Posted on 07/24/2012 6:08:18 PM PDT by Talisker
So let's say someone was in the Aurora theater, armed and with a carry permit, in defiance of the signs banning weapons.
Maniac starts shooting. Armed citizen fires back, and stops the carnage.
Then what?
Is he arrested? He's carrying legally, and he just stopped a massacre. Is he sued? For what? Stopping the massacre is an overwhelming defense.
Practically speaking, when someone is legally armed, what can be done to them? How can any charges or lawsuits stand? In other words, what practical power does any corporate policy have that deprives people of the right to self-defense, while providing no corporate lethal defense for those disarmed people?
What would be happening, right now, to such a citizen if the Aurora perp was wounded or dead, right now, because he was shot in the theater by that armed citizen and thereby stopped from going any further than he did?
You abide by the rule of numbers:
Better to be defended by ONE,
than carried by SIX.
I guess what I’m getting at is that for any disarmament contract to be viable, it seems to me that an equal assurance of protection must be made towards the disarmed.
The actual reality of what companies are now getting away with is saying, “you agree to pay for our services and risk getting shot to death by a maniac while doing it, while we agree to take your money and let the maniac shoot you while stopping you from defending yourself.”
Now, if that contract is still considered valid, then why are there signs up banning guns? Shouldn’t there also be equally large signs ups addressing the other side of the same issue, i.e. signs banning guns, AND signs reminding patrons that they agree to be shot by gun-wielding criminals?
Reason being is that if the ONLY place that guns were banned was in the rest of the fine-print on the ticket, it wouldn’t be enough of a legal warning - right? Otherwise, why bother with the big signs banning guns in addition to the fine print saying the same thing on the ticket?
BUT, since banning guns makes the patrons directly liable to death by crime, with no allowed method of self-defense by the corporation, shouldn’t THAT also be put up in large print on signs along with the gun ban signs? Don’t patrons have a right to be reminded that they are risking the lives of their families and children, and are surrendering their right to self-defense in case a murder starts slaughtering them, and that that is what they are agreeing to when they pay for their ticket?
And WITHOUT such a specific reminder, is the contract valid, since it is merely “presuming” violent death i understood to be the risk, rather than guaranteeing that people KNOW that that is the risk?
Contract must be understood on both sides - that’s the root of contract law. Big gun-ban signs imply nig notice must be made of this issue, yet big agreement-to-die-like-sheep signs are not available to make clear the other side of the contract.
Lack of clarity creates lack of understanding that voids contracts.
WOW.
I can see why we have massacres now.
The bad guys no one can legally stop them.
The answer to your question depends on the state you’re in.
As someone else (essentially) said: signs on Colorado do not carry the force of law - you have to be asked to leave, and refuse, before you can be charged. Same situation in Kentucky.
In Ohio, though, if you knowingly enter a conspicuously posted place, you don’t have to be asked to leave in order to be charged.
Should be - know
My understanding is that the theater shooter was standing in front of the screen so no one was behind him. A CCW is responsible for knowing what may be hit behind the crimminal. But, if I am in the front row and this guy walks right up to me, you can bet I am taking the shot right there. If it is other people, I would have to carefully consider. Unarmed people that chose that condition are not my responsibility, but I might help if I had a clear shot. There are so many situations like battered spouse incidents where a CCW could think they are saving a victim only to have the victim turn on them.
When a business posts a sign banning weapons, are they implying that they take responsibility for their customer's safety and can they be held legally accountable?
Well, they don’t even police up the emergency exits, so who would possibly spot your Glock Model 30?
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.
I’d be more than happy to go before a jury on such a trespassing charge.
If a jury of my peers can’t see that I prevented dozens if not hundreds of deaths and injuries by my unselfish actions in the defense of others, then I’m really missing the point of having juries at all.
Even AlGore can tell you, if you choose to ignore the law, there is:
NO CONTROLLING LEGAL AUTHORITY.
Texas has very clear sign requirements, the 30-06 sign requirements, that a business must post. Colorado has no requirements. There are shopping malls that my wife likes to go to that are supposed to be no carry zones per Rocky Mountain Gun Owners web site. I have looked and never saw a sign. Maybe it is stuck on the bottom of a filing cabinet in the mall offices.
If you had to deal with an anti-2nd-Amendment police force and DA, they could try you for murder. And an idiot jury would gladly help them.
The key is caliber selection. Big, slow, heavy. Like .45 ACP. That generally doesn’t go through walls and cause collateral damage.
Proven wrong, one report here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2909745/posts
Happened only 50 miles from this theater
As I understand it, in WV, you can be asked to leave the premises or check your weapon. If you refuse, then you can be charged with trespassing. My guess is, if you are not asked to do either one, then the business owner doesn’t have a leg to stand on, even in the event that something happens, since you have to be asked to leave or check your firearm first.
“Any person carrying or possessing a firearm or other deadly weapon on the property of another who refuses to temporarily relinquish possession of such firearm or other deadly weapon, upon being requested to do so, or to leave such premises, while in possession of such firearm or other deadly weapon, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars or confined in the county jail not more than six months, or both.”
If there is no confrontation, there can be no violation. A sign is not, for purposes of the law, considered a confrontation.
I am not a lawyer, but this is the assumption under which I carry in WV...I’d rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.
There is always an affirmative defense.
FYI for CHL'ers, I have seen theaters here in Texas "wand" people at premiers to keep out cell phones.
IMHO, I think the guy would have fled or surrendered, or hopefully died, as soon as someone starting shooting back at him.
I think you are assuming ill-trained and/or stupid concealed carrier.
If it was me in that theatre I would rather have someone shooting back.
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.