[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

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]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

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]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

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]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

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]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

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]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

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]

Originally Posted by Caymus

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]

Originally Posted by Caymus

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]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

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]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

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]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

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]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

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]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

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