Posted on 07/24/2012 6:08:18 PM PDT by Talisker
If you theory is correct, how many people were wounded in adjacent theaters by the criminal’s bullets? I can’t even make sense out of your last sentence, maybe you could restate your position?
The police do not charge you, they arrest you based on their understanding of the law.
The city/county/state attorney general charges you at their discretion. These are likely three different people.
Since these guys are elected by the people it stands to reason for someone who just saved 10’s of lives (read voters) any minor non-self aggrandizing indiscretion by the permit holder who stopped the mutt would likely be overlooked.
Ask yourself; how unpopular would the guy be who charged the savior??
(not an attorney and don’t play one on TV either)
YMMV
I’m sitting here imagining maybe a third of the theater-goers carrying (in defiance of the theater’s rules)... little James comes in the door, raises his firearm/s, and 75 armed movie-goers pull out their pistols and blow him away.
I like this ending better than what happened. And I think I would be OK with being banned for life from that theater, too.
Ridiculous.
It'd be just as likely that in some places, you could have...
...one shooter & 2-4 permit loaded-weapon carriers
Or you might have -- like with Columbine...
...two shooters...
...and multiple permit loaded-weapon carriers...
Add to that a dark theater with tear gas going off...
And you could easily get two guys with permits shooting @ each other -- because they might assume two shooters...
People utterly fail to think thru a multiple-weapons & multiple carriers scenario where there's poor vision and mass confusion.
People utterly fail to think thru a multiple-weapons & multiple carriers scenario where there's poor vision and mass confusion.
As opposed to just sitting there getting shot at? I'll take the multiple carrier scenario.
Thanks for playing....
Obviously, by the way the laws are written, the gov't would rather you DIE in a massacre than defend yourself with a gun. Whether you accept this is up to you! I refer you to the Declaration of Independence for guidance.
"This is the argument of a coward, pretending to be logical. To throw out the inhibitory effect on a mass murderer being shot at while trying to kill people is idiotic. To throw out the intelligence and focus of patrons focusing their weapons on the murderer is beyond insulting. To speculate about pretended wild bullets, generalize the absurdity, and then draw a conclusion leaving the only "safe" way to handle the situation to sit there and let yourself, your family and frieds absorb bullets so they don't become strays and hit someone else, deserves horsewhipping.
That you are then argung for craven cowardice for entire populations to crawl before murderers is a social crime so vast, hell will have to be expanded to receive your wretched soul.
I hope I was clear that we will never be on the same page at the end of the day."
Amen Brother!
Well, Columbine was a "multiple carrier scenario"...so why would you advocate for multiple shooters to be unleashed on school campuses?
(You're the one who said you would "take" that scenario...and I specifically mentioned Columbine as one multiple-shooter scenario)
One permit carrier shooting another permit carrier = potential manslaughter (or other) charges...
Bottom line tho of my comment: People at least need to get their "what would I do" scenarios out of the fantasyland of the Old West...As more & more people carry...such scenarios will more likely be triangular (or more) vs. a shootout @ the OK corral.
And the more where there's mass confusion (& poor visibility) the worst those situations can turn out.
The shooter is taken out by a permit carrier, who is then taken out by a permit carrier, who is then taken out by a permit carrier.
All of a sudden, you've got THREE murderers-manslaughterers up for prosecution vs. one.
In Arizona, you COULD be charged with a misdemeanor-level criminal trespass. You probably wouldn’t be arrested if you agreed to leave, but the owner has the option. The sign is considered your notification to leave (or not enter).
I think of it this way, if I’m alive then I’ll suffer the consequences at my jury trial versus the alternative of being dead and not really having the luxury of a jury trial.
No, Columbine was a "multiple active shooter" scenario as opposed to "mutiple carrier scenario" I referred to 'multiple concealed law abiding carriers'. People who would be aware of the consequences. A "perfect" scenario, absolutely not, but a whole heck of lot better than nothing.
Bottom line tho of my comment: People at least need to get their "what would I do" scenarios out of the fantasyland of the Old West...
Careful, your talking points are showing. These "wildwest" scenarios are not happening. They are liberal, sorry, socialist/communist, fantasies.
What? During the shootings you're going to have some of the shooters whip out their permits to distinguish themselves??? Really? Nobody would immediately (when it needs to happen) be able to readily tell the difference 'tween a "law abiding carrier" and a shooter. Plain and simple.
Not that your scenario won't happen, but it was not clear in the commotion, those with CCW could have a lot of difficulties identify the real perp.
Your scenario is based on a presumption of zero murderer identification, and total willingness of permit carriers to shoot someone merely because they are shooting.
You comply ignore the probability that there would quickly be a focus of multiple permit carriers on the murderer, or that the permit carriers would be loudly communicating with each other for ID purposes, or that any situational awareness would be taking place at all.
And if that's not enough, look at the numbers. The Aurora bastard shot 71 people and killed 12. Your way, the murderer would have been shot, plus a few permit carriers shooting each other because they have suddenly become completely stupid. So, 71/12+ versus 3-5 max.
And I haven't even started on that old, tired, useless platitude about a people living with integrity, instead of crawling around in abject shame hoping some bastard doesn' feel like murdering them or their children. Because as we know, philosophy is SO hard to figure out - and craven murderers are SO brave, that virtually no act of courage affects them at all.
:: spit ::
My thought is, if the criminal realized prior to the incident there might, or even probably would be, armed folks in the locale, he might not have even been there. Knowing it was a guns-free zone and that most are law abiding, well.... he had no such qualms.
So what happens if a madman (or mad woman) bursts into the premises and starts shooting to kill as many people as he can? And thus a CC weapon holder, draws his handgun and shoots the madman, thus saving countless lives. What happens to the CC weapon holder who brought his weapon onto the premises in violation of the posted warning but saved countless lives?
So what happens if a madman (or mad woman) bursts into the premises and starts shooting to kill as many people as he can? And thus a CC weapon holder, draws his handgun and shoots the madman, thus saving countless lives. What happens to the CC weapon holder who brought his weapon onto the premises in violation of the posted warning but saved countless lives?
Then you would only be requested to leave the premises. According to the law as posted earlier, no crime has been committed by bringing the concealed weapon onto the premises. Trust me, that list of places (1 - 17) is extensive too. But all they can do is request you leave and if you do, you’re ok. If you refuse to leave and a cop is called, you get a ticket, that’s all. Just don’t collect three of those in a year or else you WILL lose your permit. So only collect one a year and you’re good.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.