The day after legal restaurant carry

[DavidD]

...But the fact is, it's not the normal or usual to see someone who's not a cop or soldier doing so these days. What is most often normal is for someone openly armed to have a screw loose or have criminal intentions. And in those cases, it's best to have your own weapon in hand and ready to use before you confront them.....

Jamie,

While agree with most of what you've said and deeply respect your position, I do have a problem with the above part of your quote. Didn't your training include situational awareness and threat evaluation? How many Criminals/Whacko's have you ever encountered with guns being openly carried? Don't most tuck them in the front of their pants without a holster? I do not ever o/c nor do I believe it is the way to go normally for tactical and response reasons however I do believe that your statement about having your own weapon in hand before confronting the individual is a little dramatic and overboard.

[OngoingFreedom]

Wow, the Governor vetoed the bill yesterday and not one mention? Different thread, I guess.

[DavidD]

Wow, the Governor vetoed the bill yesterday and not one mention? Different thread, I guess.

You obviously haven't been looking around too closely.... http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/tennessee-politics-legislation/21893-governor-phil-bredesen-vetoes-hb0962-restaurant-carry-bill.html

[Guest Jamie]

Jamie,

While agree with most of what you've said and deeply respect your position, I do have a problem with the above part of your quote. Didn't your training include situational awareness and threat evaluation?

Well, my training did, but then I've had a bit more than what the average LEO is apt to get. Plus, keep in mind that in Tn, an officer can work for 12 months prior to going to the academy. Also, I'm not sure what, if any, training someone like a constable might have or be required to have.

And do remember that the statement you're quoting has to do as much with the average person's/cop's perception as much as anything.

How many Criminals/Whacko's have you ever encountered with guns being openly carried? Don't most tuck them in the front of their pants without a holster?

As far as real wackos I've encountered, the only real one I've personally dealt with is a Mr. Paul Dennis Reid. Y'see, despite what the Metro-Davisdon count PD would have you believe, they didn't catch or arrest him. They came and picked him up out of our jail, after myself and 5 other officers arrested him for assaulting and trying to kidnap his ex-boss.

And although he wasn't armed at the time, all 6 of us did have various and sundry firearms pointed at him and the guy he had with him.

As for the other drunks and criminal-types, I don't think most even carried the weapon on 'em, unless it was in their hand at the time. Most often it was in a car console or stuck down between the seats when it was discovered. Only one or two were carrying in a holster, that i can remember.

I do not ever o/c nor do I believe it is the way to go normally for tactical and response reasons however I do believe that your statement about having your own weapon in hand before confronting the individual is a little dramatic and overboard.

*shrug* All I can tell you is work the night shift for a couple of years with your local PD or SO and see what you think after that. Yes, the circumstances will dictate the actions, but by and large, most officers will likely approach and armed suspect with their own weapon drawn. And even if they don't initially, you'd better believe it'll come out the second any hint non-compliance is detected.

Edited May 29, 2009 by Jamie

[Guest SomeGuy]

Jamie,

Save it from someone else having a doubt that you really were in danger before you took the action that you did, and deciding that it was your judgment, or lack of it, that escalated the situation to a deadly encounter.

If I determine my life is in danger I would be rather foolish to not defend myself for fear that someone down the road would disagree when they Monday Morning Quarterback.

it's your methodology in determining whether or not it should be used that's the issue

So, are you saying you disagree with me that having someone shove a gun into my back is a time that I should act to preserve my own life, or are you disputing my personal choice to forgo my pistol?

Nope, I'm saying that by open carry of a weapon we invite an abnormally high amount of scrutiny from people in general and law enforcement in particular, and that we have to expect some of that scrutiny to be carried out in an inappropriate or excessive manner by some people, due to the abnormality of the situation.

So if we exercise our rights, and harm no other persons while going about our affairs, we are at fault when we are attacked by some over-zealous government agent, and should expect to be treated poorly?

On rape, do you not see the parallel between a thug holding a woman at gun point and violating her rights and a government agent sticking a gun into your back and threatening your own very life? Both involve a violation of rights, a threat to life, and force being used on an innocent.

As to rogue cops, you don't see it as a problem for cops to walk up to a man minding his own business and attack him by sticking a gun in his back?

[Guest Jamie]

If I determine my life is in danger I would be rather foolish to not defend myself for fear that someone down the road would disagree when they Monday Morning Quarterback.

This is getting tiresome.

I have not said a person should not defend themselves. I've said they need to be absolutely sure that the situation really warrants their "defending" anything, and that they need to consider what the possible outcome is likely to be.

After all, we all have to worry about being judged after the fact. And although you may feel differently, I don't think very many people would like to spend time in prison, or the rest of their lives disabled, because they moved when they should have just stood still.

So, are you saying you disagree with me that having someone shove a gun into my back is a time that I should act to preserve my own life, or are you disputing my personal choice to forgo my pistol?

Once again, I'm questioning your choice of actions, and nothing more.

You seem to feel that being held at gun point by anyone for any reason is automatic justification to take some immediate physical action - grappling, shooting, etc. - when simply standing still might very well, under certain circumstances, prove to be the best option.

Sorry, but someone pointing a gun at me doesn't always qualify as an attack, in my opinion. It seems to in yours, however.

So if we exercise our rights, and harm no other persons while going about our affairs, we are at fault when we are attacked by some over-zealous government agent, and should expect to be treated poorly?

When we knowingly act outside of the accepted behavior of the group we're in, even if we're not doing anything wrong, then yes, I'm afraid that the responsibility ultimately falls on our own shoulders.

As for being being attacked, etc., well, the police are charged with and are obligated to look into any situation they encounter that may be a problem, such as a law being broken or something causing a disturbance. They aren't obligated to get themselves killed while doing it though. So, if the potential problem involves a weapon, then it's reasonable to expect them to take steps to avoid having that weapon used on or by anyone, until they find out exactly what's going on. And whether anybody like the idea or not, holding that person at gunpoint until they have either been disarmed or verified as not being a threat/problem is a very good way to accomplish that task. After all, action is faster than reaction, and most people aren't reincarnated versions of Bill Jordan, so usually find it near impossible to "beat the drop".

On rape, do you not see the parallel between a thug holding a woman at gun point and violating her rights and a government agent sticking a gun into your back and threatening your own very life? Both involve a violation of rights, a threat to life, and force being used on an innocent.

When's the last time you heard of a woman killing or maiming a whole bunch of people with her reproductive organs? Against their will, that is.

I don't think I've ever heard of any such thing. However, I can point to more than one instance of people doing those things with guns, however.

And if you don't see where that makes a difference, then I don't know what else to say.

As to rogue cops, you don't see it as a problem for cops to walk up to a man minding his own business and attack him by sticking a gun in his back?

Well, I've already said that I don't necessarily see holding a gun on someone as an attack, if there's a question of them being a threat.

As for "rogue cops", I kind'a think you view all cops as "rogue" in some way or the other, if the truth is told. And given that, I don't think anything I say is going to make the slightest bit of difference to you.

Edited May 29, 2009 by Jamie

[Falcon1]

Well, I've already said that I don't necessarily see holding a gun on someone as an attack, if there's a question of them being a threat.

I'm not trying to jump into the middle of this (but I guess I am--sorry ), but this caught my eye. If a citizen does this when not legally justified, isn't it normally called "assault with a deadly weapon?"

[Guest Jamie]

I'm not trying to jump into the middle of this (but I guess I am--sorry ), but this caught my eye. If a citizen does this when not legally justified, isn't it normally called "assault with a deadly weapon?"

Oh jump right in... the water's fine, if a little murky.

It's the "legally justified" that's the catch... LEOs have a little more latitude in some areas, as compared to the average citizen, but less in others.

How about this though... do you think you'd be convicted of using unjustified lethal force if you caught someone apparently armed, on your property at night, and held them at gun point until the police got there? Even if their weapon turned out to be a toy or fake? I can't speak for anywhere else, but I doubt a judge or jury around here ( my neck o' the woods ) would.

[Falcon1]

How about this though... do you think you'd be convicted of using unjustified lethal force if you caught someone apparently armed, on your property at night, and held them at gun point until the police got there? Even if their weapon turned out to be a toy or fake? I can't speak for anywhere else, but I doubt a judge or jury around here ( my neck o' the woods ) would.

Like most things, I think it would depend in large part upon the prosecutor....

[Guest Jamie]

Like most things, I think it would depend in large part upon the prosecutor....

Okay, now how about this one... Would you feel justified in doing it? ( Holding the person at gunpoint )

Would you consider just holding them as a valid definition of "attack", even though the potential for causing a death is there?

Edited May 30, 2009 by Jamie

[Falcon1]

Okay, now how about this one... Would you feel justified in doing it? ( Holding the person at gunpoint )

Would you consider just holding them as a valid definition of "attack", even though the potential for causing a death is there?

Sorry, I was distracted while making the initial answer. If I feel that they are threatening my life in the original instance, I would have already used my firearm to stop the threat. If they weren't and were running away, I'd be dialing 911, not making a citizen's arrest.

[Guest Jamie]

Sorry, I was distracted while making the initial answer. If I feel that they are threatening my life in the original instance, I would have already used my firearm to stop the threat. If they weren't and were running away, I'd be dialing 911, not making a citizen's arrest.

Well, remembering that you could make a citizen's arrest if you chose or needed to, go from there and answer my earlier question rather than dodging it. ;)

P.S. Yeah, I'm distracted too... It's Friday, all our work is finally done for the day, and I have a brand new bottle of Jim Beam.

[ngoeser59]

The thing these Restaurant owners/managers need to think about before posting a "no carry" sign after this bill becomes law is.....If they deny a patron to carry to defend themself in a state where it is legal but they deny you that right in their establishment....If a bad guy comes in and kills someone, that owner can be held responsible in a civil suit and most likely the patron or patron's family WILL WIN. This falls under Restaurant Liability to protect patrons from Assualts.They can be sued for ALOT of money and it will put them out of business and their Insurance Company will have to pay pay pay. So, if they insist on posting, they had better have a few armed guards there to protect people or they will end up losing their pants.

In order to recover your damages from the restaurant owner, you must be able to prove that:

1. The owner had a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect his/her patron from harm;

2. The owner failed to exercise reasonable care to protect his/her patron; and

3. The owner's failure to exercise reasonable care caused the resulting injuries/death.

[DaveTN]

The thing these Restaurant owners/managers need to think about before posting a "no carry" sign after this bill becomes law is.....If they deny a patron to carry to defend themself in a state where it is legal but they deny you that right in their establishment....If a bad guy comes in and kills someone, that owner can be held responsible in a civil suit and most likely the patron or patron's family WILL WIN. This falls under Restaurant Liability to protect patrons from Assualts.They can be sued for ALOT of money and it will put them out of business and their Insurance Company will have to pay pay pay. So, if they insist on posting, they had better have a few armed guards there to protect people or they will end up losing their pants.

In order to recover your damages from the restaurant owner, you must be able to prove that:

1. The owner had a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect his/her patron from harm;

2. The owner failed to exercise reasonable care to protect his/her patron; and

3. The owner's failure to exercise reasonable care caused the resulting injuries/death.

The civil suit argument you are making is exactly why you see those signs.

I don’t believe you would get anywhere in a law suit based on a sign.

When you see the sign you are not required to enter. If you choose to knowing that you can’t carry; you do so at your own risk.

The problem is that the business is probably going to get sued no matter what if there is a shooting in their business. They are most likely going to be the “Deep pockets†and the target of anyone wanting a payday.

Businesses need to be protected from civil suits just because a shooting took place at their business. But I doubt that will happen.

However… I am not a layer, don’t play one on TV and didn’t sleep at a Holiday Inn last night.

[Fallguy]

Not sure if there is anything different when it comes to restaurants, but the only case I know of where someone was able to recover damages from a property owner where something happened to that person was where there was a "known danger". McClung v. Delta Square - the WalMart Case

Unfortunately simpling posting a sign does not create a known danger...at least not legally.