[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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.

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

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]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

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]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

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]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

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]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

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]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

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

Nor are there any facts supporting your claim...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

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]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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.