SMALL - espritmodel.com SMALL - Telemetry SMALL - Radio
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Jun 08, 2012, 01:21 AM
Registered User
Scotland
Joined Sep 2009
66 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
So what?
So he started the chain of events that lead to his death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightme View Post


That depends upon how you view it. He discussed it with the employee, and with the manager, who appeared to agree when he stated his desire/intent to complete his shopping and leave.
So what happened between the employee informing him of the rules and the manager getting involved?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
No, it is irrelevant to any permit process.
Here is an idea. People who carry guns about should be aware of any limitations on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
No, that is not accurate. For ANY business owner to have someone leave their premises, trespass law is the rule. Once informed that the person must leave, then the person must leave, for whatever reason, or even for no reason.
No, that is not the case.
No, not at all. There is no legality to a statement of store policy. The legality comes up once trespass law standards are met.
Not sure why using the word "trespass" makes any difference. You seem to be agreeing with me here. The guy was informed of the rule. He didn't leave.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightme View Post

It should be abundantly clear to you what I would do, after you have read this response. But, here you go.

First, I would inform a person of a relevant store policy. If the person voluntarily left, it is done. If the person did not voluntarily leave, then I would inform them that they must leave the store under trespass law. If the person leaves at that point, it is done. If the person still did not leave, then the next action is to call law enforcement to have the trespasser removed and/or arrested.
So you would escalate the tension in the situation? Perhaps the employee isn't as brave as you? Think about it from his point of view. He has informed the armed man of the rules. The armed man has not left the store.
It is a difficult situation for the employee. Even using hindsight your solution still puts him in danger of an argument developing between him (unarmed) and the shopper (armed).
You haven't adressed my point about the responsibility involved when carrying. If I am driving a car and a pedestrian steps onto the road it is still my responsibility to use my brakes or take avoiding action. It doesn't matter if he was jaywalking.
mortato is offline Find More Posts by mortato
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 08, 2012, 02:21 AM
Trons and Fumes
wrightme's Avatar
Fallon, NV
Joined Mar 2007
5,038 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortato View Post
So he started the chain of events that lead to his death.
So, you subscribe to the chaos theory of cause/effect.
Erik is not responsible for the hoplophobic overreaction of the CostCo employee.
as he responsible for the 'active shooter' response by law enforcement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortato
So what happened between the employee informing him of the rules and the manager getting involved?
I am not sure what transpired in that time. Unless he was told to leave the premises, it is really not that relevant, is it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mortato
Here is an idea. People who carry guns about should be aware of any limitations on this. Not sure why using the word "trespass" makes any difference. You seem to be agreeing with me here. The guy was informed of the rule. He didn't leave.
Trespass is a crime. THAT is what makes the difference. Otherwise, it is a request, not a demand.
The responsibility is to know the laws, not every last hoplophobic business owner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortato
So you would escalate the tension in the situation?
"Escalate the tension?" I am not sure I am following your line of reasoning here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortato
Perhaps the employee isn't as brave as you? Think about it from his point of view. He has informed the armed man of the rules. The armed man has not left the store.
First, he is a customer who is shopping. The fact that he is armed doesn't change that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortato
It is a difficult situation for the employee. Even using hindsight your solution still puts him in danger of an argument developing between him (unarmed) and the shopper (armed).
What? Why do you feel that is a difficulty?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mortato
You haven't adressed my point about the responsibility involved when carrying. If I am driving a car and a pedestrian steps onto the road it is still my responsibility to use my brakes or take avoiding action. It doesn't matter if he was jaywalking.
And? Do you have a relevant point? You seem to feel there is something that is being missed, yet I am not positive what you are attempting to talk around. The bare fact of carrying a firearm does not turn an otherwise normal citizen into something else. He is still that citizen, no matter how difficult it seems for you to grasp this. He is just a citizen who has chosen to be armed during the course of his day.
wrightme is offline Find More Posts by wrightme
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 08, 2012, 02:52 AM
Now fortified with carbon
DLGjunkyard's Avatar
Canada, ON, Puslinch
Joined Apr 2010
2,756 Posts
Like most things,there is more to this story. Im betting its not the first time Erik was in this store.
In the end,there is one more gun off the street
DLGjunkyard is offline Find More Posts by DLGjunkyard
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 08, 2012, 07:51 AM
Registered User
Scotland
Joined Sep 2009
66 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
So, you subscribe to the chaos theory of cause/effect.
Not chaos theory. Predictable chain of events. Someone with a gun. Someone asking the person to leave the premises. Person with gun does not leave the premises. - Next step, police get involved.
No butterfly's flapping wings causing hurricanes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
Erik is not responsible for the hoplophobic overreaction of the CostCo employee.
as he responsible for the 'active shooter' response by law enforcement.
I am not sure what transpired in that time. Unless he was told to leave the premises, it is really not that relevant, is it.

Trespass is a crime. THAT is what makes the difference. Otherwise, it is a request, not a demand.
The responsibility is to know the laws, not every last hoplophobic business owner.
"Escalate the tension?" I am not sure I am following your line of reasoning here.
First, he is a customer who is shopping. The fact that he is armed doesn't change that.
What? Why do you feel that is a difficulty?

And? Do you have a relevant point? You seem to feel there is something that is being missed, yet I am not positive what you are attempting to talk around. The bare fact of carrying a firearm does not turn an otherwise normal citizen into something else. He is still that citizen, no matter how difficult it seems for you to grasp this. He is just a citizen who has chosen to be armed during the course of his day.
Where did I say he was not a citizen? Where did I imply he was not a citizen. I have no idea where you get the idea that I am having difficulty grasping that they guy was a citizen. I have no idea where you are getting the idea that I am having difficulty grasping anything about this situation.
What I have not been attempting to talk around but straightforwardly pointing out is that the guy with the gun has a responsibility. I am pointing out that rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. I'm not sure why you think this would make someone "less of a citizen"?
Do you feel that being a citizen requires rights without responsibilities?
mortato is offline Find More Posts by mortato
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 08, 2012, 08:00 AM
Registered User
Scotland
Joined Sep 2009
66 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
"Escalate the tension?" I am not sure I am following your line of reasoning here.
Normally people don't like being told what to do. They feel that this makes them inferior to the person telling them what to do. It all boils down to reproduction chances and the propogation of an individuals genes.
A request is often seen as less of a direct challenge.
One person being armed and the other person being unarmed may be seen as an inequality of available power at that particular instant. The unarmed person may well wish to avoid challenging the armed person due to the small chance the armed person may make use of the gun to shoot them.
So the unarmed person might choose to inform the armed person that they are breaking a particular rule rather than order the armed person to stop breaking the rule in the hope that this would be taken as friendly advice rather than a direct confrontation.
mortato is offline Find More Posts by mortato
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 08, 2012, 09:06 AM
Trons and Fumes
wrightme's Avatar
Fallon, NV
Joined Mar 2007
5,038 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortato View Post
Not chaos theory. Predictable chain of events. Someone with a gun. Someone asking the person to leave the premises. Person with gun does not leave the premises. - Next step, police get involved.
No butterfly's flapping wings causing hurricanes.
No, it was an unpredictable chain of events. Erik had no way of knowing that his desire to finish his shopping was ending in an armed encounter with police.
Maybe that is a logically expected sequence of events in Scotland, but not in Nevada. In Nevada, the logically expected sequence of events for Erik Scott would have been 'finish selecting product, go pay that checkout, go home.' It happens like that every day in Nevada, armed openly or concealed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mortato
Where did I say he was not a citizen? Where did I imply he was not a citizen. I have no idea where you get the idea that I am having difficulty grasping that they guy was a citizen. I have no idea where you are getting the idea that I am having difficulty grasping anything about this situation.
I am positive you knew he was a citizen. What I am attempting to ferret out is why you feel that being armed somehow alters that.
And, what I feel that you are failing to grasp about this situation is that getting shot by Law Enforcement isn't a logical conclusion to a shopping trip to CostCo, whether armed or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mortato
What I have not been attempting to talk around but straightforwardly pointing out is that the guy with the gun has a responsibility. I am pointing out that rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. I'm not sure why you think this would make someone "less of a citizen"?
Declaring it to be such does not explain your meaning.
According to you, when armed, he should hold to a different standard than when unarmed. WHY do you hold that belief? WHAT is it that has changed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mortato
Do you feel that being a citizen requires rights without responsibilities?
I have not articulated that position. It seems you have a different understanding of what that means, and have chosen to not articulate it.
wrightme is offline Find More Posts by wrightme
Last edited by wrightme; Jun 08, 2012 at 09:31 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 08, 2012, 09:09 AM
Trons and Fumes
wrightme's Avatar
Fallon, NV
Joined Mar 2007
5,038 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortato View Post
Normally people don't like being told what to do. They feel that this makes them inferior to the person telling them what to do. It all boils down to reproduction chances and the propogation of an individuals genes.
A request is often seen as less of a direct challenge.
No kidding. But, that IS how trespass law works in many states; including in Nevada.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mortato
One person being armed and the other person being unarmed may be seen as an inequality of available power at that particular instant. The unarmed person may well wish to avoid challenging the armed person due to the small chance the armed person may make use of the gun to shoot them.
So that is it? To you, the mere fact that someone else is armed means that they might shoot you?

Besides, IIRC, the Loss prevention employee was armed, wasn't he?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mortato
So the unarmed person might choose to inform the armed person that they are breaking a particular rule rather than order the armed person to stop breaking the rule in the hope that this would be taken as friendly advice rather than a direct confrontation.
Sure they might. And under trespass law, that has no legal standing, and no subsequent reason for calling the cops. Once TOLD to leave and failing, LE can be called to have the person removed. 'Asking' doesn't fit the statutory requirement for the le removal.
wrightme is offline Find More Posts by wrightme
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 08, 2012, 10:12 AM
Registered User
Scotland
Joined Sep 2009
66 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
No, it was an unpredictable chain of events. Erik had no way of knowing that his desire to finish his shopping was ending in an armed encounter with police.
Maybe that is a logically expected sequence of events in Scotland, but not in Nevada. In Nevada, the logically expected sequence of events for Erik Scott would have been 'finish selecting product, go pay that checkout, go home.' It happens like that every day in Nevada, armed openly or concealed.
Since it is doubtful that someone would have a concealed carry permit in Scotland then the sequence of events wouldn't have the same start point. Which makes comparison a bit pointless. A bit like a 20 year old Scotsman being told he isn't old enough to purchase alcohol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
I am positive you knew he was a citizen. What I am attempting to ferret out is why you feel that being armed somehow alters that.
A citizen + responsibility (even increased responsibility) does not mean less of a citizen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
And, what I feel that you are failing to grasp about this situation is that getting shot by Law Enforcement isn't a logical conclusion to a shopping trip to CostCo, whether armed or not.
The shop worker didn't shoot anyone. I haven't touched upon the actions of the police. I certainly wouldn't try to defend them if indeed the called out contradictory instructions then shot someone when they were unable to comply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightme View Post

Declaring it to be such does not explain your meaning.
According to you, when armed, he should hold to a different standard than when unarmed. WHY do you hold that belief? WHAT is it that has changed?
When I am driving a vehicle I am more responsible for my actions than when I am not driving a vehicle. This is due to my increased ability to damage others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightme View Post

I have not articulated that position. It seems you have a different understanding of what that means, and have chosen to not articulate it.
My position as above.
mortato is offline Find More Posts by mortato
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 08, 2012, 10:17 AM
Registered User
Scotland
Joined Sep 2009
66 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
No kidding. But, that IS how trespass law works in many states; including in Nevada.
Might be time for a re-write.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
So that is it? To you, the mere fact that someone else is armed means that they might shoot you?
There is more chance of them shooting you if they are armed wouldn't you say?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightme View Post

Besides, IIRC, the Loss prevention employee was armed, wasn't he?
Was he? I didn't know that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightme View Post

Sure they might. And under trespass law, that has no legal standing, and no subsequent reason for calling the cops. Once TOLD to leave and failing, LE can be called to have the person removed. 'Asking' doesn't fit the statutory requirement for the le removal.
That's a pity. Then again I can see the other side. Clarity or politeness. Legal terms must of course favour clarity. I still don't see why the guy didn't just leave when asked though.
mortato is offline Find More Posts by mortato
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 08, 2012, 10:18 AM
Registered User
Scotland
Joined Sep 2009
66 Posts
Wrightme, what would you do if asked to leave a store for a reason you disagreed with?
mortato is offline Find More Posts by mortato
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 08, 2012, 11:48 AM
Trons and Fumes
wrightme's Avatar
Fallon, NV
Joined Mar 2007
5,038 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortato View Post
Since it is doubtful that someone would have a concealed carry permit in Scotland then the sequence of events wouldn't have the same start point. Which makes comparison a bit pointless. A bit like a 20 year old Scotsman being told he isn't old enough to purchase alcohol.
So, what do you base your likely outcome comment upon?
If it isn't common to happen like that in Scotland, and it isn't expected to happen like that in Nevada, then where is the basis for you claim?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortato
A citizen + responsibility (even increased responsibility) does not mean less of a citizen. The shop worker didn't shoot anyone. I haven't touched upon the actions of the police. I certainly wouldn't try to defend them if indeed the called out contradictory instructions then shot someone when they were unable to comply.When I am driving a vehicle I am more responsible for my actions than when I am not driving a vehicle. This is due to my increased ability to damage others.
I can agree that the responsibility when armed is increased, but only where the firearm is concerned. As example, when armed, the citizen is responsible to handle the firearm in a safe manner, and not use it unlawfully. You seem to feel it places a greater burden upon other actions, and this is what I am attempting to have you actually articulate.

The shop worker didn't shoot anyone, and neither did Erik. AFAIK, he never made reference to being armed, other than in confirming it to the shop worker. He wasn't mishandling the firearm, he wasn't threatening people with it. He was shopping until the employee approached him. THAT is what actually set the subsequent events into motion, the employee.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mortato
My position as above.
Your position as above does not translate to your earlier claim.
When driving a vehicle, you assume responsibility for how you handle that vehicle. So does someone with a firearm, in how they handle that firearm.
wrightme is offline Find More Posts by wrightme
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 08, 2012, 11:51 AM
All under control, Grommit!
leccyflyer's Avatar
United Kingdom, Aberdeen
Joined Sep 2000
12,650 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortato View Post
Wrightme, what would you do if asked to leave a store for a reason you disagreed with?
Appeal?
leccyflyer is offline Find More Posts by leccyflyer
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 08, 2012, 11:52 AM
Trons and Fumes
wrightme's Avatar
Fallon, NV
Joined Mar 2007
5,038 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortato View Post
Might be time for a re-write.
Why would you say that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortato
There is more chance of them shooting you if they are armed wouldn't you say?
As much as there is more chance of you running into someone if you are driving a vehicle.
It is the person's actions that create a threat, not the tools they have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by -mortato
I still don't see why the guy didn't just leave when asked though.
He desired to complete his shopping, and the manager had appeared to agree. I still don't see why you don't differentiate between 'ask' and 'tell,' as trespass law specifies. As for 'clarity and politeness,' it is entirely possible to be polite while at the same time, not acquiescing to a request to leave a business. Depending upon the totality, asking questions of the business owner to determine if there is a 'middle ground' that is agreeable to both parties is reasonable. But, once told to leave, trespass law is in full force, and conversations are no longer of use.

Here is the thing, trespass law is clear, once told to leave, failure to do so is a crime. Prior to being told to leave, as far as I am concerned, it is still a negotiable subject with the business owner. Once told to leave, ANY action such as continues discussion or confrontation is very likely to result in getting arrested.
wrightme is offline Find More Posts by wrightme
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 08, 2012, 01:24 PM
Build/Fly/Crash/Repeat
United States, HI, Kapalua
Joined Jan 2002
1,200 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by leccyflyer View Post
Appeal?
+1. I'm guessing that would involve writing endless pedantic appeals, discussing the difference between being politely asked to leave and being told to get out.

The guy was wrong and he's now dead. But he was right!
CoastalFlyer is offline Find More Posts by CoastalFlyer
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 08, 2012, 01:45 PM
Now fortified with carbon
DLGjunkyard's Avatar
Canada, ON, Puslinch
Joined Apr 2010
2,756 Posts
LOL dead right
DLGjunkyard is offline Find More Posts by DLGjunkyard
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Question Who's going to be on the 3D flight line at Nall? wrjames38 3D Flying 8 May 07, 2012 02:19 AM
Discussion Who's REALLY Qualified to be Our LEADER ? Chophop Life, The Universe, and Politics 113 Feb 29, 2012 07:43 PM
Who should be the next AMA president? J_R AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics) 7 May 24, 2004 08:14 PM
Who should be add into GWS dealers list? GWS4CEO GWS (Grand Wing Servo) 19 Jul 04, 2003 07:01 PM