First day of the new Georgia Safe(?) Carry Protection Act
At approximately 3 p.m. Tuesday, police responded to a call regarding a customer dispute at the Enmark on the corner of Park Avenue and North Lee Street.Who could have predicted?
A man carrying a holstered firearm entered the store to make a purchase. Another customer, also with a holstered firearm, approached him and demanded to see his identification and firearms license, according to the Valdosta Police Department report.
The customer making demands for ID pulled his firearm from its holster but never pointed it at the other customer, who said he was not obligated to show any permits or identification.
Since this seems to have taken place in a place that it was legal to carry before the recent legislation took effect, I'm not seeing how you can suggest its anything more than coincidence.
ReplyDelete"The customer making demands for ID pulled his firearm from its holster but never pointed it at the other customer, who said he was not obligated to show any permits or identification.
He demanded the man’s ID again. Undeterred by the drawn gun, the man paid for his items, left the store and called
for police."
And as you can see, the situation was defused by the law abiding permit holder who didn't overreact as often suggested by some and he called the police. Jade, for some reason, I didn't see a ling for this story, so here is a pretty good source for it.
http://www.valdostadailytimes.com/local/x1736693874/First-day-of-new-gun-law-leads-to-arrest
The link is there in the first line.
DeleteWhy try to downplay the incident? You act as if everything was just hunky-dory despite the fact two gunloons got into senseless altercation and one actually drew his weapon in an attempt to intimidate.
Plain fact is this will happen more frequently and will--in some instances--turn out very badly. All because of gunloon small penis syndrome.
Yeah, ss, you were so impressed with the one guy that you completely ignored the aggressive actions of the other one. The one guy was an idiot for open carrying, the other was an idiot for accosting him about it.
DeleteMy apologies about the link Jade, it IS there, but for some reason only the first letter of the link is colored the way the link usually is. Bad on me.
ReplyDelete"You act as if everything was just hunky-dory despite the fact two gunloons got into senseless altercation and one actually drew his weapon in an attempt to intimidate."
Actually Jade, only one person got into a sensless confrontation and threatened a permit holder who didn't escalate the situation, but called the police to handle it. The person who demanded to see the permit is also the one who drew his weapon, the other permit holder pretty much seems to have ignored him, paid for his stuff and called police.
If the person hadn't been carrying at all you certainly wouldn't have suggested that the unarmed person had taken part in a senseless altercation.
Does it really matter if just one person initiated the confrontation? The fat remains there were two armed people and at least one was behaving badly. In such cases, the risk of the situation escalating was high. And given the fact that both were armed raised the potential consequences exponentially.
ReplyDeleteSure, if the folks weren't carrying the consequences would be lower. At worst, a fat lip or a black eye.
"Does it really matter if just one person initiated the confrontation?"
DeleteIt does, the permit holder accosted did absolutely nothing wrong. He acted calmly and rationally, and contacted the police. He deserves no blame at all.
What do you think would happen it the person arrested had accosted an off-duty police officer? I'm betting that the aggressive permit holder would have gotten shot when he drew. And then you would have been placing no blame on the officer who shot him.
However, even when a permit holder does nothing wrong, he somehow gets a portion of the blame for something he had no control over. His behavior in the face of such aggressive behavior was quite admirable.
Again, you choose to ignore there was one party behaving badly. What if the one guy decided to point his weapon or otherwise escalate the situation?
DeleteYou focus on one guy electing to ignore the provocation but completely ignore the one unholstering his weapon.
"Again, you choose to ignore there was one party behaving badly."
ReplyDeleteI didn't ignore it Jade. I never disagreed that one person was acting criminally and was in fact arrested. The man who was acting aggressively is fortunate that he was safely arrested. As I said earlier, it could have ended much worse.
"You act as if everything was just hunky-dory despite the fact two gunloons got into senseless altercation and one actually drew his weapon in an attempt to intimidate."
You imply that just being somewhere and engaging in lawful behavior somehow makes it his fault that someone took it upon themselves to play policeman.
And this seems to have absolutely nothing to do with the recent legislation. It certainly doesn't seem to have taken place in any of the places added as places permitted through this recent legislation.
Actually, ss, in your first comment you omitted it completely and only after repeated bashings by Jadegold did you admit it.
DeleteBadges, we don't need no stinking badges.
ReplyDeleteAs usual, the gunsucks ignore the bad behavior, and focus only on the law enforcement at the end. The issue is that the guns make every situation into a much more serious one. When a gun is involved, you cannot simply have a disagreement, which has happened to everyone from time to time. With a gun, a disagreement goes from unpleasant to lethal in the pull of a trigger. That is unacceptable.
ReplyDelete