Saturday, August 31, 2013

Florida Woman Shot at Starbucks by Friend who Forgot Gun Was in her Purse

Police say a loaded handgun in a Florida woman’s purse accidentally discharged when she dropped it in a St. Petersberg’s Starbucks on Saturday. The bullet from 51-year-old Pamela Beck’s gun struck her friend, 38-year-old Amie Peterson, above the knee. The wound was not serious and Peterson was released from the hospital late Saturday night.
Beck, who does not have a concealed weapons permit, told police that the gold-plated .25 caliber semi-automatic pistol had been given to her by her father a year ago, for protection, and that she had forgotten that she placed the gun in a spare purse. Before leaving for the Tyrone Square Mall in which the Starbucks was located, she switched purses to the spare one.
St. Petersburg Police spokesman Mike Puetz said that her purse “hit the ground hard” and the gun fired.
Police consider the shooting accidental, but have referred the case to the Pinellas County State Attorney’s Office because Beck lacked a concealed carry permit. Prosecutors are still deciding whether to press charges.

36 comments:

  1. Mike,

    This happened back in May. The woman had no carry permit and had forgotten the gun was in her purse. This would mean that Starbucks' policy to allow firearm carry in accordance with local laws had no bearing in this case. For some reason your linked source didn't mention that this was old news.
    We've discussed it before and even Baldr had it on his funky Starbucks shooting list.
    http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/316244/8/Woman-accidentally-shoots-friend-at-Starbucks-inside-Tyrone-Square-Mall

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It still counts. The presence of guns ensures that incidents like this will happen. The more guns the more problems with guns. It's that simple.

      Delete
    2. Ah, so an incident that would have happened, regardless of the policy, is the fault of the policy.

      Makes sense.

      Delete
    3. Well, if Starbucks strictly prohibited guns and posted signs to that effect, this woman might have thought to check her purse.

      So, yeah, the policy is at fault as well as the stupid irresponsible gun owner.

      Delete
    4. That's a whole lot of speculation there, Mikeb. She forgot she had it, but she'd check to see if she happened to have it? Especially since this is someone who doesn't have a carry license and so likely doesn't think about carrying much.

      You cling to the idea that more guns will of necessity cause more problems, but there are more guns in more hands right now, and we aren't seeing some upswing in violence or accidents.

      Delete
    5. Ah, so IF they posted it, and IF she saw the posting, and IF she read it and thought about it, she Might have thought of the gun that she doesn't carry and didn't think she was carrying.

      Right.

      While your scenario is not impossible, it's so unlikely that any placement of responsibility on the store for not reminding this woman not to break the law (indirectly since the signs would actually be intended to keep out lawfully armed folks) is laughably tenuous.

      Delete
    6. It's a bad policy. It encourages the same lackadaisical attitudes that account for all the guns in airports. You gun owners need all the help you can get to be responsible.

      Delete
    7. To bad for you, Mikeb, that the trend is in our direction.

      Delete
    8. Mike,

      Frankly, that comment doesn't even make sense. Care to elaborate on the thought process there regarding Airports, etc.?

      Delete
    9. I'm afraid you're right, Greg. Gun owners are becoming ever more irresponsible. T., is pretending to not understand what I meant about the airports, in his usual tiresome way just to make the argument as tedious as possible. But, obviously, the general nonchalance about gun safety combined with the lack of consequences is moving us in a bad direction. Starbucks isn't helping with it's wrong-headed policy.

      Delete
    10. The trend is in the direction of gun rights, which is why your side resorts to personal attacks, rejection of data, and emotional hyperbole.

      Delete
    11. Actually, Mike, my question was because airports have signs telling people that firearms are not allowed--the signs you say Starbucks needs to have so that people like this woman will realize they're carrying illegally.

      That's why I didn't see a connection between Starbucks' permissive policy with legal carriers and the non-permissive policy at airports. I could have guessed as to what your argument was, but I was trying to avoid accusing you of holding a position you didn't hold. That's why I asked you what your argument was.

      Delete
  2. The NRA sock puppets have been wrong about so many things.
    I wonder if she said she forgot the gun was in her purse to try and evade the charge of carrying without a permit. It would be so unusual for someone who broke the law to give the police a story that might curtail punishment. I'll bet she thought that since Starbucks allows carrying guns no one would question that she had a permit to carry the gun. Who is going to ask to see a carry permit in a place that allows carry?
    No need for an example of a gun carrier accidentally catching their gun on a corner of a counter; all that was needed, was a woman dropping her purse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course she may be lying. That doesn't change the fact that she was illegally carrying and that the store policy doesn't cover her.

      Delete
    2. Jim's idea is a good one, and it supports my idea that Starbuck's policy is a bad one that encourages misbehavior with guns.

      Delete
    3. He suggested that she might be lying in an unsuccessful bid to get out of prosecution. What's so great about that suggestion?

      Or are you talking about his concept that people are likely to get away with carrying illegally because nobody will check if they have a permit or not. I fail to see how that has any bearing on this case since nobody would have seen this gun in her purse and asked to see a permit anyway.

      Delete
    4. Keep playing dumb, T. It becomes you.

      Delete
    5. Tennessean isn't playing dumb. He's stating facts and reasonable assessments.

      Delete
  3. If I was the woman who got shot, I'd be suing my negligent friend and Starbucks.
    If Starbucks allows those who have permits to carry, bring in their guns; do they have a responsibility to know who has a gun (metal detectors) and if the person has a gun, do they have a permit to carry that gun?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And you're an illustration of what's wrong with the thinking of many regarding liability law. Starbucks didn't give her permission to have an illegal gun. And Starbucks isn't at fault for allowing people to follow the law. But you gun control freaks are notorious for your ideas about distributed responsibility.

      Delete
  4. Starbucks took on the responsibility of determining who is, or is not a legal carrier, when they decided to allow legal carriers. How do they know you are a legal carrier unless they check? You gun loons don't want to take responsibility for anything, even verifying if the law is being followed, or not. .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, by that logic they are taking on the responsibility of determining who is a legal driver and who isn't by letting legal drivers park in their parking lot. Get ready for DL checks and breathalizers from baristas.

      Delete
    2. When all else fails, refer to a car comparison.

      Delete
    3. Mike,

      Lay off the comments about car comparisons. Your objections don't make sense here. Steve was suggesting that by allowing people with one government permit to enter their property, Starbucks is taking on the responsibility to check for such permits and check the validity of them.

      It makes sense to apply similar rules to any other permits.

      Delete
    4. No, we're talking about guns and gun permits not about fucking cars. That comparison doesn't make sense.

      Delete
    5. Actually, we were talking about the interaction of Tort Law--specifically the duties owed to an invitee--and the effects on these duties when they intersect with government issued licenses and permits and with the actions of third parties who are also invitees. It's a more abstract concept that forms a framework which we apply consistently to guns, cars, and anything else.

      Sorry that you couldn't pick that up when you joined the conversation.

      Delete
  5. Not at all. If you check your parking ticket there will be disclaimers that prohibit liability.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, so all you need is a disclaimer? Might be useful since some like Baldr seem to blame companies for what happens outside their store.

      Delete
    2. 1: So they just need to put a disclaimer on the door saying that they're not liable for the actions of anybody with a gun?

      2: What about all the franchises that don't supply parking tickets? I don't know where you live, but I've never been to a Starbucks with a system like that.

      Delete
  6. And I thought you were a legal guy. Your comment shoots that down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Starbucks assumes no responsibility by simply refusing to bow to your wishes. Corporate policy is to follow the law of the states where they operate. Most states allow concealed carry by good citizens.

      Delete
    2. It's not even worth trying to teach him, Greg. Either he knows that and is pretending it's not the case, or he is so hopelessly deluded that he believes his own version of the law that he's put forth here.

      Delete
  7. Any moron who goes to Starbucks is an idiot. That crappy "vente" pretention is laughable. I won't go there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And that's why they don't give a crap about your opinion--you aren't a customer and never will be one--so they're not going to change their policy for you.

      Sorry!

      Delete
    2. Agreed, they're like penguins following one another into the trendy cool place.

      Delete
  8. I just have two things,
    One: if your state requires a permit to carry, GET ONE!

    Two, proper holster! Heck, for the ladies there are purses specifically designed to "holster" the gun in it.

    If her dad gave her the gun for protection then he should have given her education about it too. Storing it in a spare purse is a bad idea if you need to get to it for such protection.

    And he gave her to wrong gun, according to the story this gun seems to be not "drop safe", which seems to me kinda weird because modern day guns are. Unless this is a really old gun or she had so much crap in the purse that tangled with the gun (remember proper holster?) then I don't see how she forgot it was in there especially since she was changing purses.

    Well this story just seems weird to me anyway, just saying.

    ReplyDelete