Churchgoer kills churchgoer over 'saved seats' scuffle

[bhsmte]

If that were ACTUALLY the case, then what is the benefit of flash/threatenning to flash a gun at them? Geez.....

I would imagine, the dude that needed to flash a carry permit and pull a gun and shoot in this circumstance, could be suffering from a form of mental illness himself.

 

[rambot]

I would imagine, the dude that needed to flash a carry permit and pull a gun and shoot in this circumstance, could be suffering from a form of mental illness himself.

Being unable to handle conflict isn't necessarily a mental illness...even being quick to anger isn't one... neither is being stupid.

I'd be inclined that this dude had at LEAST those three going on. Good thing he had a gun. ;-)

 

[rambot]

Flashing a concealed carry permit like an FBI badge is ridiculous anyway. May as well flash your drivers' license.

Literally actually given the "cars kill more people than guns" mantra we hear so often.

 

[ewq1938]

I agree. The guy was not right in thinking he could fight over a seat in church.

However, the other guy is a bit more dangerous in that he seems to think himself some sort of vigilante that can take the law into his own hands. He seems to think that because he has a gun, the debate is over. Comply and you won't be shot.

He had no such right. You don't pull out a gun to settle a difference with someone. Especially not over a seat in a church pew.

He pulled the gun out of self defense. Had the other man not been physically violent there would never have been a shooting.

You don't pull out a gun to settle a difference with someone.

He didn't pull out his gun because of that. Read the accounts of what happened. He was being physically threatened, that's the only reason he took out his gun and even with the gun out that other man STILL decided he was going to physically assault Storm. A man can be beaten to death just using your bare hands so Storm was within his rights to shoot in defense. Let's pray the court rules in his favor and upholds self defense.

 

[rambot]

He pulled the gun out of self defense. Had the other man not been physically violent there would never have been a shooting.
He didn't pull out his gun because of that. Read the accounts of what happened. He was being physically threatened, that's the only reason he took out his gun and even with the gun out that other man STILL decided he was going to physically assault Storm. A man can be beaten to death just using your bare hands so Storm was within his rights to shoot in defense. Let's pray the court rules in his favor and upholds self defense.

This whole story is a sad, sad example of the bible verse that Jesus never really taught: "If someone is up in your grill, poppacap". That it happened in a church is stunning to me. That it is being excused by christians, well, forget that nonsense.

 

[Murby]

He pulled the gun out of self defense. Had the other man not been physically violent there would never have been a shooting.

This is wrong. He put himself into that position BECAUSE he had a weapon.. CPL holders are NOT supposed to do that..

He didn't pull out his gun because of that. Read the accounts of what happened. He was being physically threatened, that's the only reason he took out his gun and even with the gun out that other man STILL decided he was going to physically assault Storm.

The guy with the gun decided to play "authority".. he even let the other guy know he had a gun.. CPL holders are not supposed to do that.. They are not supposed to inject themselves into situations just because they have a weapon and they are NEVER supposed to let anyone know they have a weapon until their life is in danger. HINT: Its called a "concealed pistol permit" for a reason.... They don't call it an "out of sight permit".. or a "pocket permit"..

There's a line in the sand here that all CPL holders must understand.. The first rule (does have exceptions) is that the gun is there to protect you, not other people. Having a CPL license does not give you the authority to inject yourself into other people's arguments and use your weapon as intimidation.. (yes, telling someone you're armed is most certainly intimidation).. Intimidating someone by warning them you have a gun is against the law. The legal term is "Brandishing" and while its defined differently in different areas of the USA, its all the same basic thing.. "Do as I say because I have a weapon".. You're going straight to jail.. do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Now here is one of the exceptions.. If you see another person being physically harmed or being beaten up or threatened with harm, a CPL holder can choose to come to the victims defense if the CPL holder honestly believes the victims life is in immediate danger. The fact is, most smart CPL holders won't even do that.. none of their business, just walk away.. But, in such a case, if the CPL holder did choose to come to the victim's defense and the incident resulted in the CPL holder shooting the attacker, they would mostly be in the clear legally..

If you are a CPL holder, in a bank doing your daily business and a guy with a gun comes into the bank and tells everyone to get on the floor while he has the cashier fill his bags with money, the CPL holder would be wise to keep their weapon ready but to NOT interfere until the bank robber actually points their weapon in the CPL holder's direction or in some other way threatens the CPL holder..

As a CPL holder, YOU ARE NOT A COP.. it is not your right, not your duty, and not your obligation to be the defender of others just because you have a weapon.

Storm was within his rights to shoot in defense. Let's pray the court rules in his favor and upholds self defense.

No he was not. Storm put himself into that situation intentionally.. He used the threat of possessing a weapon to intimidate the other guy.
Storm is going to prison.. probably for 5 to 10 years for voluntary manslaughter or some other charge less than murder.

People don't understand the huge responsibility that carrying a weapon brings.... This is why all CPL holders are required to have special classes that deal with the laws.. one of the things those classes emphasize is that you don't get to play COP just because you can.. its against the law and comes with big consequences.

 

[ewq1938]

This is wrong. He put himself into that position BECAUSE he had a weapon.. CPL holders are NOT supposed to do that..

He still was right to use it to defend himself.

The guy with the gun decided to play "authority".. he even let the other guy know he had a gun.. CPL holders are not supposed to do that.. They are not supposed to inject themselves into situations just because they have a weapon and they are NEVER supposed to let anyone know they have a weapon until their life is in danger. HINT: Its called a "concealed pistol permit" for a reason.... They don't call it an "out of sight permit".. or a "pocket permit"..

You don't know what you are talking about. The permit allows you to have a weapon concealed. It doesn't forbid you from showing the permit to anyone and it's not wrong to let a disturbed person know you are armed in order to try to get them to not be violent.

There's a line in the sand here that all CPL holders must understand.. The first rule (does have exceptions) is that the gun is there to protect you, not other people.

That's wrong. One may use deadly force to defend yourself or someone else.

Having a CPL license does not give you the authority to inject yourself into other people's arguments and use your weapon as intimidation.. (yes, telling someone you're armed is most certainly intimidation).. Intimidating someone by warning them you have a gun is against the law. The legal term is "Brandishing" and while its defined differently in different areas of the USA, its all the same basic thing.. "Do as I say because I have a weapon".. You're going straight to jail.. do not pass go, do not collect $200.

That's not the case when you are warning a dangerous person to chill out or face deadly force if they decide to get violent.

Now here is one of the exceptions.. If you see another person being physically harmed or being beaten up or threatened with harm, a CPL holder can choose to come to the victims defense if the CPL holder honestly believes the victims life is in immediate danger.

In my state of Washington deadly force is allowed even to stop or prevent a felony as well as in self defense of yourself or others.

If you are a CPL holder, in a bank doing your daily business and a guy with a gun comes into the bank and tells everyone to get on the floor while he has the cashier fill his bags with money, the CPL holder would be wise to keep their weapon ready but to NOT interfere until the bank robber actually points their weapon in the CPL holder's direction or in some other way threatens the CPL holder..

If you knew anything about CPL's you would know you can't bring a weapon into a bank or any federal building or where alcohol is served and any place that has a sign forbidding concealed weapons must also be obeyed.

As a CPL holder, YOU ARE NOT A COP.. it is not your right, not your duty, and not your obligation to be the defender of others just because you have a weapon.

But you have every right to act if you wish to. Any person has the right to make a citizens arrest as well as use a gun if in self defense.

No he was not. Storm put himself into that situation intentionally.. He used the threat of possessing a weapon to intimidate the other guy.

Rightly so. The man was dangerous and disturbed.

Storm is going to prison.. probably for 5 to 10 years for voluntary manslaughter or some other charge less than murder.

Or he will be found innocent and justified according to the circumstances and witness testimonies.

 

[ewq1938]

This whole story is a sad, sad example of the bible verse that Jesus never really taught: "If someone is up in your grill, poppacap". That it happened in a church is stunning to me. That it is being excused by christians, well, forget that nonsense.

There is nothing wrong with using self defense, even in a church. Even Christ supported having a sword.

 

[rambot]

This is wrong. He put himself into that position BECAUSE he had a weapon.. CPL holders are NOT supposed to do that..



The guy with the gun decided to play "authority".. he even let the other guy know he had a gun.. CPL holders are not supposed to do that.. They are not supposed to inject themselves into situations just because they have a weapon and they are NEVER supposed to let anyone know they have a weapon until their life is in danger. HINT: Its called a "concealed pistol permit" for a reason.... They don't call it an "out of sight permit".. or a "pocket permit"..

There's a line in the sand here that all CPL holders must understand.. The first rule (does have exceptions) is that the gun is there to protect you, not other people. Having a CPL license does not give you the authority to inject yourself into other people's arguments and use your weapon as intimidation.. (yes, telling someone you're armed is most certainly intimidation).. Intimidating someone by warning them you have a gun is against the law. The legal term is "Brandishing" and while its defined differently in different areas of the USA, its all the same basic thing.. "Do as I say because I have a weapon".. You're going straight to jail.. do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Now here is one of the exceptions.. If you see another person being physically harmed or being beaten up or threatened with harm, a CPL holder can choose to come to the victims defense if the CPL holder honestly believes the victims life is in immediate danger. The fact is, most smart CPL holders won't even do that.. none of their business, just walk away.. But, in such a case, if the CPL holder did choose to come to the victim's defense and the incident resulted in the CPL holder shooting the attacker, they would mostly be in the clear legally..

If you are a CPL holder, in a bank doing your daily business and a guy with a gun comes into the bank and tells everyone to get on the floor while he has the cashier fill his bags with money, the CPL holder would be wise to keep their weapon ready but to NOT interfere until the bank robber actually points their weapon in the CPL holder's direction or in some other way threatens the CPL holder..

As a CPL holder, YOU ARE NOT A COP.. it is not your right, not your duty, and not your obligation to be the defender of others just because you have a weapon.


No he was not. Storm put himself into that situation intentionally.. He used the threat of possessing a weapon to intimidate the other guy.
Storm is going to prison.. probably for 5 to 10 years for voluntary manslaughter or some other charge less than murder.

People don't understand the huge responsibility that carrying a weapon brings.... This is why all CPL holders are required to have special classes that deal with the laws.. one of the things those classes emphasize is that you don't get to play COP just because you can.. its against the law and comes with big consequences.

I feel like I learned something about CPLs here. I'm not a big gun fan but I'm a huge information fan.

Thanks.

 

[rambot]

There is nothing wrong with using self defense, even in a church. Even Christ supported having a sword.

Show me the teachings of Jesus where it says it's okay to mortally wound someone? EVER?

And when the sword was drawn and used, he chastized the disciple doing so. And for almost his WHOLE time on earth none of his disciples carried a sword. And He never had a sword; He had a whip to drive profit mongers out of his church. If you have a whip and go after Joel Osteen, I'm right behind you. Otherwise, I see no other context where Christ supported violence of any type.

 

[ewq1938]

Show me the teachings of Jesus where it says it's okay to mortally wound someone? EVER?

You mean Rev 19 where Christ kills his enemies or how about the OT when God leads Israel against their various enemies, slaying them?

And when the sword was drawn and used, he chastized the disciple doing so.

Only because he was trying to stop Christ from being arrested and eventually going to the cross....all meant to happen.

And for almost his WHOLE time on earth none of his disciples carried a sword.

That's just not true.

And He never had a sword; He had a whip to drive profit mongers out of his church.

And he made it himself so he had knowledge on how to make a proper whip.

If you have a whip and go after Joel Osteen, I'm right behind you.

lol...no comment

Otherwise, I see no other context where Christ supported violence of any type.

You haven't read much of Revelation then.

 

[rambot]

You mean Rev 19 where Christ kills his enemies or how about the OT when God leads Israel against their various enemies, slaying them?

I don't take the guidance of an omnipotent God of a tribal society struggling to maintain itself in an INCREDIBLY violent region where participating in violence meant the ultimate demise of your society as justification for MY actions. At ALL. Frankly, it seems presumptuous to do so.
As for Revelations 19, it's kinda the same thing. Tell me about Jesus' teachings on Earth; when he was mortal and here among us. THAT is how, I think, we should be taking guidance for our day to day living.

Only because he was trying to stop Christ from being arrested and eventually going to the cross....all meant to happen.

EXACTLY. The WHOLE thing was part of a prophesy. That does not mean it was "right" or "good"; just it was meant to happen.

That's just not true.

Really?

And he made it himself so he had knowledge on how to make a proper whip.

It doesn't say it's a proper whip. It says he "fashioned" a whip. I'm a pacifist and I can fashion a whip.

lol...no comment

;-)




You haven't read much of Revelation then.[/QUOTE]Funny. It's what our church small group is studying RIGHT now. I've missed the last two due to shift work but I can assure you that the study we are following does NOT take a similar approach to understanding revelation as you have. It's more nuanced than that.

 

[Murby]

He still was right to use it to defend himself.

Just because someone pushes you or punches you does not give you the right to shoot them. You must have a sincere belief that your life is in danger or that of great bodily harm.

Do you really think a rowdy church goer who just stole someone's seat and is in a bad mood is about to murder someone with lots of other people right there???

You don't know what you are talking about. The permit allows you to have a weapon concealed. It doesn't forbid you from showing the permit to anyone and it's not wrong to let a disturbed person know you are armed in order to try to get them to not be violent.

In the context of the situation we are talking about, showing the permit was an act of intimidation.. Calm down or I'll shoot you was the message.

If you knew anything about CPL's you would know you can't bring a weapon into a bank or any federal building or where alcohol is served and any place that has a sign forbidding concealed weapons must also be obeyed.

Not a federal building.. but a bank? Sure you can.. If I recall correctly, there's only one ( 1 ) US state that forbids a CPL holder from carrying their weapon into a bank.

But you have every right to act if you wish to. Any person has the right to make a citizens arrest as well as use a gun if in self defense.

No.. No and No.
I suggest you spend the $100 and take a class to learn more about this stuff.

Rightly so. The man was dangerous and disturbed.

You can call him crazy, purple, and foaming at the mouth.. it won't change the facts.. The guy stole someone's chair, another guy intervened, escalated the situation, and ended up shooting him.

If you think that's ok.. I sure hope you don't carry a weapon.

I just bought my wife a 9mm Shield.. she's about to take her CPL class this summer and we've been doing some very heavy reading on the laws.. They vary from state to state and there are some technical differences, but the overall meaning remains the same.. The weapon must be the absolute last line of defense.. And someone pushing you or slapping you in the face is not cause for lethal defense.

Now, there are some states with "stand your ground" laws.. but those laws do not apply in this situation and they are very shaky to begin with.

And here's another word.. this is the part that most people involved in arguments like this don't seem to realize. Unless you are able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt and beyond any conceivable scenario, that you had no other choice but to shoot the other person, you're going to be going to trial in front of a jury.. You're not going to have your gun anymore as it will be locked into evidence, and you're probably going to lose your home, retirement savings, and any other assets you own paying a lawyer(s) well north of $250,000 or more defending you.. Even if you are found not-guilty, you're going to lose everything.. (Unless you're quite wealthy)

Here you go:
http://www.pennlago.com/justified-pennsylvania-law-allow-use-force-self-defense/

 

[ewq1938]

I don't take the guidance of an omnipotent God of a tribal society struggling to maintain itself in an INCREDIBLY violent region where participating in violence meant the ultimate demise of your society as justification for MY actions. At ALL. Frankly, it seems presumptuous to do so.
As for Revelations 19, it's kinda the same thing. Tell me about Jesus' teachings on Earth; when he was mortal and here among us. THAT is how, I think, we should be taking guidance for our day to day living.

I am not limited to his Earthly ministry plus I have already cited that he wanted swords to be purchased. That was for self defense.

Mat_10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

It doesn't say it's a proper whip. It says he "fashioned" a whip. I'm a pacifist and I can fashion a whip.

A proper whip means a functional whip.

Funny. It's what our church small group is studying RIGHT now. I've missed the last two due to shift work but I can assure you that the study we are following does NOT take a similar approach to understanding revelation as you have. It's more nuanced than that.

The point is Jesus is very violent against his enemies.

 

[ewq1938]

Just because someone pushes you or punches you does not give you the right to shoot them. You must have a sincere belief that your life is in danger or that of great bodily harm.

And as I said, a man can be killed by another man's bare hands. You can't decide how Storm felt. He said he feared for his safety and the law supports that. His defense will use that. A jury of his peers won't convict him. Rage all you want about that.

Do you really think a rowdy church goer who just stole someone's seat and is in a bad mood is about to murder someone with lots of other people right there???

I think it's very possible.

In the context of the situation we are talking about, showing the permit was an act of intimidation.. Calm down or I'll shoot you was the message.

No, it is warning that is he violently attacks him that he will shoot in defense.

Not a federal building.. but a bank? Sure you can.. If I recall correctly, there's only one ( 1 ) US state that forbids a CPL holder from carrying their weapon into a bank.

lol, no weapon is allowed in a bank unless it's law enforcement related.

No.. No and No.
I suggest you spend the $100 and take a class to learn more about this stuff.

I am licensed, which should have been obvious from my position on this. Wanna see my permit?? lol

You can call him crazy, purple, and foaming at the mouth.. it won't change the facts.. The guy stole someone's chair, another guy intervened, escalated the situation, and ended up shooting him.

No, the guy was out of control, calmed down some, then was told he was in someone's seat and he flipped out and got himself shot after he assaulted a man. Braxton is a criminal, Storm is a victim.

And someone pushing you or slapping you in the face is not cause for lethal defense.

Pushing and slapping isn't relevant to this situation is it? Why did you even mention such lesser things? Storm was punched in the face and was injured enough he had to get treated at the hospital.

Now, there are some states with "stand your ground" laws.. but those laws do not apply in this situation and they are very shaky to begin with.

Wrong, it fully applies in this situation. Storm stood his ground, Braxton attacked him.

And here's another word.. this is the part that most people involved in arguments like this don't seem to realize. Unless you are able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt and beyond any conceivable scenario, that you had no other choice but to shoot the other person, you're going to be going to trial in front of a jury..

That's legally incorrect. It is the prosecutor that has to prove beyond any doubt that Storm was in the wrong. Even the slightest possibility that he acted properly will cause him to be found innocent. You really think 12 people will think as you do? All he needs is one who thinks as I do.

 

[Murby]

lol, no weapon is allowed in a bank unless it's law enforcement related.

Here you go:
http://crimeresearch.org/2014/07/in...e-bans-permitted-concealed-handguns-in-banks/

And here:
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/banking/carry-concealed-weapon-into-bank.aspx

Should I go on? I could post the laws from the individual states but that would be like 50 links..

Apparently, you do not understand the laws which govern the permit you claim to have, this would put you in the same proverbial boat as Mr. Storm.

Carrying a weapon is a big responsibility, please learn the laws, the purpose of the laws, and what it means if you take someone's life with your gun.

Running around and flashing your CPL license as if its some kind of "Do what I say" badge is nothing more than a form of intimidation.. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't have been granted a license to carry...

But please.. go ahead.. run around flashing your "I have the power" badge and see how long it lasts before you end up either dead or in prison.

That's legally incorrect. It is the prosecutor that has to prove beyond any doubt that Storm was in the wrong. Even the slightest possibility that he acted properly will cause him to be found innocent. You really think 12 people will think as you do? All he needs is one who thinks as I do.

You're not even reading what I posted.. or at least not reading it correctly..
The prosecutor doesn't have to prove anything in order to charge you with a crime.. and as soon as he does, you just lost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.
And here's another thing you don't seem to grasp.. Most CPL holders would tend to think as I do because if every time someone got pushed, shoved, or punched, a CPL holder pulled a gun and shot the person, we would ALL lose our ability to carry weapons.. People would be getting killed by the dozens every day by CPL holders claiming they feared for their life.


Give me a break..

Here's my prediction.. Mr. Storm will be charged with a 10 to 20 year felony... he will accept a plea deal to a lesser charge and be sentenced to 10 years in prison, and be out in 5 for good behavior.... this, if he doesn't have any prior violent history.. if he has a violent history, it will be 15 to 20 years.

Now go ahead and make your prediction.. we'll come back to this thread in 12 months when the news of his punishment is released.

 

[ewq1938]

Here you go:
http://crimeresearch.org/2014/07/in...e-bans-permitted-concealed-handguns-in-banks/

And here:
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/banking/carry-concealed-weapon-into-bank.aspx

Should I go on? I could post the laws from the individual states but that would be like 50 links..

It's not allowed in my state. Didn't bother to read your own links?

"Open carry is allowed in banks and bars in Montana, but concealed carry is banned."

You're not even reading what I posted.. or at least not reading it correctly..
The prosecutor doesn't have to prove anything in order to charge you with a crime.. and as soon as he does, you just lost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.

There is no cost to be charged with a crime. This will go to trial mainly because of the publicity but he won't be convicted.

Here's my prediction.. Mr. Storm will be charged with a 10 to 20 year felony... he will accept a plea deal to a lesser charge and be sentenced to 10 years in prison, and be out in 5 for good behavior.... this, if he doesn't have any prior violent history.. if he has a violent history, it will be 15 to 20 years.

Now go ahead and make your prediction.. we'll come back to this thread in 12 months when the news of his punishment is released.

I already made mine. Guess you weren't paying attention. No surprise there.

 

[Sketcher]

And for almost his WHOLE time on earth none of his disciples carried a sword.

No Biblical evidence for that assertion.

 

[rambot]

I am not limited to his Earthly ministry plus I have already cited that he wanted swords to be purchased. That was for self defense.

I am heavily guided by His earthly ministry, but more than that, by his actions because words can be misinterpreted but actions will always show a person's truth (though I'd take His words over an interpretation of revelations). I am not limited to earthly ministry but i can recognize thqt human interpretation clouds meaning and Revelations is an examppe of that. As mentioned, the sword was purchased to fulfill the prophesy NOT for self defence; it seems odd that he would demand stopping in the middle of the act of self defence if it was for self defence..... And I thought it was just A sword

Mat_10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword

Jesus knew his message was contentious; from the pharisies at the start to ISIS now. He knew there would be violence perpetrated against Christians AND against non-Christian by christians. Essentially though, I think this passage has always meant more to say that His teachings running counter to prescribed thought. Because frankly, if in 32 years on this earth, He was involved in one squabble with a sword that HE COMMANDED to be stopped, I can't believe He meant that literally because he was doing a poor job of bringing a sword. I mean, he is called the Prince of Peace...
.

A proper whip means a functional whip

.
Okaaaaay. The verse doesn't say "a proper whip". And why would Jesus know how to make an actual, for real whip? At what other point in his ministry did he fashion a whip?

The point is Jesus is very violent against his enemies

.And, come judgement time, in his justice, that will be his prerogative but that is Not what is asked of us. We are to love even our enemies.

 

[rambot]

No Biblical evidence for that assertion.

No biblical evidence for the opposit3. Prove they had one