot outside of Applebees and after getting inside my neighbor said he fired into the ceiling. They all scattered. He said if it wasn’t for the guy with the carry permit that shot Hudson, he felt they would all have been shot."

That's quite a stretch: "He fired a shot into the ceiling"
to

"they all WOULD have been shot, if the other guy didn't shoot him."

The guy who ran into Applebees didn't shoot anyone IN Applebees. In fact - there's no way his aim could be THAT bad, that his shot would land - in the ceiling. So he must've intended to shoot into the ceiling.

That means - he was not shooting at people.

Therefore - "they all would have been shot" is - a really bad interpretation of the guy's motive. No one knows what WOULD have happened, if he wasn't shot dead. He might've put the gun down and broke down in sobs over whatever was going through his mind.

He might've just run back out again.

He might've shot himself.

He might've shot one person there.

He might've shot everyone there.

He might've just stood there, not shooting anyone, or crying, or anything else.

He might've sat down and ordered a piece of pie.

But none of the things he "might" have done, matter. He's dead, thanks to someone ELSE with a gun.

[Taltarzac725]

That's quite a stretch: "He fired a shot into the ceiling"
to

"they all WOULD have been shot, if the other guy didn't shoot him."

The guy who ran into Applebees didn't shoot anyone IN Applebees. In fact - there's no way his aim could be THAT bad, that his shot would land - in the ceiling. So he must've intended to shoot into the ceiling.

That means - he was not shooting at people.

Therefore - "they all would have been shot" is - a really bad interpretation of the guy's motive. No one knows what WOULD have happened, if he wasn't shot dead. He might've put the gun down and broke down in sobs over whatever was going through his mind.

He might've just run back out again.

He might've shot himself.

He might've shot one person there.

He might've shot everyone there.

He might've just stood there, not shooting anyone, or crying, or anything else.

He might've sat down and ordered a piece of pie.

But none of the things he "might" have done, matter. He's dead, thanks to someone ELSE with a gun.

I would not believe any of this just yet. There is often a lot of nonsense posted or scuttlebutt about events like this online often by trolls who mean to stir things up.

There was no mention that the killed man had a gun of any kind in the news reports. Just that the man who shot him saw him reaching into his pocket.

[Rainger99]

I kind of doubt if this man came into Applebee's to do violence. It is more common sense that he came in to get away from the people who were doing the shooting outside.

We can speculate about what happened forever.

Instead of endless speculation, we should wait until more facts come out.

Then we can make informed comments.

[jimjamuser]

How would "more Police and Crime surveillance equipment" have prevented this from happening?

Police response times are measured in minutes. Sometimes a whole lot of minutes. Incidents where people die or are horribly injured because of crime are often over in seconds. Other than posting a cop in every restaurant around closing time, there would appear to have been no way that a cop could have gotten on the scene before what happened, happened.

If the information in Post #269 is correct, then there are several people who may well owe this legally- and responsibly-armed citizen a debt of gratitude. One person died. The innocent ones lived.
Responding to ONLY paragraph one........increased Police PRESENCE would ALWAYS deter crime.....end of story.
........Putting oneself in the mind of a criminal, would you rather shoot up a bar or be a burgler in an area with no electronic surveillance or an area with HEAVY electronic surveillance? The question answers itself because, with HEAVY video or other surveillance, the criminal is CAUGHT and found GUILTY.........that is called BASIC DETERRENCE.

[jimjamuser]

I would not believe any of this just yet. There is often a lot of nonsense posted or scuttlebutt about events like this online often by trolls who mean to stir things up.

There was no mention that the killed man had a gun of any kind in the news reports. Just that the man who shot him saw him reaching into his pocket.
Good point. I am SURPRISED that national media and some investigative reporters are NOT climbing ALL OVER this violent murder or legal defensive self-preservation shooting. Whatever the case and details we find out in the FUTURE, the last thing that I want is to see the story BURIED and the TRUTH remain FOREVER unknown!

[JMintzer]

There is nothing in the facts given by the media that supports this.

Nor are there any facts supporting your claim...

[JMintzer]

That's quite a stretch: "He fired a shot into the ceiling"
to

"they all WOULD have been shot, if the other guy didn't shoot him."

The guy who ran into Applebees didn't shoot anyone IN Applebees. In fact - there's no way his aim could be THAT bad, that his shot would land - in the ceiling. So he must've intended to shoot into the ceiling.

That means - he was not shooting at people.

Therefore - "they all would have been shot" is - a really bad interpretation of the guy's motive. No one knows what WOULD have happened, if he wasn't shot dead. He might've put the gun down and broke down in sobs over whatever was going through his mind.

He might've just run back out again.

He might've shot himself.

He might've shot one person there.

He might've shot everyone there.

He might've just stood there, not shooting anyone, or crying, or anything else.

He might've sat down and ordered a piece of pie.

But none of the things he "might" have done, matter. He's dead, thanks to someone ELSE with a gun.

First of all, he said he "felt that they would have all been shot"... Not a stretch at all...

Maybe it's me, but if someone bursts in, fires a gun into the ceiling, I'm in fear for my life.

There is ZERO rational reason to do this. Any sensible person would see that as a threat...

But sure, let's go with the "I'll have a piece of pie" theory...

[JMintzer]

Good point. I am SURPRISED that national media and some investigative reporters are NOT climbing ALL OVER this violent murder or legal defensive self-preservation shooting. Whatever the case and details we find out in the FUTURE, the last thing that I want is to see the story BURIED and the TRUTH remain FOREVER unknown!

I'm not surprised at all...

The "national media" rarely reports successful "good guy with a gun" stories. It goes against their narrative...

[JMintzer]

Responding to ONLY paragraph one........increased Police PRESENCE would ALWAYS deter crime.....end of story.
........Putting oneself in the mind of a criminal, would you rather shoot up a bar or be a burger in an area with no electronic surveillance or an area with HEAVY electronic surveillance? The question answers itself because, with HEAVY video or other surveillance, the criminal is CAUGHT and found GUILTY.........that is called BASIC DETERRENCE.

Anyone with half a brain already knows that there are video cameras most everywhere... It doesn't deter anyone...

[ThirdOfFive]

Responding to ONLY paragraph one........increased Police PRESENCE would ALWAYS deter crime.....end of story.
........Putting oneself in the mind of a criminal, would you rather shoot up a bar or be a burger in an area with no electronic surveillance or an area with HEAVY electronic surveillance? The question answers itself because, with HEAVY video or other surveillance, the criminal is CAUGHT and found GUILTY.........that is called BASIC DETERRENCE.

Incidents such as the one at Applebees are “crimes of passion”, so to speak. Done in the heat of the moment, possibly drug- and/or alcohol-fueled, and with nothing aforethought except strong, unthinking emotion. No amount of surveillance is going to stop something like that from happening, nor is “more police presence”, unless already on the premises, going to be a deterrent.

Would heavier surveillance result, as stated, in criminals being “CAUGHT and found GUILTY…….”? Perhaps. And that is a good thing. But it scarcely needs to be pointed out that that being “caught and found guilty” means that the crime has ALREADY been committed.

The only thing that is going to slow crime down in this country is more people taking on the responsibility of assuring their own safety.

[JMintzer]

Incidents such as the one at Applebees are “crimes of passion”, so to speak. Done in the heat of the moment, possibly drug- and/or alcohol-fueled, and with nothing aforethought except strong, unthinking emotion. No amount of surveillance is going to stop something like that from happening, nor is “more police presence”, unless already on the premises, going to be a deterrent.

Would heavier surveillance result, as stated, in criminals being “CAUGHT and found GUILTY…….”? Perhaps. And that is a good thing. But it scarcely needs to be pointed out that that being “caught and found guilty” means that the crime has ALREADY been committed.

The only thing that is going to slow crime down in this country is more people taking on the responsibility of assuring their own safety.

Prezactly...

[Bill14564]

First of all, he said he "felt that they would have all been shot"... Not a stretch at all...

Maybe it's me, but if someone bursts in, fires a gun into the ceiling, I'm in fear for my life.

There is ZERO rational reason to do this. Any sensible person would see that as a threat...

But sure, let's go with the "I'll have a piece of pie" theory...


What the neighbor of a woman in Delmar felt would have happened doesn't really matter.

If someone burst in and fires a gun into the ceiling you should be in fear for your life. but did that happen? Did he burst in? Did he shoot into the ceiling? Sure, it was on NextDoor so it *must* be true. No really, the neighbor of the lady in Delmar that none of us know said it happened, it *must* be true.

None of the papers that covered the story mentioned that Hudson had a gun. None of the papers mentioned anyone shooting inside the building other than the one person with the permit. The papers only mention that someone inside the building opened a door to let him in, there was an altercation of some sort, and the person with the permit shot Hudson when he reached inside his pants.

But I read it on the internet from a lady who has a neighbor who told her so it must be true.

[larbud]

There is nothing in the facts given by the media that supports this.

FACTS? Media? What rock do you live under?

[airdote22]

Although, it does seem strange that the police report wouldn't state whether or not the dead man had a gun.
If the shooter had waited to make sure he he had a gun me likely would not have been the 1st shooter.

[gobuck827]

Then we can make informed comments.

On TOTV? :a20::a20::a20:

[jimjamuser]

Incidents such as the one at Applebees are “crimes of passion”, so to speak. Done in the heat of the moment, possibly drug- and/or alcohol-fueled, and with nothing aforethought except strong, unthinking emotion. No amount of surveillance is going to stop something like that from happening, nor is “more police presence”, unless already on the premises, going to be a deterrent.

Would heavier surveillance result, as stated, in criminals being “CAUGHT and found GUILTY…….”? Perhaps. And that is a good thing. But it scarcely needs to be pointed out that that being “caught and found guilty” means that the crime has ALREADY been committed.

The only thing that is going to slow crime down in this country is more people taking on the responsibility of assuring their own safety.
I agree with the last paragraph, but we will have to have differing views about the 1st paragraph. I believe that the presence of Police or surveillance in ANY area (Over Time) cuts down on CRIME.

[jimjamuser]

FACTS? Media? What rock do you live under?
Not everyone here dislikes traditional TV media. As a rough ESTIMATE, I would say that about 30% of TV Land watches traditional TV media and dislikes Foxy Loxey. And about 70% dislike traditional TV media and salivate greatly over Tocey Loxey. But, then we live in a HOTBED of deviant BubbleLand philosophy.

[New Englander]

Not everyone here dislikes traditional TV media. As a rough ESTIMATE, I would say that about 30% of TV Land watches traditional TV media and dislikes Foxy Loxey. And about 70% dislike traditional TV media and salivate greatly over Tocey Loxey. But, then we live in a HOTBED of deviant BubbleLand philosophy.


:a20:

[JMintzer]

What the neighbor of a woman in Delmar felt would have happened doesn't really matter.

If someone burst in and fires a gun into the ceiling you should be in fear for your life. but did that happen? Did he burst in? Did he shoot into the ceiling? Sure, it was on NextDoor so it *must* be true. No really, the neighbor of the lady in Delmar that none of us know said it happened, it *must* be true.

None of the papers that covered the story mentioned that Hudson had a gun. None of the papers mentioned anyone shooting inside the building other than the one person with the permit. The papers only mention that someone inside the building opened a door to let him in, there was an altercation of some sort, and the person with the permit shot Hudson when he reached inside his pants.

But I read it on the internet from a lady who has a neighbor who told her so it must be true.

Notice I said "IF" that happened...

And what the newspaper reported doesn't really matter, either... We've seen that time and time again...

I'm simply giving an alternative scenario based on what has been reported to counter the inane "he was trying to escape the shooting outside" scenario which has NO basis in reality...

[Bill14564]

Notice I said "IF" that happened...

And what the newspaper reported doesn't really matter, either... We've seen that time and time again...

I'm simply giving an alternative scenario based on what has been reported to counter the inane "he was trying to escape the shooting outside" scenario which has NO basis in reality...

No, the newspapers all might have missed the detail about Hudson having a gun or the police might not have made that detail available yet. Or, he might not have had a gun and the lady from Delmar was making stuff up.

If the car had something to do with the shooting and had left then it would be odd for Hudson to try to escape into the building. But at the same time, it would be odd for people safely in the building to run outside towards the shooting yet that is what was reported. Who knows, that might not have been exactly true either.

My concern is praising the permit carrier as a hero before we have more facts. He may have done exactly the right thing and is a hero. Or, he may have shot an unarmed man reaching for a wallet or a cell phone.

Good guys with guns certainly level the playing field and have the potential to prevent catastrophes. Good guys with guns and quick trigger fingers have the potential to make innocent people dead. Praise those that deserve it but make sure they deserve it before doling out the praise.

Right now we need to wait for more information before condemning or praising anyone.

[JMintzer]

No, the newspapers all might have missed the detail about Hudson having a gun or the police might not have made that detail available yet. Or, he might not have had a gun and the lady from Delmar was making stuff up.

If the car had something to do with the shooting and had left then it would be odd for Hudson to try to escape into the building. But at the same time, it would be odd for people safely in the building to run outside towards the shooting yet that is what was reported. Who knows, that might not have been exactly true either.

My concern is praising the permit carrier as a hero before we have more facts. He may have done exactly the right thing and is a hero. Or, he may have shot an unarmed man reaching for a wallet or a cell phone.

Good guys with guns certainly level the playing field and have the potential to prevent catastrophes. Good guys with guns and quick trigger fingers have the potential to make innocent people dead. Praise those that deserve it but make sure they deserve it before doling out the praise.

Right now we need to wait for more information before condemning or praising anyone.

From the reports I have read, the people ran outside once Hudson had gained entry INTO the building...

I have not praised anyone... Yet... My "good guy with a gun" comment was simply a commentary on our current news sources and the choices they make when reporting said news...

Could the customer who shot Hudson reacted too quickly? Most certainly. Could he have reacted properly? Again, most certainly. And I agree, we don't yet have all of the facts.

I'm willing to admit that. Unlike others, who do nothing but make up bizarre scenarios, trying to exonerate Hudson. That said, I think I'll have a piece of pie...

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

No, the newspapers all might have missed the detail about Hudson having a gun or the police might not have made that detail available yet. Or, he might not have had a gun and the lady from Delmar was making stuff up.

If the car had something to do with the shooting and had left then it would be odd for Hudson to try to escape into the building. But at the same time, it would be odd for people safely in the building to run outside towards the shooting yet that is what was reported. Who knows, that might not have been exactly true either.

My concern is praising the permit carrier as a hero before we have more facts. He may have done exactly the right thing and is a hero. Or, he may have shot an unarmed man reaching for a wallet or a cell phone.

Good guys with guns certainly level the playing field and have the potential to prevent catastrophes. Good guys with guns and quick trigger fingers have the potential to make innocent people dead. Praise those that deserve it but make sure they deserve it before doling out the praise.

Right now we need to wait for more information before condemning or praising anyone.

Prezactly.

[Taltarzac725]

The person killed is the victim. That is really all we know, for sure, right now. If the shooter had a fear for his own and others safety remains to be seen.

If he had his gun out and was shooting into the ceiling while angry that would go a long way in making a fear very reasonable.

[ThirdOfFive]

I agree with the last paragraph, but we will have to have differing views about the 1st paragraph. I believe that the presence of Police or surveillance in ANY area (Over Time) cuts down on CRIME.
Fair enough.

Don't get the wrong impression though. I am definitely a "more police presence" kind of guy, especially on our streets and roadways. More street and roadway surveillance too, as far as that goes. 46% of Americans admit to drinking and driving, and my guess is that it is higher than that here in The Villages. That fact coupled with the unfortunate eventuality that a person's physical abilities regarding driving diminish with age whether that person is drinking or not, and you have a very serious issue.

[jimjamuser]

Prezactly.
My problem is that, "Why is it taking so long to get the facts out from the Police". It is like that old saying about "pulling teeth". Florida is SUPPOSED to be the SUNSHINE state ........so is it too much to ask to have a little SUNSHINE on this MURDER or justifiable homicide (maybe a trigger-happy, WHITE GUY). I hate to look for CONSPIRACY theories, but there is a VERY possible one BREWING here! What if the great and FREE state of Florida does NOT want ANY BAD publicity about GUNS that might SOUR the upcoming legislation to allow UNLIMITED OPEN carry just like in ALL our favorite Western movies? Florida will become like a scene from, "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" (and we have a lot of ugly here)! .........everyone BUCKLE UP those pistolos and cartridge belts.

[JMintzer]

The person killed is the victim. That is really all we know, for sure, right now. If the shooter had a fear for his own and others safety remains to be seen.

Yes, because forcine one's way into a building and shooting a gun (into the ceiling, or otherwise) is most certainly the the correct way to ensure other's safety...

If he had his gun out and was shooting into the ceiling while angry that would go a long way in making a fear very reasonable.

You were "soooo close"...

You show up angry, shooting a weapon, you're a threat, regardless of the initial target...

[Velvet]

Wow, Tal, you got the Gazette going. Well done!

[JMintzer]

My problem is that, "Why is it taking so long to get the facts out from the Police". It is like that old saying about "pulling teeth". Florida is SUPPOSED to be the SUNSHINE state ........so is it too much to ask to have a little SUNSHINE on this MURDER or justifiable homicide (maybe a trigger-happy, WHITE GUY). I hate to look for CONSPIRACY theories, but there is a VERY possible one BREWING here! What if the great and FREE state of Florida does NOT want ANY BAD publicity about GUNS that might SOUR the upcoming legislation to allow UNLIMITED OPEN carry just like in ALL our favorite Western movies? Florida will become like a scene from, "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" (and we have a lot of ugly here)! .........everyone BUCKLE UP those pistolos and cartridge belts.

:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[JMintzer]

Wow, Tal, you got the Gazette going. Well done!

How so? Seriously. I don't subscribe and I'm curious...

[Velvet]

How so? Seriously. I don't subscribe and I'm curious...


“Default Sumter County residents can now track crime in their area via online map
The Sumter County Sheriff’s Office recently partnered with LexisNexis Risk Solutions to create a new online system to help citizens stay better informed about crime in their area. The Community Crime Map is an online map that analyzes data, and allows citizens to review crime in their general surroundings….”

[jimjamuser]

Fair enough.

Don't get the wrong impression though. I am definitely a "more police presence" kind of guy, especially on our streets and roadways. More street and roadway surveillance too, as far as that goes. 46% of Americans admit to drinking and driving, and my guess is that it is higher than that here in The Villages. That fact coupled with the unfortunate eventuality that a person's physical abilities regarding driving diminish with age whether that person is drinking or not, and you have a very serious issue.
I AGREE 150 % about that statement !!!!!!!!! Not only are we in a BUBBLE of conformity and single-mindedness on most issues - we are in an unsafe and extremely VULNERABLE bubble where we are the HAVES and surrounded by HAVE NOTS.
.........I see that this Applebees shooting as PROOF positive with respect to my theory expressed in the 1st paragraph about SAFETY and vulnerability. I honestly and firmly believe that TV Land needs new and innovative methods (and top-level thinking) to deal with the problem that OUR LOCAL SENIORS are VERY vulnerable to CRIME. Applebees was SHOT UP. A local restaurant was SHOT UP !!!!!!
.........The US murder rate is INCREASING. Does anyone really believe that this Applebee's incident will ONLY happen maybe once every TEN YEARS.........NO WAY !!!! Crime ( and incidentally hurricanes) is going to keep INCREASING right here in our little (FORMERLY SAFE) little chunk of paradise called The Villages.
..........Without more CRIME PREVENTING technology and solid well trained additional Police personnel the sign greeting Villages will have to be changed from "Friendliest Home Town" to "Active War Zone".
...........And that was a VERY good point that was brought up about the excessive consumption of alcohol which has been a historic building block of LA, lA LAND life from day one. Right now we have extremely high traffic congestion and when you add the combustible mix of excess alcohol worship - you get problems that video recordings and ADEQUATE Police and their PRESENCE can help avoid.
.........And if and when the "powers that be" add the "EVERYBODY PACKING", disaster in the making, provisions to the law .........WELL, baby, we are going to have a REAL SNITSHOW !!!!!

[JMintzer]

“Default Sumter County residents can now track crime in their area via online map
The Sumter County Sheriff’s Office recently partnered with LexisNexis Risk Solutions to create a new online system to help citizens stay better informed about crime in their area. The Community Crime Map is an online map that analyzes data, and allows citizens to review crime in their general surroundings….”

That's from the Sheriff's office, not the Gazette...

What that has to do with the Applebee's shooting escapes me...

[Velvet]

That's from the Sheriff's office, not the Gazette...

What that has to do with the Applebee's shooting escapes me...

Thanks for the correction. It was The Gazette that brought it to my attention. I think this forum brings up subjects of common interest and our media tries to address our interests (sometimes).

[Bill14564]

Yes, because forcine one's way into a building and shooting a gun (into the ceiling, or otherwise) is most certainly the the correct way to ensure other's safety...



You were "soooo close"...

You show up angry, shooting a weapon, you're a threat, regardless of the initial target...

Yes, but did either of those happen in this case?

No, you did not assert that you believe that happened in this case. However, when faced with any alternate possibility, or even a lack of information, your reply is the above. It is hard not to draw a conclusion from that.

From the information provided in the article (all we have to go on) one could also say that being a black man and entering through a side door that someone opened for you is a sure way to get yourself killed.

[PugMom]

My problem is that, "Why is it taking so long to get the facts out from the Police". It is like that old saying about "pulling teeth". Florida is SUPPOSED to be the SUNSHINE state ........so is it too much to ask to have a little SUNSHINE on this MURDER or justifiable homicide (maybe a trigger-happy, WHITE GUY). I hate to look for CONSPIRACY theories, but there is a VERY possible one BREWING here! What if the great and FREE state of Florida does NOT want ANY BAD publicity about GUNS that might SOUR the upcoming legislation to allow UNLIMITED OPEN carry just like in ALL our favorite Western movies? Florida will become like a scene from, "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" (and we have a lot of ugly here)! .........everyone BUCKLE UP those pistolos and cartridge belts.

people had said the same things while the cops were looking for that guy who knifed/shot those college students. in the end we ended up reading about how the cops were on his tail for sometime, & an arrest was coming, --it was just that the press didnt know about it.

[ThirdOfFive]

My problem is that, "Why is it taking so long to get the facts out from the Police". It is like that old saying about "pulling teeth". Florida is SUPPOSED to be the SUNSHINE state ........so is it too much to ask to have a little SUNSHINE on this MURDER or justifiable homicide (maybe a trigger-happy, WHITE GUY). I hate to look for CONSPIRACY theories, but there is a VERY possible one BREWING here! What if the great and FREE state of Florida does NOT want ANY BAD publicity about GUNS that might SOUR the upcoming legislation to allow UNLIMITED OPEN carry just like in ALL our favorite Western movies? Florida will become like a scene from, "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" (and we have a lot of ugly here)! .........everyone BUCKLE UP those pistolos and cartridge belts.

I believe what the above refers to is the permitless or “Constitutional Carry” bill that is scheduled to be debated by the full Florida legislature soon; it has already cleared all committee hurdles and both the House and the Senate bills have been reconciled so that the language is the same. However I am not aware that the bill, if passed, allows open carry. Open carry is already illegal in Florida and as far as I know is likely to remain so.

In any case, Constitutional carry is NOT unlimited, even if passed. If you are prohibited from legally owning a gun, then carrying one in public is a felony, and as I understand the legislation if a law enforcement officer knows you are carrying he or she has the right to ask you to produce identification.

I very much doubt that constitutional carry will see much of an increase in who is carrying and who is not. Let’s face it, the criminals among us already are, and as far as the rest of we law-abiding folk go, those who are anti-carry are not about to buy a gun and start packing, just because they can.

[JMintzer]

Yes, but did either of those happen in this case?

No, you did not assert that you believe that happened in this case. However, when faced with any alternate possibility, or even a lack of information, your reply is the above. It is hard not to draw a conclusion from that.

From the information provided in the article (all we have to go on) one could also say that being a black man and entering through a side door that someone opened for you is a sure way to get yourself killed.

When faced with absolutely ridiculous alternative possibilities, yeah, I'll reply like I did earlier... He came in "to have a piece of pie"? Really?

IIRC, the article (all we have to go on, right?) stated that he got into a confrontation once inside. So, your claim of "being a black man and entering through a side door that someone opened for you is a sure way to get yourself killed", is just silly

Do you know the color of the man who shot him? Or the color of the people who were inside the Applebees? Or the color of the people who got into the altercation outside?

No? Then why should the color of the man who was shot matter?

Unless, of course, one is trying to make this a racial issue...

[JMintzer]

I believe what the above refers to is the permitless or “Constitutional Carry” bill that is scheduled to be debated by the full Florida legislature soon; it has already cleared all committee hurdles and both the House and the Senate bills have been reconciled so that the language is the same. However I am not aware that the bill, if passed, allows open carry. Open carry is already illegal in Florida and as far as I know is likely to remain so.

In any case, Constitutional carry is NOT unlimited, even if passed. If you are prohibited from legally owning a gun, then carrying one in public is a felony, and as I understand the legislation if a law enforcement officer knows you are carrying he or she has the right to ask you to produce identification.

I very much doubt that constitutional carry will see much of an increase in who is carrying and who is not. Let’s face it, the criminals among us already are, and as far as the rest of we law-abiding folk go, those who are anti-carry are not about to buy a gun and start packing, just because they can.

You are correct on all counts.

As to the other comments... Consider the source...

[Rainger99]

At this point, there are at least two scenarios.

In the first scenario, the person that was killed was carrying a gun and was threatening people in the restaurant putting them at fear for their lives and was killed.

The other possibility is that the person that was killed was totally innocent and was just trying to get inside to be safe. He had no weapon and was no threat to anyone. However, the shooter mistakenly thought that he was a threat and shot him.

Of those two, I hope it is the first one. That is because you would have a criminal being killed. I hope it is not the second scenario because in that case, an innocent person was killed and the shooter will most likely be tried and convicted.

In case one, a criminal is dead. In case two, an innocent person is dead and a person that probably had no criminal intentions will have his life destroyed.

[Number 10 GI]

It shouldn't take a lot of intelligence to figure out why the police haven't released any information on the shooting. The police don't want suspects knowing what they have discovered or what/who they are looking for.

Kinda like everyone needing to know if the Allies were going to land at Pas de Calais or Normandy.

[Two Bills]

I AGREE 150 % about that statement !!!!!!!!! Not only are we in a BUBBLE of conformity and single-mindedness on most issues - we are in an unsafe and extremely VULNERABLE bubble where we are the HAVES and surrounded by HAVE NOTS.
.........I see that this Applebees shooting as PROOF positive with respect to my theory expressed in the 1st paragraph about SAFETY and vulnerability. I honestly and firmly believe that TV Land needs new and innovative methods (and top-level thinking) to deal with the problem that OUR LOCAL SENIORS are VERY vulnerable to CRIME. Applebees was SHOT UP. A local restaurant was SHOT UP !!!!!!
.........The US murder rate is INCREASING. Does anyone really believe that this Applebee's incident will ONLY happen maybe once every TEN YEARS.........NO WAY !!!! Crime ( and incidentally hurricanes) is going to keep INCREASING right here in our little (FORMERLY SAFE) little chunk of paradise called The Villages.
..........Without more CRIME PREVENTING technology and solid well trained additional Police personnel the sign greeting Villages will have to be changed from "Friendliest Home Town" to "Active War Zone".
...........And that was a VERY good point that was brought up about the excessive consumption of alcohol which has been a historic building block of LA, lA LAND life from day one. Right now we have extremely high traffic congestion and when you add the combustible mix of excess alcohol worship - you get problems that video recordings and ADEQUATE Police and their PRESENCE can help avoid.
.........And if and when the "powers that be" add the "EVERYBODY PACKING", disaster in the making, provisions to the law .........WELL, baby, we are going to have a REAL SNITSHOW !!!!!

I think you have led a far too sheltered life! :ohdear:

[Bill14564]

When faced with absolutely ridiculous alternative possibilities, yeah, I'll reply like I did earlier... He came in "to have a piece of pie"? Really?

IIRC, the article (all we have to go on, right?) stated that he got into a confrontation once inside. So, your claim of "being a black man and entering through a side door that someone opened for you is a sure way to get yourself killed", is just silly

Do you know the color of the man who shot him? Or the color of the people who were inside the Applebees? Or the color of the people who got into the altercation outside?

No? Then why should the color of the man who was shot matter?

Unless, of course, one is trying to make this a racial issue...

No, I only know the color and gender of the individual in the picture who was identified as the person who was shot. No other identifying information was given and therefore no other information was included in my post. (interesting that the shooter is identified as "patron" and "customer" but no he/she pronouns)

The color of the man who was shot only matters because it was available. Hopefully, this is not a racial issue but unfortunately it often is.

[Taltarzac725]

No, I only know the color and gender of the individual in the picture who was identified as the person who was shot. No other identifying information was given and therefore no other information was included in my post. (interesting that the shooter is identified as "patron" and "customer" but no he/she pronouns)

The color of the man who was shot only matters because it was available. Hopefully, this is not a racial issue but unfortunately it often is.

The man who shot the slain man could also be African-American, Asian-American, Native American, etc. We have little facts to go with. There are many people of various ethnic groups in towns surrounding the Villages.

[Bill14564]

The man who shot the slain man could also be African-American, Asian-American, Native American, etc. We have little facts to go with. There are many people of various ethnic groups in towns surrounding the Villages.

Absolutely. Was the shooter identified as a man? (EDIT: I just found one article that identified the shooter as a man) As I wrote, it is interesting that pronouns were avoided in the articles I read. It could very well have been a woman with the carry permit.

[jimjamuser]

people had said the same things while the cops were looking for that guy who knifed/shot those college students. in the end we ended up reading about how the cops were on his tail for sometime, & an arrest was coming, --it was just that the press didnt know about it.
OK. That was one incident that happened in ANOTHER state where maybe there IS NOT an upcoming vote on COWBOY Frontier ......type carry. I just have my suspicions about OUR state. I hope that I am proven wrong!
......Obviously, I am saddened, bewildered, confused, perplexed, and etc - by the prospects of every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Harriet being allowed to open carry. And where is the VOTE on this.......I believe it IS something that the majority of Floridians DO NOT, DO NOT WANT. And that is what the SURVEYS are saying, not just myself.

[JMintzer]

OK. That was one incident that happened in ANOTHER state where maybe there IS NOT an upcoming vote on COWBOY Frontier ......type carry. I just have my suspicions about OUR state. I hope that I am proven wrong!
......Obviously, I am saddened, bewildered, confused, perplexed, and etc - by the prospects of every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Harriet being allowed to open carry. And where is the VOTE on this.......I believe it IS something that the majority of Floridians DO NOT, DO NOT WANT. And that is what the SURVEYS are saying, not just myself.

For the umpteenth time...

NO ONE IS PROPOSING OPEN CARRY!!! There is currently NO SUCH LAW being proposed...

So please, feel free to continue to be "saddened, bewildered, confused, and perplexed", about whatever "horrible thing" that is currently on your radar. But this is simply not a valid concern...

[jimjamuser]

I believe what the above refers to is the permitless or “Constitutional Carry” bill that is scheduled to be debated by the full Florida legislature soon; it has already cleared all committee hurdles and both the House and the Senate bills have been reconciled so that the language is the same. However I am not aware that the bill, if passed, allows open carry. Open carry is already illegal in Florida and as far as I know is likely to remain so.

In any case, Constitutional carry is NOT unlimited, even if passed. If you are prohibited from legally owning a gun, then carrying one in public is a felony, and as I understand the legislation if a law enforcement officer knows you are carrying he or she has the right to ask you to produce identification.

I very much doubt that constitutional carry will see much of an increase in who is carrying and who is not. Let’s face it, the criminals among us already are, and as far as the rest of we law-abiding folk go, those who are anti-carry are not about to buy a gun and start packing, just because they can.
I lived in AZ and was washing my clothes in a commercial laundry and some ugly-looking clown came in to do his wash and he was PACKING HEAT outside his clothing. That was commonplace for years now. What more can I say - that IS the way Florida is going. And the majority of Floridians SURVEYED said NO WAY JOSE !!!!
......It is going to be a real SNIT SHOW......coming to an area near you. And those in the surrounding areas to The Villages will be CARRYING SERIOUS HEAT. Just be forewarned!

[jimjamuser]

At this point, there are at least two scenarios.

In the first scenario, the person that was killed was carrying a gun and was threatening people in the restaurant putting them at fear for their lives and was killed.

The other possibility is that the person that was killed was totally innocent and was just trying to get inside to be safe. He had no weapon and was no threat to anyone. However, the shooter mistakenly thought that he was a threat and shot him.

Of those two, I hope it is the first one. That is because you would have a criminal being killed. I hope it is not the second scenario because in that case, an innocent person was killed and the shooter will most likely be tried and convicted.

In case one, a criminal is dead. In case two, an innocent person is dead and a person that probably had no criminal intentions will have his life destroyed.
That is a GOOD summation of the situation.

[jimjamuser]

I think you have led a far too sheltered life! :ohdear:
Actually, that is untrue. I have done many things and been many places where most people would be frightened to go. Just the opposite!

[Number 10 GI]

I believe Florida was one of the first states that allowed for state citizens to carry concealed after passing a background check and successfully completing a licensing test. All the doom sayers were predicting death, destruction, mayhem and Hollywood type gunfights in the streets. Never happened.

In Tennessee open carry was approved with a carry license and again predictions of death and disaster. Never happened. Recently Tennessee passed into law that a citizen that who wasn't prohibited from possessing a firearm could carry without a permit. Again it was predicted that death and mayhem would follow. Hasn't happened yet.

In every state that passed laws for concealed carry have had the same Chicken Littles screaming about death and disaster resulting from the law. Hasn't happened.

[Kenswing]

I believe Florida was one of the first states that allowed for state citizens to carry concealed after passing a background check and successfully completing a licensing test. All the doom sayers were predicting death, destruction, mayhem and Hollywood type gunfights in the streets. Never happened.

In Tennessee open carry was approved with a carry license and again predictions of death and disaster. Never happened. Recently Tennessee passed into law that a citizen that who wasn't prohibited from possessing a firearm could carry without a permit. Again it was predicted that death and mayhem would follow. Hasn't happened yet.

In every state that passed laws for concealed carry have had the same Chicken Littles screaming about death and disaster resulting from the law. Hasn't happened.
You have to remember that some people are ruled by their emotions and not by facts. The ones with an agenda who are ruled by those emotions are the most dangerous.

[ThirdOfFive]

I lived in AZ and was washing my clothes in a commercial laundry and some ugly-looking clown came in to do his wash and he was PACKING HEAT outside his clothing. That was commonplace for years now. What more can I say - that IS the way Florida is going. And the majority of Floridians SURVEYED said NO WAY JOSIE !!!!
......It is going to be a real SNIT SHOW......coming to an area near you. And those in the surrounding areas to The Villages will be CARRYING SERIOUS HEAT. Just be forewarned!
Funny how attitudes often completely contradict reality.

Minnesota, my state of origin, has some pretty draconian laws but permit-to-carry is not one of those situations. It was open carry in Minnesota from the getgo, over 20 years ago now. Some few did carry openly. I never did: I figured that the only person who needed to know I was carrying was me, and in any case the last thing I wanted to happen was to be in a grocery store one day and have some twentysomething mother-of-two dissolving into a gibbering puddle of drool at the sight of my LC9. If you are taught that guns are the enemy, such an occurrence would not be unexpected.

But perception is one thing. Reality is another. And it is interesting to gauge the reactions of those who deal with the reality of guns—and the law—on a daily basis. Some years back (2016, maybe?) I attended a 2nd Amendment rally held on the lawn of the Minnesota State Capitol building in St. Paul. A crowd of maybe 3,000, there to talk, look at exhibits and show their support for the 2nd Amendment. Most of us were carrying, maybe a quarter of the crowd carrying openly. There were some pretty high-powered political types speaking as well; a former member of Congress, a Minnesota State Senator and the House Minority Party leader, Republican Party chairperson, etc. There was law enforcement there as well; five officers in all. Four were Minnesota State Highway Patrol officers deployed on the sidewalks ringing the rally, but facing AWAY from the crowd on the lookout for anti-gun demonstrators (who never came). The fifth, a uniformed St. Paul cop, was with the crowd at the rally, looking at exhibits, chatting with the other attendees and having just as good a time as any of the rest of us.

I was particularly struck by this. A crowd of maybe 3,000 civilian rally attendees with maybe 2,000 if not more firearms both carried openly and concealed, well-known dignitaries in attendance—and the focus of the law was not on that at all but on possible problems caused by the ANTI-gun types! That said a lot: probably a whole lot more than the anti-gun people would ever want to hear.

[jimjamuser]

Funny how attitudes often completely contradict reality.

Minnesota, my state of origin, has some pretty draconian laws but permit-to-carry is not one of those situations. It was open carry in Minnesota from the getgo, over 20 years ago now. Some few did carry openly. I never did: I figured that the only person who needed to know I was carrying was me, and in any case the last thing I wanted to happen was to be in a grocery store one day and have some twentysomething mother-of-two dissolving into a gibbering puddle of drool at the sight of my LC9. If you are taught that guns are the enemy, such an occurrence would not be unexpected.

But perception is one thing. Reality is another. And it is interesting to gauge the reactions of those who deal with the reality of guns—and the law—on a daily basis. Some years back (2016, maybe?) I attended a 2nd Amendment rally held on the lawn of the Minnesota State Capitol building in St. Paul. A crowd of maybe 3,000, there to talk, look at exhibits and show their support for the 2nd Amendment. Most of us were carrying, maybe a quarter of the crowd carrying openly. There were some pretty high-powered political types speaking as well; a former member of Congress, a Minnesota State Senator and the House Minority Party leader, Republican Party chairperson, etc. There was law enforcement there as well; five officers in all. Four were Minnesota State Highway Patrol officers deployed on the sidewalks ringing the rally, but facing AWAY from the crowd on the lookout for anti-gun demonstrators (who never came). The fifth, a uniformed St. Paul cop, was with the crowd at the rally, looking at exhibits, chatting with the other attendees and having just as good a time as any of the rest of us.

I was particularly struck by this. A crowd of maybe 3,000 civilian rally attendees with maybe 2,000 if not more firearms both carried openly and concealed, well-known dignitaries in attendance—and the focus of the law was not on that at all but on possible problems caused by the ANTI-gun types! That said a lot: probably a whole lot more than the anti-gun people would ever want to hear.
Well, that is a good and informative post about a one-day experience which, I believe was intended as an example of how peaceful a bunch of LIKE-MINDED (literally brothers-in-arms) individuals can be. Maybe they went home and beat their wives afterward, I don't know.
.........I do know that Minnesota 20 years ago is NOT the same as, or equal to, Florida today. That would be the famous apples and grapefruits comparison. Currently, the whole US has had ever-increasing murders and other violent crimes in recent years. And several northern visitors to The Villages (aka La, La Land) have commented that when they watch the Orlando nightly TV news, they say that it sounds like there are 3 NEW murders each and every night.
...........Anyhooo, I seriously doubt that this Applebee incident is a once in 5-year thing in La, La, Land. I imagine that incidents like that will be happening at a rate of about once every 5 MONTHS in our local area SOON !

[Djean1981]

This is SUPPOSED to be a retirement community! This is not what I envisioned when moving here 11 years ago. The direction this community is taking saddens me.
It's not a retirement community.

[Bill14564]

It's not a retirement community.

The Villages is not a retirement community? That would be news to The Villages (https://www.thevillages.com/about-us):

The Villages is a collection of quaint retirement neighborhoods...

[JMintzer]

I lived in AZ and was washing my clothes in a commercial laundry and some ugly-looking clown came in to do his wash and he was PACKING HEAT outside his clothing. That was commonplace for years now. What more can I say - that IS the way Florida is going. And the majority of Floridians SURVEYED said NO WAY JOSE !!!!
......It is going to be a real SNIT SHOW......coming to an area near you. And those in the surrounding areas to The Villages will be CARRYING SERIOUS HEAT. Just be forewarned!

Just because you keep repeating false information does not make it true...

Not a single politician is suggesting, promoting, trying to pass a bill, or any type of legislation allowing "OPEN CARRY"...

It is NOT the way FL is going... No ifs, ands or buts about it...

And as far as your irrelevant story about AZ goes...

https://wordsporn.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/1525846123_162_20-Funny-Forrest-Gump-Memes-You-Need-to-See.jpg

[JMintzer]

I believe Florida was one of the first states that allowed for state citizens to carry concealed after passing a background check and successfully completing a licensing test. All the doom sayers were predicting death, destruction, mayhem and Hollywood type gunfights in the streets. Never happened.

In Tennessee open carry was approved with a carry license and again predictions of death and disaster. Never happened. Recently Tennessee passed into law that a citizen that who wasn't prohibited from possessing a firearm could carry without a permit. Again it was predicted that death and mayhem would follow. Hasn't happened yet.

In every state that passed laws for concealed carry have had the same Chicken Littles screaming about death and disaster resulting from the law. Hasn't happened.

https://media.tenor.com/gJXzcjvaUQkAAAAC/aint-that-the-truth-honestly.gif

[Normal]

Since there hasn’t been an arrest, assume the best. A good guy with a gun saved many from harm.

[JMintzer]

Since there hasn’t been an arrest, assume the best. A good guy with a gun saved many from harm.

As of now (unless new information is released to the contrary), that is a reasonable assumption...

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Since there hasn’t been an arrest, assume the best. A good guy with a gun saved many from harm.

I won't assume anything. The last information I could find was dated March 10, and as of that date, police hadn't even mentioned if Hudson was armed.

If he was UNarmed, then the "good guy with a gun" didn't save anything at all, and ended someone else's life.

[Taltarzac725]

Yes, because forcine one's way into a building and shooting a gun (into the ceiling, or otherwise) is most certainly the the correct way to ensure other's safety...



You were "soooo close"...

You show up angry, shooting a weapon, you're a threat, regardless of the initial target...

I won't assume anything. The last information I could find was dated March 10, and as of that date, police hadn't even mentioned if Hudson was armed.

If he was UNarmed, then the "good guy with a gun" didn't save anything at all, and ended someone else's life.

We have very little information still.

[JMintzer]

We have very little information still.

I know it can be confusing, but I was commenting on someone else's post about a "what if" scenario...

You know, like "if" they just forced their way in to have some pie...

[Byte1]

Murders are up nationwide for the last 3 years. The Villages is a bunch of rich older people SURROUNDED by neighborhoods of angry, JEALOUS have-NOTS. It IS INEVITABLE that there will be increasing crimes and clashes between these 2 groups. I am simply trying to warn older citizens that it is LIKELY that crime increases in the next several years here in OUR Bubble.
........Nationwide, murders are up in the last 3 years. Another problem is that the US has LOST its middle-class which can act as a socially stabilizing force to LOWER violence. Also, nationwide and in Florida Public schools have teachers quitting in DROVES - FORETELLING another removal of a stabilizing social FORCE.
.........I was just down to Rural King and the table where ammo is kept was almost empty. 10 years ago that same table would have been full. There are signs of social instability and potential crime ALL around.
......The Villages is VERY POTENTIALLY vulnerable to violence. It is just a matter of time. I say, better to have a fairly large Police presence and NEVER need them than have a small Police presence that does NOT deter crime in the 1st place.

Better to be prepared with a concealed carry weapon than to wait for a police officer to arrive much later to take a report. Like the saying goes, the police are only minutes away when seconds count. Or something like that. Almost a million crimes are deterred in the U.S. by good armed citizens with a gun, every year.

[Byte1]

I lived in AZ and was washing my clothes in a commercial laundry and some ugly-looking clown came in to do his wash and he was PACKING HEAT outside his clothing. That was commonplace for years now. What more can I say - that IS the way Florida is going. And the majority of Floridians SURVEYED said NO WAY JOSE !!!!
......It is going to be a real SNIT SHOW......coming to an area near you. And those in the surrounding areas to The Villages will be CARRYING SERIOUS HEAT. Just be forewarned!

Hmmm, "ugly-looking clown?" If it was a clown (an ugly one) how did you know he was not sporting ("packing") a water gun (aka squirt gun)? If this person was a good looking lady or handsome guy, would it have bothered you as much that "they-he or she" was "packing?"

[Bill14564]

Just because you keep repeating false information does not make it true...

Not a single politician is suggesting, promoting, trying to pass a bill, or any type of legislation allowing "OPEN CARRY"...

It is NOT the way FL is going... No ifs, ands or buts about it...

...

Things change.

From ‘Open carry’ is now on the table as permitless carry bill goes to the House floor (https://floridaphoenix.com/blog/open-carry-is-now-on-the-table-as-permitless-carry-bill-goes-to-the-house-floor/)

But Tuesday, Hillsborough County Republican Mike Beltran filed an amendment to the proposal in the House (HB 543) that calls for allowing open carry in Florida.

The measure has cleared all of its committees in both the House and Senate – and will go before the full House later this week – with the open carry amendment attached to it.

[JMintzer]

Things change.

From ‘Open carry’ is now on the table as permitless carry bill goes to the House floor (https://floridaphoenix.com/blog/open-carry-is-now-on-the-table-as-permitless-carry-bill-goes-to-the-house-floor/)

But Tuesday, Hillsborough County Republican Mike Beltran filed an amendment to the proposal in the House (HB 543) that calls for allowing open carry in Florida.

The measure has cleared all of its committees in both the House and Senate – and will go before the full House later this week – with the open carry amendment attached to it.

Get back to me when it passes...

[Bill14564]

Things change.

From ‘Open carry’ is now on the table as permitless carry bill goes to the House floor (https://floridaphoenix.com/blog/open-carry-is-now-on-the-table-as-permitless-carry-bill-goes-to-the-house-floor/)

But Tuesday, Hillsborough County Republican Mike Beltran filed an amendment to the proposal in the House (HB 543) that calls for allowing open carry in Florida.

The measure has cleared all of its committees in both the House and Senate – and will go before the full House later this week – with the open carry amendment attached to it.

... and change daily:

The amendment showed up Tuesday afternoon, when Hillsborough County Republican Mike Beltran filed the open carry amendment, electrifying gun rights advocates who have been pushing for more than a month for ‘open carry’ to be included in the permitless carry bill.

But Beltran withdrew the amendment shortly after 1 p.m. on Wednesday.

[JMintzer]

... and change daily:

The amendment showed up Tuesday afternoon, when Hillsborough County Republican Mike Beltran filed the open carry amendment, electrifying gun rights advocates who have been pushing for more than a month for ‘open carry’ to be included in the permitless carry bill.

But Beltran withdrew the amendment shortly after 1 p.m. on Wednesday.

Thanks for keeping us updated on that bill's progress (or, in this case, lack of progress)... :thumbup:

Personally, I'm not a fan of "open carry"...

[dewilson58]

New information has been released.

Go look at the on-line police scanner news site.

:ho:

[Rainger99]

New information has been released.

Go look at the on-line police scanner news site.

:ho:

This link provides more information.

Police: Man fired shots into the air outside prior to deadly shooting inside The Villages Applebee’s (https://www.yahoo.com/news/police-man-fired-shots-air-220502136.html)

[Taltarzac725]

This link provides more information.

Police: Man fired shots into the air outside prior to deadly shooting inside The Villages Applebee’s (https://www.yahoo.com/news/police-man-fired-shots-air-220502136.html)

Well that seems to help the man who killed the guy who came into Applebee's.

[manaboutown]

So the shooting appears justified from what we now know.

[Taltarzac725]

So there is a happy ending.

I would not call that happy for anyone involved.

[JGibson]

They can't find the gun but found the shell casings outside.

Something tells me he was acting threatening inside and FAFO.

[manaboutown]

I would not call that happy for anyone involved.

It was a happy ending for the people in the closed restaurant (as well as their families and friends) the good guy likely saved from being robbed at gunpoint, shot and killed or wounded or criminally battered by the thug

[Taltarzac725]

It was a happy ending for the people the good guy likely saved from being shot or criminally battered by the thug.

Nothing suggests anything like that. He reached into his pocket and no gun was found by the police on the man killed.

The shooter has to live with the fact that he killed another human being and probably will be served with a wrongful death suit by that victim.

[Bill14564]

It was a happy ending for the people the good guy likely saved from being shot or criminally battered by the thug.

The people weren't going to be shot (though they didn't know that). This article and others state the gun was not present.

Criminally battered? Now you're making things up.

[Taltarzac725]

The people weren't going to be shot (though they didn't know that). This article and others state the gun was not present.

Criminally battered? Now you're making things up.

That happens a lot on these boards and those like it.

[JMintzer]

That happens a lot on these boards and those like it.

I guess this knocks the "pie theory" off the table...

[Number 10 GI]

A big question that needs to be asked is, where is the gun? Witnesses say they saw the man shooting a pistol in the air while the car drove off and then enter the restaurant, but no weapon found. Did someone in the restaurant decide the pistol was theirs for the taking and pocketed it?
Now, as to the low life getting shot, perform dangerous actions and you are subject to dangerous reactions. Not anything near rocket science. What was the licensed to carry good guy supposed to think or do after witnessing the actions of the thug shooting outside the restaurant when said thug entered the building and demanded to know who called the police. He then reaches into his pocket, so what is a reasonable individual supposed to think? Oh, he has an itch and is discreetly scratching the itch or is he going to pull out his gun to threaten or kill other people? He has voiced his anger at having the police called on him. At that point in time, you don't have the luxury of Monday morning quarterbacking like is going on in this thread, you have to react in a manner that provides for your safety. This individual demonstrated that he was willing to use a gun.

[collie1228]

The people weren't going to be shot (though they didn't know that). This article and others state the gun was not present.

Criminally battered? Now you're making things up.

Wait a minute. It's not enough to say "they didn't know that". The police report says witnesses say the deceased "reached into his pants", and the licensed good samaritan shot him. No one in the restaurant knew the gun was gone, so as far as they were thinking, they all could have been in grave danger.

[Bill14564]

Wait a minute. It's not enough to say "they didn't know that". The police report says witnesses say the deceased "reached into his pants", and the licensed good samaritan shot him. No one in the restaurant knew the gun was gone, so as far as they were thinking, they all could have been in grave danger.

Read what I was replying to. If Hudson had no gun in the restaurant (it has not been found) then the good guy with the gun did not save anyone from being shot. THAT is what I was replying to.

I'm still not sure how I feel about shooting someone because they *might* have a gun. This situation is a little different since Hudson appears to have been shooting while outside and was now inside and looking for someone to confront. Still, I would like the standard for use of deadly force to be higher than just thinking someone might be reaching for a gun, especially since it turns out there was no gun.

[Taltarzac725]

Wait a minute. It's not enough to say "they didn't know that". The police report says witnesses say the deceased "reached into his pants", and the licensed good samaritan shot him. No one in the restaurant knew the gun was gone, so as far as they were thinking, they all could have been in grave danger.

Most guns I have seen on people with pants are not in the pants pocket but under the pants-- half- in and half out.

And it looks like a pistol.

[Number 10 GI]

Read what I was replying to. If Hudson had no gun in the restaurant (it has not been found) then the good guy with the gun did not save anyone from being shot. THAT is what I was replying to.

I'm still not sure how I feel about shooting someone because they *might* have a gun. This situation is a little different since Hudson appears to have been shooting while outside and was now inside and looking for someone to confront. Still, I would like the standard for use of deadly force to be higher than just thinking someone might be reaching for a gun, especially since it turns out there was no gun.

He had already demonstrated violent behavior by firing a gun outside the restaurant. He comes into the building angrily demanding to know who called the police and then reaches into his pants. What would any rational person think about his reaching into his pants? When you are on the floor bleeding out, after being shot with the gun he had in his pants, are you going to be thinking that you were the better person for not shooting first?

As I asked in a previous post, where is that gun? He was seen shooting one just moments earlier in the parking lot.

[fishon]

“ Most guns I have seen on people with pants are not in the pants pocket but under the pants-- half- in and half out.

And it looks like a pistol.”

I guess you have a lot of television and movie experience.
Concealed means concealed!

[PugMom]

“ Most guns I have seen on people with pants are not in the pants pocket but under the pants-- half- in and half out.

And it looks like a pistol.”

I guess you have a lot of television and movie experience.
Concealed means concealed!

they sell clothing designed to carry discreetly. jackets, vests, etc., but i must agree that the man in the parking lot was observed firing a weapon. it leads any rational person to believe that weapon may still be in the shooters' possession, esp when he enters the building, seeming upset over the fact the police were called. you have to seriously stop a moments & ask yourself: what would YOU do?

[Taltarzac725]

“ Most guns I have seen on people with pants are not in the pants pocket but under the pants-- half- in and half out.

And it looks like a pistol.”

I guess you have a lot of television and movie experience.
Concealed means concealed!

I know people who carry guns for their protection. Putting it in a pocket is an easy way to get yourself shot in the foot or leg or privates.

[Taltarzac725]

they sell clothing designed to carry discreetly. jackets, vests, etc., but i must agree that the man in the parking lot was observed firing a weapon. it leads any rational person to believe that weapon may still be in the shooters' possession, esp when he enters the building, seeming upset over the fact the police were called. you have to seriously stop a moments & ask yourself: what would YOU do?

I would not shoot someone unless I saw them reaching for a gun. That would mean I could see the gun coming out of the pants pocket. I would be aiming at him or her though if facing the same fact situation.

[fishon]

I know people who carry guns for their protection. Putting it in a pocket is an easy way to get yourself shot in the foot or leg or privates.

My goodness you are uninformed. Pocket carry includes a holster shielding the trigger. Only idiots and gangsters “Mexican carry” because they don’t want to be found with a holster.

[Bill14564]

He had already demonstrated violent behavior by firing a gun outside the restaurant. He comes into the building angrily demanding to know who called the police and then reaches into his pants. What would any rational person think about his reaching into his pants? When you are on the floor bleeding out, after being shot with the gun he had in his pants, are you going to be thinking that you were the better person for not shooting first?

As I asked in a previous post, where is that gun? He was seen shooting one just moments earlier in the parking lot.

That is where the higher standard comes in, I don't want my life to depend on what some rational person thinks. If that rational person thinks wrong then an unarmed man may be laying on the floor bleeding out.

- A gun is pointed at me - self defense
- A gun is pointed at someone else - protecting society
- A gun is being carried in a way that makes it obvious that someone will be shot (think school or shopping mall) - protecting society
- A gun is seen in the hand of someone who is threatening me - self defense?
<<<< I would put the bar no lower than here >>>>
- Someone threatening me is reaching for a visible gun - self defense??
- Someone threatening me puts his hand in his pocket - ???
- Someone is acting in threatening manner and looks like a thug - ???

I believe there should be an actual, credible threat to someone's life before using deadly force. Not just the belief that he may have been reaching for a gun but actually seeing the gun. If you're going to shoot someone then you better be right - in this case the permit carrier was not right. He may not be criminally liable or charged but his rational thought was incorrect.

Did he have to shoot that quickly? <Complete speculation> According to reports, Hudson was reaching for his pocket. In the time it took him to do that, the shooter (permit carrier) was able to decide that he needed to act, reach to wherever his concealed weapon was, extract it, arm it, aim it, and fire. He either has a very quick reaction time or Hudson was more fumbling than grabbing for a gun. In either case it seems the shooter would have had time to pull the trigger AFTER actually seeing a gun. He had the draw on Hudson, Hudson was being slow, and when he would have been able to first see the gun it would have been pointed at Hudson's foot.

[Taltarzac725]

My goodness you are uninformed. Pocket carry includes a holster shielding the trigger. Only idiots and gangsters “Mexican carry” because they don’t want to be found with a holster.

Some of them do. https://www.primerpeak.com/the-tiny-pocket-pistol-roundup-of-2023/

I know a woman who carries a pistol in her purse as she was the victim of domestic violence and has a concealed carry.

[Taltarzac725]

That is where the higher standard comes in, I don't want my life to depend on what some rational person thinks. If that rational person thinks wrong then an unarmed man may be laying on the floor bleeding out.

- A gun is pointed at me - self defense
- A gun is pointed at someone else - protecting society
- A gun is being carried in a way that makes it obvious that someone will be shot (think school or shopping mall) - protecting society
- A gun is seen in the hand of someone who is threatening me - self defense?
<<<< I would put the bar no lower than here >>>>
- Someone threatening me is reaching for a visible gun - self defense??
- Someone threatening me puts his hand in his pocket - ???
- Someone is acting in threatening manner and looks like a thug - ???

I believe there should be an actual, credible threat to someone's life before using deadly force. Not just the belief that he may have been reaching for a gun but actually seeing the gun. If you're going to shoot someone then you better be right - in this case the permit carrier was not right. He may not be criminally liable or charged but his rational thought was incorrect.

Did he have to shoot that quickly? <Complete speculation> According to reports, Hudson was reaching for his pocket. In the time it took him to do that, the shooter (permit carrier) was able to decide that he needed to act, reach to wherever his concealed weapon was, extract it, arm it, aim it, and fire. He either has a very quick reaction time or Hudson was more fumbling than grabbing for a gun. In either case it seems the shooter would have had time to pull the trigger AFTER actually seeing a gun. He had the draw on Hudson, Hudson was being slow, and when he would have been able to first see the gun it would have been pointed at Hudson's foot.

You have that right.

And we do not have enough facts to know if this deceased person was known as a regular or whatever at Applebee's as well as the story of the man who shot him. Did they have any experience with one another?

[fdpaq0580]

they sell clothing designed to carry discreetly. jackets, vests, etc., but i must agree that the man in the parking lot was observed firing a weapon. it leads any rational person to believe that weapon may still be in the shooters' possession, esp when he enters the building, seeming upset over the fact the police were called. you have to seriously stop a moments & ask yourself: what would YOU do?

I'd go home and change my pants.

[Altavia]

Where are you more likely to encounter a shooter, a restaurant or a school?

[ThirdOfFive]

I would not call that happy for anyone involved.
Except maybe Joe Taxpayer.

[ThirdOfFive]

This seems to be pretty much a slam-dunk. No charges coming.

Despite what some people seem to believe, Florida law does NOT mandate that a gun be seen. All that is needed is "reasonable cause" to believe the person has a gun and is going to use it. A guy shooting randomly in a parking lot, then coming inside angrily demanding who called the police on him and then reaching into his pocket--to me, that seems to be pretty much a textbook example of "reasonable cause".

[Taltarzac725]

This seems to be pretty much a slam-dunk. No charges coming.

Despite what some people seem to believe, Florida law does NOT mandate that a gun be seen. All that is needed is "reasonable cause" to believe the person has a gun and is going to use it. A guy shooting randomly in a parking lot, then coming inside angrily demanding who called the police on him and then reaching into his pocket--to me, that seems to be pretty much a textbook example of "reasonable cause".

It is more reasonable that the man shot was reaching for a cell phone. That fits the facts more unless there was a history of hostility between the people in Applebee's. We still do not know enough.

[dewilson58]

We still do not know enough.

Agree................mostly since no gun was found.

[JMintzer]

I know people who carry guns for their protection. Putting it in a pocket is an easy way to get yourself shot in the foot or leg or privates.

There are these things called "pocket holsters" that help prevent just that from happening...

[JMintzer]

That is where the higher standard comes in, I don't want my life to depend on what some rational person thinks. If that rational person thinks wrong then an unarmed man may be laying on the floor bleeding out.

And if they're right, that person may be the person who hesitated...

- A gun is pointed at me - self defense
- A gun is pointed at someone else - protecting society
- A gun is being carried in a way that makes it obvious that someone will be shot (think school or shopping mall) - protecting society
- A gun is seen in the hand of someone who is threatening me - self defense?
<<<< I would put the bar no lower than here >>>>
- Someone threatening me is reaching for a visible gun - self defense??
- Someone threatening me puts his hand in his pocket - ???
- Someone is acting in threatening manner and looks like a thug - ???

By the time you've finished with those mental gymnastics, you're "laying on the floor, bleeding out"...

I believe there should be an actual, credible threat to someone's life before using deadly force. Not just the belief that he may have been reaching for a gun but actually seeing the gun. If you're going to shoot someone then you better be right - in this case the permit carrier was not right. He may not be criminally liable or charged but his rational thought was incorrect.

Did he have to shoot that quickly? <Complete speculation> According to reports, Hudson was reaching for his pocket. In the time it took him to do that, the shooter (permit carrier) was able to decide that he needed to act, reach to wherever his concealed weapon was, extract it, arm it, aim it, and fire. He either has a very quick reaction time or Hudson was more fumbling than grabbing for a gun. In either case it seems the shooter would have had time to pull the trigger AFTER actually seeing a gun. He had the draw on Hudson, Hudson was being slow, and when he would have been able to first see the gun it would have been pointed at Hudson's foot.

Fortunately, the law is based on "what a reasonable person would think"...

[Taltarzac725]

And if they're right, that person may be the person who hesitated...



By the time you've finished with those mental gymnastics, you're "laying on the floor, bleeding out"...

I believe there should be an actual, credible threat to someone's life before using deadly force. Not just the belief that he may have been reaching for a gun but actually seeing the gun. If you're going to shoot someone then you better be right - in this case the permit carrier was not right. He may not be criminally liable or charged but his rational thought was incorrect.



Fortunately, the law is based on "what a reasonable person would think"...

There was no gun on the man who was shot. And the shooter could have pulled his gun, aimed it and told the man to drop whatever he was actually reaching for. Probably he was reaching for a cell phone.

[manaboutown]

It is more reasonable that the man shot was reaching for a cell phone. That fits the facts more unless there was a history of hostility between the people in Applebee's. We still do not know enough.

Good thing I was sitting down when I read this as it totally blew me away. Three gun shots in the parking lot, the cops get called by someone, a very angry guy barges into the closed restaurant asking in a threatening manner "Who called the cops on me?, he reaches into his pants where thugs keep their guns, presumptively for a cell phone? That could get someone a Darwin Award!

[JMintzer]

There was no gun on the man who was shot. And the shooter could have pulled his gun, aimed it and told the man to drop whatever he was actually reaching for. Probably he was reaching for a cell phone.

No gun was found. Doesn't mean someone didn't pick one up...

According to recent reports, the deceased was firing a gun into the air outside the restaurant. That gun had to go somewhere...

There is still an ongoing investigation...

[Taltarzac725]

No gun was found. Doesn't mean someone didn't pick one up...

According to recent reports, the deceased was firing a gun into the air outside the restaurant. That gun had to go somewhere...

There is still an ongoing investigation...

A lot of those facts should be investigated where the person making the statements is under oath and subject to cross -examination.

[Bill14564]

And if they're right, that person may be the person who hesitated...



By the time you've finished with those mental gymnastics, you're "laying on the floor, bleeding out"...
If you are incapable of determining if you see a gun then you sure as h*** shouldn't be shooting anyone.



I believe there should be an actual, credible threat to someone's life before using deadly force. Not just the belief that he may have been reaching for a gun but actually seeing the gun. If you're going to shoot someone then you better be right - in this case the permit carrier was not right. He may not be criminally liable or charged but his rational thought was incorrect.



Fortunately, the law is based on "what a reasonable person would think"...

Apparently, you and I have a different idea of what a reasonable person would think....and a different comfort level with the killing of an unarmed individual.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

If you are incapable of determining if you see a gun then you sure as h*** shouldn't be shooting anyone.


Apparently, you and I have a different idea of what a reasonable person would think....and a different comfort level with the killing of an unarmed individual.

A "reasonable person" in this case would think..."hm, gunshots out there, this guy comes in asking who called the cops on him - I think I'll just exit, stage left. REALLY FAST."

That is the only "reasonable" response I can think of.

[Caymus]

There was no gun on the man who was shot. And the shooter could have pulled his gun, aimed it and told the man to drop whatever he was actually reaching for. Probably he was reaching for a cell phone.

And he could just shoot the gun out of his hand. I've seen Roy Rogers do that many times.;)

[Taltarzac725]

And he could just shoot the gun out of his hand. I've seen Roy Rogers do that many times.;)

He took someone's life. He should be damn sure of the threat before using lethal force. I am not seeing any reason for doing so. The Pulse Night Club had an armed man come in and start shooting people. Lethal force is very justified in that scenario by anyone who could hit the shooter.

[Taltarzac725]

And he could just shoot the gun out of his hand. I've seen Roy Rogers do that many times.;)

I am pretty sure self defense classes teach go for center mass.

[fdpaq0580]

I am pretty sure self defense classes teach go for center mass.

Probably! But the image of Roy Rogers killing the bad guys might upset the little darlings sensitivities. In a perfect make believe world the good guys would never kill bad guys, only apprehend them. Killing bad guys means taking the law into your own hands. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That's what the good guys tried to teach us on Saturday morning TV. Those were good moral lessons. Unfortunately, those lessons don't always translate well in the real world.

[Taltarzac725]

Probably! But the image of Roy Rogers killing the bad guys might upset the little darlings sensitivities. In a perfect make believe world the good guys would never kill bad guys, only apprehend them. Killing bad guys means taking the law into your own hands. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That's what the good guys tried to teach us on Saturday morning TV. Those were good moral lessons. Unfortunately, those lessons don't always translate well in the real world.

There is no evidence that shows the victim at Applebee's was a bad man. He shot into the air. Not at a person. And even that sounds fishy unless there was gun residue on his hands.

[fdpaq0580]

There is no evidence that shows the victim at Applebee's was a bad man.

Think you missed my point. Those saying the shooter/killer probably saved lives seem to me to think with the details that seem to show violent activity of some kind, gun shots, angry and aggressive and threatening behavior the shooter made the right decision based upon what he was facing at that moment.
Those saying that the shooter acted without cause seem to think it would have been a simple thing to take control of the angry man until police arrived. Like Roy shooting guns out of people's waving hands. Simple. Easy peasy.
In some cases, the old adage "he who hesitates is lost/last" applies. In other cases, the old saying "look before you leap" applies. You can't do both, and you have a terrifying and wild situation and you must choose NOW!

When we try to play armchair judge we do not generally do any damage either way. But when you think you have fallen into a life or death situation and things are happing very fast, you don't the luxury of time to play "what if".
I don't know enough to know what I think should have been the best course of action. I only know what I did in a similar situation long, long ago.

[Taltarzac725]

Think you missed my point. Those saying the shooter/killer probably saved lives seem to me to think with the details that seem to show violent activity of some kind, gun shots, angry and aggressive and threatening behavior the shooter made the right decision based upon what he was facing at that moment.
Those saying that the shooter acted without cause seem to think it would have been a simple thing to take control of the angry man until police arrived. Like Roy shooting guns out of people's waving hands. Simple. Easy peasy.
In some cases, the old adage "he who hesitates is lost/last" applies. In other cases, the old saying "look before you leap" applies. You can't do both, and you have a terrifying and wild situation and you must choose NOW!

When we try to play armchair judge we do not generally do any damage either way. But when you think you have fallen into a life or death situation and things are happing very fast, you don't the luxury of time to play "what if".
I don't know enough to know what I think should have been the best course of action. I only know what I did in a similar situation long, long ago.

The police were coming he was probably going for a cell phone. Very little of this makes much sense. Why would he pull a gun in that situation? Except maybe he needed his cell phone to try to call the people in the car who left to come get him before the cops came.

[ThirdOfFive]

A "reasonable person" in this case would think..."hm, gunshots out there, this guy comes in asking who called the cops on him - I think I'll just exit, stage left. REALLY FAST."

That is the only "reasonable" response I can think of.
Florida is "stand your ground". He had no obligation to flee.

[Get real]

Maybe it was a 9mm cell phone. jeez

[ThirdOfFive]

For the umpteenth time, whether or not the person who was shot had a gun at the time he was shot means NOTHING. All that matters is that the person who shot him had REASONABLE CAUSE to believe that he had a gun and was going to use it to injure or kill people. And everything that happened up to the time the guy was shot, certainly points to that.

People who comment on the law might try to understand it first.

[Rainger99]

As I stated previously, about 90% of this thread is conjecture. Some people want it to be self defense and others want it to be murder.

Let's wait for the facts to come out. Remember the Ferguson case? Some people claimed that the police killed an innocent man who had his hands up. Others claimed that Brown was attacking a police officer.

[Taltarzac725]

Maybe it was a 9mm cell phone. jeez

Which some Good Samaritan stole after the victim was shot dead.

[Taltarzac725]

For the umpteenth time, whether or not the person who was shot had a gun at the time he was shot means NOTHING. All that matters is that the person who shot him had REASONABLE CAUSE to believe that he had a gun and was going to use it to injure or kill people. And everything that happened up to the time the guy was shot, certainly points to that.

People who comment on the law might try to understand it first.

I disagree. We do not know enough facts.

Someone is dead. And I do not see a reasonable cause here to kill another person. How does the shooter even know who was shooting outside of Applebee's? Where was the killer sitting and how far was that from the victim? The victim is the murdered man.

And I have a law degree from the U of MN. Class of 1989. The current Attorney General of MN is Class of 1990.


We did go over how FACTs were important in cases. An angry man walks into Applebee's carrying a gun in his hand. That is reasonable cause.

[JGibson]

For the umpteenth time, whether or not the person who was shot had a gun at the time he was shot means NOTHING. All that matters is that the person who shot him had REASONABLE CAUSE to believe that he had a gun and was going to use it to injure or kill people. And everything that happened up to the time the guy was shot, certainly points to that.

People who comment on the law might try to understand it first.

Did the guy who shot him see the man shoot a gun outside?

That might be the only reasonable argument that may stand up.

You just can't shoot every person who reaches into there pants.

Also the law doesn't say reasonable it says imminent danger.

Was the guy in imminent danger?

Just release the video so us TOTV lawyers can decide.

[Taltarzac725]

Did the guy who shot him see the man shoot a gun outside?

That might be the only reasonable argument that may stand up.

You just can't shoot every person who reaches into there pants.

Also the law doesn't say reasonable it says imminent danger.

Was the guy in imminent danger?

Just release the video so us TOTV lawyers can decide.

Just curious how this will play out and why the media has done next to nothing with it.

[Taltarzac725]

Did the guy who shot him see the man shoot a gun outside?

That might be the only reasonable argument that may stand up.

You just can't shoot every person who reaches into there pants.

Also the law doesn't say reasonable it says imminent danger.

Was the guy in imminent danger?

Just release the video so us TOTV lawyers can decide.

Good questions. You see a guy running into a bar with an assault type weapon. Probably would create imminent danger in almost any situation.

[PugMom]

this is an example of a very good thread. so many points & opinions expressed in a consistent manner.:coolsmiley:

[fdpaq0580]

[QUOTE=JGibson;2202465

Was the guy in imminent danger? [/QUOTE]

Even if the "now deceased" had gun in hand pointing at the "shooter" and was threatening to kill, it can still be argued that he, the "now deceased",was simply frightening and never would have killed anyone, or that the gun was empty, or, or, etc, and therefore the "shooter" was actually never in imminent danger. That being said leads me to think one (the shooter) is guilty because he was pro-active (shot first) instead of reactive (waited to be shot before he could return fire). Is that what is being argued here?
Still waiting for all the facts to be determined. Still, if being the first to use your weapon against a perceived threat (pro-active) makes you guilty in every instance, (and even the worst lawyer can play "what if" for weeks on end), then a lot of folks who bought weapons for protection better practice duck and cover before ever drawing their gun.

[fdpaq0580]

Good questions. You see a guy running into a bar with an assault type weapon. Probably would create imminent danger in almost any situation.

Now, now! Don't jump to conclusions. Could be a guy with a super-soaker squirtgun who thought he saw an open flame and came in to put the fire out. Might actually be ao danger whatsoever. Best to just ignore him and he'll leave when he's done.

[JGibson]

Even if the "now deceased" had gun in hand pointing at the "shooter" and was threatening to kill, it can still be argued that he, the "now deceased",was simply frightening and never would have killed anyone, or that the gun was empty, or, or, etc, and therefore the "shooter" was actually never in imminent danger. That being said leads me to think one (the shooter) is guilty because he was pro-active (shot first) instead of reactive (waited to be shot before he could return fire). Is that what is being argued here?
Still waiting for all the facts to be determined. Still, if being the first to use your weapon against a perceived threat (pro-active) makes you guilty in every instance, (and even the worst lawyer can play "what if" for weeks on end), then a lot of folks who bought weapons for protection better practice duck and cover before ever drawing their gun.

My understanding of the law is if a person points a gun at you it doesn't matter if he says nothing it is assumed he is going to pull the trigger.

The law realizes you don't have to wait to be shot at and possibly killed before you can pull the trigger.

Pointing a gun at anyone is playing stupid games and gonna win stupid prizes like your life.

[fdpaq0580]

My understanding of the law is if a person points a gun at you it doesn't matter if he says nothing it is assumed he is going to pull the trigger.

The law realizes you don't have to wait to be shot at and possibly killed before you can pull the trigger.

Pointing a gun at anyone is playing stupid games and gonna win stupid prizes like your life.

I agree with you, but it sounds like a lot of folks are arguing against the shooter.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Florida is "stand your ground". He had no obligation to flee.

In my opinion - a reasonable person would flee. I have no obligation to do a lot of things that I do anyway, because I consider myself to be a reasonable person.

Like - if someone abandons their shopping cart on a windy day in the parking lot and I see it rolling fast toward a car - and in that split second I estimate that I can reach that cart and stop it without breaking my stride or detouring - I'll go ahead and stop the cart from rolling into someone's car. Because I'm reasonable. I have no obligation to do that, but I'll do it anyway.

[Taltarzac725]

https://www.meltzerandbell.com/news/understanding-justifiable-homicide-in-florida-what-does-it-entail/

This is interesting. I have not checked it for a while but Findlaw used to have a lot of interesting discussions on law as do various law professors.

Florida Second Degree Murder Laws - FindLaw (https://www.findlaw.com/state/florida-law/florida-second-degree-murder-laws.html)

Law Professor Blog Network (https://www.lawprofessorblogs.com/)

[JMintzer]

If you are incapable of determining if you see a gun then you sure as h*** shouldn't be shooting anyone.




Apparently, you and I have a different idea of what a reasonable person would think....and a different comfort level with the killing of an unarmed individual.

You are still assuming that the deceased was unarmed...

And one does not need to see a gun to have their life be threatened...

[JMintzer]

A "reasonable person" in this case would think..."hm, gunshots out there, this guy comes in asking who called the cops on him - I think I'll just exit, stage left. REALLY FAST."

That is the only "reasonable" response I can think of.

I'd agree, unless "exiting stage left" was not an option...

[JMintzer]

He took someone's life. He should be damn sure of the threat before using lethal force. I am not seeing any reason for doing so. The Pulse Night Club had an armed man come in and start shooting people. Lethal force is very justified in that scenario by anyone who could hit the shooter.

Were you there? I didn't think so. Therefore, you have no idea what the shooter though, saw or what the deceased had or didn't have in his hand, nor how he acted towards the patrons in the restaurant...

Hence, the continued investigation...

[JMintzer]

There is no evidence that shows the victim at Applebee's was a bad man. He shot into the air. Not at a person. And even that sounds fishy unless there was gun residue on his hands.

:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[JMintzer]

The police were coming he was probably going for a cell phone. Very little of this makes much sense. Why would he pull a gun in that situation? Except maybe he needed his cell phone to try to call the people in the car who left to come get him before the cops came.

Apparently, he "pulled a gun" outside the restaurant, so...

And you actually think he was calling the people who left amidst gunfire just a few minutes earlier?

That ranks up there with the, "Let's have some pie" scenario...

[JMintzer]

Florida is "stand your ground". He had no obligation to flee.

True. But the "let's get out of Dodge" option certainly involves less paperwork in the aftermath...

[manaboutown]

In my opinion - a reasonable person would flee. I have no obligation to do a lot of things that I do anyway, because I consider myself to be a reasonable person.
.

Can a reasonable person outrun a bullet? Maybe superman could but not me...

[JMintzer]

I disagree. We do not know enough facts.

Someone is dead. And I do not see a reasonable cause here to kill another person. How does the shooter even know who was shooting outside of Applebee's? Where was the killer sitting and how far was that from the victim? The victim is the murdered man.

And I have a law degree from the U of MN. Class of 1989. The current Attorney General of MN is Class of 1990.


We did go over how FACTs were important in cases. An angry man walks into Applebee's carrying a gun in his hand. That is reasonable cause.

No one was murdered, as of yet...

There was a homicide. The question will be: Was it justified or was it Murder?

Someone with a law degree would know that...

[JMintzer]

Just curious how this will play out and why the media has done next to nothing with it.

Because there is still an investigation going on and they are possibly actually trying to be responsible journalists?

I know... I laughed when typing that...

[JMintzer]

Good questions. You see a guy running into a bar with an assault type weapon. Probably would create imminent danger in almost any situation.

Nice non sequitur...

[JMintzer]

My understanding of the law is if a person points a gun at you it doesn't matter if he says nothing it is assumed he is going to pull the trigger.

The law realizes you don't have to wait to be shot at and possibly killed before you can pull the trigger.

Pointing a gun at anyone is playing stupid games and gonna win stupid prizes like your life.

Exactly...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DnoxAQZU8AAGGWp.jpg

[fdpaq0580]

Exactly...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DnoxAQZU8AAGGWp.jpg

Or you lost an eye.
If you have to wait to actually see the gun, it is likely already being fired. Bad things happen very quickly.

[Bill14564]

Or you lost an eye.
If you have to wait to actually see the gun, it is likely already being fired. Bad things happen very quickly.

Opinion based on professional experience or just backside?

If you don't wait to actually see a gun then unarmed individuals wind up dead. Bad things did happen very quickly.

How does it go .... It is better that ten armed men live than one unarmed man be killed ... or something like that.

[Taltarzac725]

I seem to be less tolerant of smartasses than earlier in life so I am adding to my Ignore List.

[Ecuadog]

In my opinion - a reasonable person would flee. ...

About 50 years ago, I worked for Art Shamsky and Phil Linz in a bar that they owned in Queens, NY. I was behind the bar late on a slow night when a couple came in. After about a half hour, the male half of the duo got annoyed because his female partner was paying too much attention to the DJ. He left the bar. He reentered minutes later, carrying a lever action rifle, and yelled, “Are you coming with me?” She didn’t move. He fired a shot into the ceiling and asked, “Are you coming with me now?” No one in the bar moved. He then tried to put another round in the chamber, but he was having trouble. Again, no one in the bar moved. While he’s trying to figure out his problem with the rifle, she walks to him, grabs him and they leave. I went to the front door, locked it, and went back behind the bar and started serving drinks on-the-house. Nobody called the police. There must have been someone in the joint that was heeled given its location near Pep McGuire’s, a nearby bar that was frequented by cops and crooks. It was almost like nothing happened. Nobody fled.

Theorize all you want. Whatever happens... happens.

[Taltarzac725]

About 50 years ago, I worked for Art Shamsky and Phil Linz in a bar that they owned in Queens, NY. I was behind the bar late on a slow night when a couple came in. After about a half hour, the male half of the duo got annoyed because his female partner was paying too much attention to the DJ. He left the bar. He reentered minutes later, carrying a lever action rifle, and yelled, “Are you coming with me?” She didn’t move. He fired a shot into the ceiling and asked, “Are you coming with me now?” No one in the bar moved. He then tried to put another round in the chamber, but he was having trouble. Again, no one in the bar moved. While he’s trying to figure out his problem with the rifle, she walks to him, grabs him and they leave. I went to the front door, locked it, and went back behind the bar and started serving drinks on-the-house. Nobody called the police. There must have been someone in the joint that was heeled given its location near Pep McGuire’s, a nearby bar that was frequented by cops and crooks. It was almost like nothing happened. Nobody fled.

Theorize all you want. Whatever happens... happens.


Looks like a clear case in 2023 of defense of others up to the point his rifle jammed unless he then would have turned it around and used it as a club.

[fdpaq0580]

Opinion based on professional experience or just backside?

If you don't wait to actually see a gun then unarmed individuals wind up dead. Bad things did happen very quickly.

How does it go .... It is better that ten armed men live than one unarmed man be killed ... or something like that.

Experience, yes. Professional, no. And FYI no one was harmed, one arrested (the other guy) and police confiscated a number of illegal weapons (his).

And the saying goes, "better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer unjustly" ... or something like that.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Or you lost an eye.
If you have to wait to actually see the gun, it is likely already being fired. Bad things happen very quickly.

So if I ever see you in a town square, and I observe you putting your hand in your pocket, the law would consider it "reasonable" for me to shoot you?

Because y'know - I shouldn't have to wait to see the gun.

[manaboutown]

[QUOTE=Taltarzac725;2202461And I have a law degree from the U of MN. Class of 1989. The current Attorney General of MN is Class of 1990.[/QUOTE]

My condolences

[Taltarzac725]

So if I ever see you in a town square, and I observe you putting your hand in your pocket, the law would consider it "reasonable" for me to shoot you?

Because y'know - I shouldn't have to wait to see the gun.

I hope not. I need many adjustments during the day.

[Taltarzac725]

My condolences

I never met him at the U of MN but my roommate/girlfriend Jennifer back then was in the same class. I was writing all the State AGs back in the early 1990s but he was not at that level yet. These letters were about practical materials in law libraries for survivors/victims of crimes. I got a good number of responses back then and then tried to share them through various means. And spotlight them by other ways.

Jennifer said he wanted to make it to the US Supreme Court. I do recall he was a devout Muslim back then. I did hang out with an African American law student a lot my 1st and 2nd year of law school but found more actual friends by my 3rd.

[JGibson]

Even if the guy doesn't get charged I’m sure the family is going to file a wrongful death lawsuit, probably win and bankrupt this guy.

Just remember OJ’s civil case.

[Taltarzac725]

Even if the guy doesn't get charged I’m sure the family is going to file a wrongful death lawsuit, probably win and bankrupt this guy.

Just remember OJ’s civil case.

There are groups that would help him with that. One was mentioned in the thread. I try not to get into politics on TOTV.

[fdpaq0580]

So if I ever see you in a town square, and I observe you putting your hand in your pocket, the law would consider it "reasonable" for me to shoot you?

Because y'know - I shouldn't have to wait to see the gun.

Yes! If I am ever causing a scene and you feel in fear of your life (from ME? Now that is funny.), by all means, OrangeBlossomBaby, You may shoot me.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Yes! If I am ever causing a scene and you feel in fear of your life (from ME? Now that is funny.), by all means, OrangeBlossomBaby, You may shoot me.

Oh no - not if you're causing a scene. Just if you put your hand in your pocket. Because who knows - you could be some crazy person who hates country music trying to blend in, and NOT causing a scene. Until that one moment when you choose to reach for your glock.

I have no reason to think you're just reaching for a tissue to blow your nose. I think it's a gun. And I'm a reasonable person. So I'm gonna shoot you before you have the chance to unload your cartridge of death on random line-dancers in the square.

Apparently that is justifiable, if the criteria for whether it's reasonable to shoot someone is "they put their hand in their pocket and you therefore determine there MIGHT be a gun in that pocket."

[bsloan1960]

So if I ever see you in a town square, and I observe you putting your hand in your pocket, the law would consider it "reasonable" for me to shoot you?

Because y'know - I shouldn't have to wait to see the gun.

No. Apples and Oranges- and you know it. How does your town square example mimic the conditions of gun fire, violence, people feeling terror and worried for their lives that were present at the restaurant? If rather than a peaceful town square the square was full of gun fire, violence, people feeling terror and worried for their lives then your example could be debated by intelligent people.

[Taltarzac725]

No. Apples and Oranges- and you know it. How does your town square example mimic the conditions of gun fire, violence, people feeling terror and worried for their lives that were present at the restaurant? If rather than a peaceful town square the square was full of gun fire, violence, people feeling terror and worried for their lives then your example could be debated by intelligent people.

We have little facts about that. We would need to know more about the relationships, if any, between the people outside and those inside. It sounds like a personal argument was going on outside and the man shot got angry that those inside were getting involved. Probably some kind of domestic dispute going on outside with the shooting man getting upset about it and started shooting into the air.

This is conjecture though. With no gun found the people in the car might have been doing the shooting up in the air. Unless the man shot has gunshot residue on his hand or hands.

[fdpaq0580]

No. Apples and Oranges- and you know it. How does your town square example mimic the conditions of gun fire, violence, people feeling terror and worried for their lives that were present at the restaurant? If rather than a peaceful town square the square was full of gun fire, violence, people feeling terror and worried for their lives then your example could be debated by intelligent people.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. OBB has my permission to shoot ME, only, if I stick my hand in my pants.

[fdpaq0580]

Oh no - not if you're causing a scene. Just if you put your hand in your pocket. Because who knows - you could be some crazy person who hates country music trying to blend in, and NOT causing a scene. Until that one moment when you choose to reach for your glock.

I have no reason to think you're just reaching for a tissue to blow your nose. I think it's a gun. And I'm a reasonable person. So I'm gonna shoot you before you have the chance to unload your cartridge of death on random line-dancers in the square.

Apparently that is justifiable, if the criteria for whether it's reasonable to shoot someone is "they put their hand in their pocket and you therefore determine there MIGHT be a gun in that pocket."

Probably shouldn't tell you here, but I don't have a Glock. More of a gherkin, actually. Small calibre, single shot. But admit it, them line dancers got it comin'! (Nobody panick! It's just a dumb joke, OK.)

[JMintzer]

Opinion based on professional experience or just backside?

If you don't wait to actually see a gun then unarmed individuals wind up dead. Bad things did happen very quickly.

How does it go .... It is better that ten armed men live than one unarmed man be killed ... or something like that.

I don't know... I've never heard anything like that...

[JMintzer]

So if I ever see you in a town square, and I observe you putting your hand in your pocket, the law would consider it "reasonable" for me to shoot you?

Because y'know - I shouldn't have to wait to see the gun.

If he's acting in a threatening manner, and you have a reasonable fear for your life, yes...

But you knew that...

[JMintzer]

Oh no - not if you're causing a scene. Just if you put your hand in your pocket. Because who knows - you could be some crazy person who hates country music trying to blend in, and NOT causing a scene. Until that one moment when you choose to reach for your glock.

I have no reason to think you're just reaching for a tissue to blow your nose. I think it's a gun. And I'm a reasonable person. So I'm gonna shoot you before you have the chance to unload your cartridge of death on random line-dancers in the square.

Apparently that is justifiable, if the criteria for whether it's reasonable to shoot someone is "they put their hand in their pocket and you therefore determine there MIGHT be a gun in that pocket."

If you actually thought that, you would NOT be a reasonable person...

But you knew that...

[Number 10 GI]

More speculation, but based on the information known so far. Witnesses stated that the deceased fired a handgun into the air while having a verbal altercation with the people in the car. Does that sound like a reasonable, responsible and rational person to be around? My life experiences have shown me that these types of people usually have a criminal record. It very well could be that the deceased had a felony conviction and is therefore not allowed to own or possess a firearm. Due to the fact that no firearm was found, possibly the Darwin Awardee tossed the gun before entering the restaurant because he knew that the police were called, and he didn't want to be caught with a gun. That would get him hard time in a federal prison.
The other alternative is that someone in the restaurant who knew him took the gun so it wouldn't be in the possession of the man who was shot and be charged with illegal possession had he lived.
A couple speculations that make more sense than he was reaching in his pocket for a cell phone to call the people in the car that he had the altercation with.

[Taltarzac725]

More speculation, but based on the information known so far. Witnesses stated that the deceased fired a handgun into the air while having a verbal altercation with the people in the car. Does that sound like a reasonable, responsible and rational person to be around? My life experiences have shown me that these types of people usually have a criminal record. It very well could be that the deceased had a felony conviction and is therefore not allowed to own or possess a firearm. Due to the fact that no firearm was found, possibly the Darwin Awardee tossed the gun before entering the restaurant because he knew that the police were called, and he didn't want to be caught with a gun. That would get him hard time in a federal prison.
The other alternative is that someone in the restaurant who knew him took the gun so it wouldn't be in the possession of the man who was shot and be charged with illegal possession had he lived.
A couple speculations that make more sense than he was reaching in his pocket for a cell phone to call the people in the car that he had the altercation with.

I am pretty sure someone--the police-- would have checked the surrounding area for a tossed gun. And I doubt if anyone tampered with the evidence unless they were very close to the person killed.

Witnesses are not very reliable in these kind of situations either. Especially when the adrenaline is flowing.

[Bilyclub]

Wow, Applebee's is open to 1 AM during the week and 2 on the weekends ? Are they trying to upstage Maragarita Republic as the place for drunken foolishness after midnight?

[gego3650]

Wow, Applebee's is open to 1 AM during the week and 2 on the weekends ? Are they trying to upstage Maragarita Republic as the place for drunken foolishness after midnight?. Normal hours for them

[dewilson58]

Wow, Applebee's is open to 1 AM during the week and 2 on the weekends ? Are they trying to upstage Maragarita Republic as the place for drunken foolishness after midnight?

There are people who work 2nd and 3rd shifts.

Midnight could be lunch or dinner.

[JMintzer]

Wow, Applebee's is open to 1 AM during the week and 2 on the weekends ? Are they trying to upstage Maragarita Republic as the place for drunken foolishness after midnight?

In the real world, people stay out past 9:00...

[fdpaq0580]

There are people who work 2nd and 3rd shifts.

Midnight could be lunch or dinner.

Or even breakfast, the most important meal of your day. Whenever it starts.

[Rainger99]

There has been some speculation that he was reaching in his pocket for a cell phone to call the people in the car that he had the altercation with.

There was a mob hit in Boston in the mid 90s.
There was a confrontation between two groups in a restaurant and suddenly one person stood up and began reaching toward his belt.

In one of the great lines in mob history, the gunman said, 'I know he ain't reachin' for no Bible.'

[Taltarzac725]

There was a mob hit in Boston in the mid 90s.
There was a confrontation between two groups in a restaurant and suddenly one person stood up and began reaching toward his belt.

In one of the great lines in mob history, the gunman said, 'I know he ain't reachin' for no Bible.'


Except organized crime is not involved in the Applebee's tragic shooting of someone with no weapon found on him after the fact.

Maybe someone put it in a toilet's rear tank?

[dewilson58]

Anything new on this???

[Taltarzac725]

Anything new on this???


I do not see anything later than March 30, 2023 in the news.

[kkingston57]

I had tools worth $5,000 dollars stolen 5 years ago. That IS hard to put into the rearview mirror. And it is a KNOWN FACT that murders nationwide have increased in the last 3 years after the Pandemic. The US is NOT protecting its borders (both South and North ) from both criminal and perhaps non-criminal, BUT still illegal immigrants that I and no US citizen have ever gotten to vote about whether it should happen. It is also VERY OBSERVABLE that nationwide there is a vanishing middle-class, which is universally known to INCREASE potential crime. It is true that The Villages IS a UNIQUE wealthy bubble surrounded by have-nots. I am just trying to warn senior residents that future conditions seem poised to tend toward VIOLENCE.
.......Better to be WARNED and something NOT HAPPEN than something HAPPEN that a person is NOT prepared for.
.......As practical proof about the danger from increasing crime that real people here locally feel. I was just down to Rural King and the table of cartridges and shotgun shells was just about empty. 10 years ago it would have been filled. People realize that CRIME locally IS a BIG problem.

As previous poster asked, what is the evidence? Shelves empty of cartridges and shells could be caused by numerous reasons, including when hunting season starts, stockpiling of guns by gun lovers, etc. Most of the crime in TV is opportunistic type crimes like stolen golf carts(with keys in them) and stolen golf equipment left in a cart.

If crime is so rampant, would have thought that most Villagers would be lined up to get burglar alarms. Chances of people getting injured/killed by a gun by accident is probably more likely than a Villager defending themselves from those crossing the border or any other intruder.