[PugMom]

Originally Posted by 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!

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]

Originally Posted by 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!

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]

Originally Posted by PugMom

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]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

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]

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI

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]

Originally Posted by fishon

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-...undup-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]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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]

Originally Posted by PugMom

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]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

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]

Originally Posted by 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".

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]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

We still do not know enough.

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

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

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]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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"...