Shooting Involving Open Carry Proponent

MLeake said:
As PK said, as have others: OC requires a calm demeanor, and avoidance of conflict. I don't worry about the guy I see with a holstered weapon; I do worry about the guy with the holstered weapon who is ranting or acting like a lunatic.
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree. But:
Mello2u said:
The video shows:
* That the shooter had a vehicle between the shooting victim and himself;
* the shooting victim with his hands in his pockets;
* that the victim made no furtive movement which could be reasonably interpreted as a threat.
Click to expand...
By this description, Mr. Rodgers doesn't seem to have been "acting like a lunatic." What he did was stupid, rude, and could easily have been construed as hostile, but it's hard for me to see the behavior described above as a lethal threat, with or without the presence of a holstered gun.

It seems to me that one of the things going on in this thread is that many of us feel betrayed by Mr. Rodgers' actions, as casting all of us in a bad light. That makes it tempting to throw him off the bus, as it were -- or under it -- by suggesting that he's too irresponsible to carry a gun, or even that he may have been shot in justifiable self-defense.

Was it stupid to start a confrontation in this way? Of course. Does it show bad judgment? Heck yes. Did his actions rise to the level of assault, or anything else that would justify taking away his 2nd Amendment rights? Don't think so.

Unfortunately, defending those rights does, at times, mean supporting their exercise by people whose behavior we don't like.
MLeake said:
If we could legislate against people we just thought were immature, stupid, or Walter Mitty types owning guns (or driving cars, or flying planes, etc), who would make the determination?
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
Vanya said:
So, even for us gun folks, his displaying a holstered gun changes the equation to one in which the man who shot him may have acted in reasonable self-defense.
Click to expand...

Well, I think at least part of the issue is that Rogers is displaying behavior that looks very much like predatory behavior. He waits for the guy outside the convenience store and then follows him as he exits, attempting to engage him verbally over what appears to be an unlikely or odd issue.

If somebody displays that same behavior with me late at night outside a convenience store, I am likely to consider that person a potential threat and be watching them very closely to see if they produce a weapon while at the same time trying to put some distance between us.

If you run around doing the same things predators too, people may perceive you as a predator. Since many people already equate a gun with predatory behavior by people, if you are open carrying, you've got to be especially sensitive to that.
 
BR, I completely agree, and I'd react the same way to anyone who behaved in such a way. My point is just that once you take the holstered gun out of the equation -- and it doesn't feature in any of the print news stories I've read about this incident -- Mr. Rodgers is in fact perceived as a victim, and not as someone who behaved in a predatory way and in any sense got what he deserved.

So there are a couple of possibilities: first, that the mere presence of a visible holstered weapon really does elevate the "threat level" posed by the person carrying it. I find it odd that many people here seem to accept that, as it flies in the face of a great deal of rhetoric about Constitutional carry.

Another possibility is that it's somehow a "threat multiplier" -- that if someone who's open carrying behaves in a way that's utterly non-threatening, the presence of the gun will have no effect on how people perceive him.

If one believes the first, open carry by anyone is problematic.

If one believes the second, it implies, I think, that open carry should be practiced only by "poster children," those who will behave at all times as "ambassadors" for Second Amendment rights -- and in the real world, that ain't gonna happen.

So it's a bit of a dilemma for us, isn't it?
 
Gun or no gun, waiting outside to confront someone that didn't thank you for an act of goodwill is not only a bad decision, it defeats the purpose of doing a good deed for the sake of doing it
Click to expand...

Thats what Isaid, then was accused of stirring the pot.


Why just this morning I held the door open for a gent I did not know, he said thank you, I said have a great day sir. End of story. If he had gone in without aword, I would have left tthinkinghe had something important on his mind. If I had a gun or not.

Now if I had forgot to say thanks and he came up to me, Iwould whip out a buck and tip him telling him Vaya con dios El Hombre and left it at that....
 
Open the link, and look at the video links to the right. It's about half way down the list. The direct link automatically go's to the newest video, apparently.
 
The fact that the shooter ran and is hiding is proof enough in my world that this wasn't a defensive shooting. Defenders call for help. Criminals hide from the police.
Click to expand...

He might have other reasons to hide from the police. Short of someone kicking my front door in, I'm not sure what constitutes eminent deadly threat than armed a-hole coming at me. To quote Southpark, "he's coming right for me!"
 
Last edited:
DAS9mm said:
He might have other reasons to hide from the police. Short of someone kicking my front door in, I'm not sure what constitutes eminent deadly threat than armed a-hole coming at me. To quote Southpark, "he's coming right for me!"
Click to expand...

Reasons more important than having shot someone?

I think not.
 
Reasons more important than having shot someone? I think not.
Click to expand...
Who knows? Perhaps the guy doesn't know the law and thinks he'll be charged. Maybe he was too freaked out to think clearly at the time, and thought that calling the police after the fact would make him look like the aggressor.

Frankly, if I'd been that guy, Mr. Rogers' wife and kids would have seen him get a faceful of pepper spray, followed by being disarmed and arrested. Judging from the "poor me" tone he takes on the interview tape, it looks like he's considering himself the victim. I hope he'll learn a lesson from this, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
 
markj, I thought your original post was justifying the behavior of Philadelphia PD toward open carriers. If I misunderstood, I apologize.
 
Few if any have defended Mr. Rogers, but some have offered a lukewarm defense of the shooter, saying that Rogers may have uttered some threatening words that justified the shooting. I would submit for consideration the fact that the shooter went back to his car for the gun, and my opinion that if he could go back to his car to get a weapon he could just as easily have gone back to his car and driven away from whatever threat Mr. Rogers made.

Like I said a couple of days ago, no good guys here, bully vs bully.
 
TailGator said:
I would submit for consideration the fact that the shooter went back to his car for the gun, and my opinion that if he could go back to his car to get a weapon he could just as easily have gone back to his car and driven away from whatever threat Mr. Rogers made.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It seems very much a case of jerk meets bigger jerk...

I can't help wondering whether Mr. Rodgers would have felt so confident about administering a "manners lesson" had he not been carrying; or (perhaps worse) if he thought that by holding a door for someone while carrying, he was being that "poster boy," and so felt that much more entitled to have his "courtesy" acknowledged. Purely speculative, I admit...

But I do think it's worth keeping in mind that there's a lot of space between stupidly getting in someone's face and posing a lethal threat. The shooter could indeed have driven away; and is there any evidence that he even noticed that Mr. Rodgers was carrying?
 
Who does he think he is, Emily [Bleeping] Post?

One of the major points stressed in CCW class (and which every armed citizen -- CC or OC -- should fully grasp) is that carrying a gun doesn't make you a freelance cop.

Mr. Rodgers should have also grasped that it doesn't make you Emily Post or Amy Vanderbilt, either.

Those of us who carry should strive to be conscientious about our own manners. Remember the old saying, "An armed society is a polite society."

(I also think we should strive to wear a smile and to laugh off even an intentional insult or provocation.)

But trying to give others a "lesson in manners" brings to mind another old saying: "Don't try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of time, and it annoys the pig."

And how do we know how "politely" Rodgers delivered his "manners lesson"?
 
markj, I thought your original post was justifying the behavior of Philadelphia PD toward open carriers. If I misunderstood, I apologize
Click to expand...

Isnt that a different thread altogether? In this thread Isaw a guy open a door, get no responce from the guy went in he waits and follows guy saying something I couldnt read, guy OC gets shot by guy he held a door open for.

When idiots collide?

In the other thread I said if a cop pulls a gun and tells me to get down Iwill comply immediatly no matter what I think is right. Settle up later with a lawyer if need be but not on a street where the cop can shoot me.

Then folks went nutso, some wanted to dive behind cover and shoot back.....
I will always comply with an armed policeman. I wont OC in town cause it upsets folks and a cop may be taken away from somethjing important to question my OC. The permit allows for a concealment, I do so. Why waste a cops time? Why argue with a cop has a gun on you? I dont see that as being productive behavior.

So I can say that this shows OC sure dont help a guy out in a SD situation. The element of surprise was not his.....
 
I wasn't referring to arguing with a cop, nor advocating doing so. I was referring to your reference to the cop's approach with gun drawn solely due to OC (in the Fiorino case).

Rogers got himself into his problem due to his behavior and demeanor, which may very well have been amplified in the shooter's mind (we won't know unless and until they find the shooter) by the fact that Rogers was being aggressive and displaying stalker behaviors while openly carrying.

Rogers: waits outside convenience store, offended over lack of thanks, and follows shooter to car.

Fiorino: walking between his business and his vehicle.

I can understand a person feeling threatened in one scenario; I cannot in the other. I don't know if the shooter was justified, because we don't know what Rogers was saying or how the shooter perceived his behavior. I do know that Sgt Daugherty responded solely to the gun, and not Fiorino's demeanor or behavior, when he made the initial decision to both draw his gun AND aim it at Fiorino.
 
There's no way on earth I'd ever stop at a convenient store in Southwest Atlanta in the middle of the night for anything.....much less then demand a "thank you" for someone who I held the door open for. :eek:
 
My thoughts on OC are completely changing as I see more and more people do stupid things while OC.

This whole thing with a bunch of OCers going to a Starbucks in California wearing unloaded handguns. What did that accomplish except motivate the politicians in California to propose bills outlawing open carry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top