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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

I'd go home and change my pants.

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

Except maybe Joe Taxpayer.

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.

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

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Maybe it was a 9mm cell phone. jeez

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

[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.

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.