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?
No free popcorn for life?
Hope I never have to find out!
|
|
Carry concealed and no one will know if you don’t shoot anyone.
If there was a corporate policy against weapons in the theater, the company could sue Holmes in civil court, I suppose.
And maybe the families of the victims could sue the corporation for leaving them unarmed and defenseless. Which they will probably do anyway.
The reason I ask is because:
1) This is the root of about 400 lawsuits currently being prepared against the corporation owning the Aurora theater where the massacre took place;
and
2) I’d reckon a staggering number of carry permit holders across America are now carrying when they go to theaters, and damn the signs.
So it seems a fairly relevant question...
Yes, carry well concealed anywhere that doesn’t have metal detectors and the only way anyone will ever know you’re carrying is if you use it to save a life.
Shooting someone while in commission of a crime (such as trespass) strips the legal shield of self defense. Not only can the theater sue you for damages, but so can the perp’s family (assuming you put the damn dog down..) as well as any patron present.
So, yeah, you'd likely end up in handcuffs and in the back of a cruiser if you had been there and successfully defended all those people. And it probably would have been just reported as a sudden fire when someone opened up the perp’s door (with possibly a theory of there being a meth lab in the apartment..)
And no free Milk Duds for life, too!
Unfortunately, I believe that s/he would be arrested if in a “weapons-free” zone because he or she would have violated the premise’s restriction of “no weapons permitted”. And given today’s hatred for real knights in shining armor (NO offense whatever meant) - and by that I mean real men - the would-be defender of life would probably be given a bit of time to serve to think about and reconsider his actions of life-saving heroism.
Sad.
Pathetic.
God bless and comfort those in their time of need.
There is no Colorado law against carrying there. If they saw you carrying they could ask you to leave and call the cops and charge you with trespass if you refused to leave. I live in Colorado and take the “leave if asked” approach, but no one ever noticed my CCW. If I had been there I would have been carrying or I would have complied when asked to leave. Federal buildings, courthouses with metal detectors and airports past the security checkpoints are exceptions.
In Colorado it’s basically an infraction, as long as you’re not up to no good. There are enhancements that can make it a misdemeanor or a felony based on your own otherwise scandalous behavior.
18-4-504 Third Degree Criminal Trespass
(1) A person commits the crime of third degree criminal trespass if such person unlawfully enters or remains in or upon premises of another.
There’s probably civil liability apart from the criminal sactoin as well.
Not sure that would change the ROE’s though. Have to think on that one.
Which would put this interpretation on denial of rights up under intense public scrutiny, if many lives were saved that otherwise would have been lost.
Because the "permission" would have consisted of a business transaction that accepted money and gave an implied agreement of protection that was not provided by the corporation. While signs were up barring weapons, no sign or notice existed that the corporation would not provide protection against murderous intent or other criminal acts while simultaniously denying 2A rights to it's paying patrons.
The extreme imbalance of such an agreement, when one side directly profited financially, would create an intense examination of contract limits compared to natural rights in quasi-public business environments - where civilians known to be unskilled in self-defense and stripped of weapons were exposed to a reasonable possibility of lethal danger, and a balance of protective power was specifically not provided by the corporate party.
And if that lethal danger possibility was not formerly considered to be reasonable in theaters, it sure as hell is now.
Have a good lawyer first. If you have to use it be prepared to be charged with ‘something’.
According to my Colorado CCW instructor...
One may carry concealed in all except four places:
Government buildings.
Public Schools.
Places that have stationary metal detecting devices.
Places that have non-stationary metal detecting devices.
If CCW is not allowed, they must make it VERY clear at all entry points.
If they do not, they can ask you to leave.
If you do not, THEN, they can charge you with trespassing.
Private business rules do not trump state law.
In Texas you will lose your CCW if you enter a posted establishment (and get caught). I never do business in a store that posts. They don’t need my money. However Jorge Zimmerman is finding out what will happen to you when the King’s justice dept gets involved. Good thing in Texas most places don’t post signs. Good pro-gun culture.
A firefight inside an auditorium isn’t going to solve the problem. If anything, twice the number of casualties would have arisen from rounds penetrating the walls into the adjacent theaters, while perhaps half the number caused directly by the criminal.
The armed might feel more secure and in control, but not necessarily preventing less casualties. Those with more sane minds are more likely to control the results, if they are armed.
There’s ALWAYS Raisinettes!
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.
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).
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.