Concealed permit holder accused of brandishing gun in bar

[SecularMotion]

CHARLOTTE COUNTY - A concealed weapons permit holder has been arrested after he allegedly brandished a gun at an Englewood bar.

Deputies were called at 1 a.m. Saturday to Calico Jack's, 1950 Beach Road, after patrons reported that a man displayed a gun and pointed it at someone, according to the Charlotte County Sheriff's Office.

Rock Lavoie, 53, was arrested Monday when deputies spotted a man matching the suspect description walking down Beach Road. A loaded . 45 caliber handgun was found inside Lavoie's fanny pack, deputies reported.

A video of the incident shows Lavoie allegedly holding the gun and then pointing it at a man, who took the firearm and laid it on the bar, according to the Sheriff's Office.

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20140506/ARTICLE/140509787

[blueridge3210]

1. Is there something you would like to discuss?

Or are you going to cut and run after you cut and paste?

[Duckhunter935]

2. more cut and paste

this is getting old from a host that should know better. My only assumption is he/she or it is just very scared of any one that will disagree with the position of the post they have to run away and hide in the corner after posting. I find this really quite sad. Maybe the keyboard is broken? Just very sad for a host, I really feel sorry for Secular that this is the best he, she or it can do.

[Straw Man]

3. Stop the presses!

Last edited Sun May 18, 2014, 01:59 PM - Edit history (1)

A permit holder may have done something illegal! Film at 11:00!

If he had done it in New York State, there would have been only two charges instead of three: the brandishing and the disorderly conduct. It isn't illegal in New York for a permit holder to carry in an establishment that serves alcohol. In any case, if he was "brandishing" maliciously, why did the man who disarmed him then give him his gun back? The accused had it in his possession when he was arrested. It sounds to me more like a case of "Hey, look at my gun," with the response of "Put that thing away, asshole."

What are the crime stats for permit holders as opposed to the public at large? Texas keeps such records if you would care to look it up. Other states may too.

[ManiacJoe]

4. Brake the law, go to jail. The system seems to have worked.

[Starboard Tack]

5. But he was a CCW holder. One of the "good guys".

How could such a thing happen?

[Straw Man]

6. In a comic-book world, it couldn't.

Reality is somewhat more nuanced.

[Starboard Tack]

11. Yep, very nuanced!

[blueridge3210]

13. Anything constructive to add?

Or is your discourse limited to "smilies"?

[Straw Man]

17. Apparently not.

Or is your discourse limited to "smilies"?

It's that comic-book thing.

[blueridge3210]

18. Yeah.

Kind of odd; other times he is capable of reasoned discourse but something about this topic reduces him to a Jr. High level.

[Starboard Tack]

22. A Jr. High level! Really?

Care to explain that? What is it that you don't get about CCW holders waving guns around in bars?
Do you think it's OK for them to take their guns into bars? If so, what would be the point if they weren't able to wave them around? Or should they only take their guns into bars to shoot people? Please, tell us how society is better with these idiots bringing their guns into bars.
I understand that some folk feel the need to be armed wherever they go. But my advice to them is, stay out of bars or any place where you might be tempted to wave it around. Otherwise, expect an adult to slap the shit out of you and take charge of the situation.
Bottom line, don't carry a handgun around unless you intend to use it for it's intended purpose, which is shooting "bad guys". Handguns are not made for waving around, or "brandishing". They are designed specifically to kill humans and should be carried with that thought in mind.

[blueridge3210]

25. Yes, a Jr. High level.

You start with a classic strawman argument:

But he was a CCW holder. One of the "good guys".

How could such a thing happen?

As if anyone has ever said a CCW permit holder never commits a crime or acts irresponsibly.

When confronted with this error your sole reply is a "ROFL" smilie.

Lastly, your other reply to me:

Welcome to DU

Which is a classic appeal to authority "look at my post count, it's bigger than yours".

Like I said, Jr. High level.

Regarding the OP; if the facts are as reported (the media has an extensive track record of getting simple things wrong or making stuff up to sell stories); the guy in the bar is a jackass of the first degree and should lose his CCW permit rights forever. Regarding carrying in bars; that should be up to the proprietor as long as the person carrying consumes no alcohol. There are many reasons for legitimate carry; most of these do not require "shooting bad guys".

[Starboard Tack]

28. Please explain what those reasons are if not to shoot "bad guys"

You may couch your response in terms like "for self protection" or "self defense", but the bottom line is about being prepared to kill any "bad guy" who gives you cause. There is no reason to carry if you are not prepared to kill. There is no reason to carry an umbrella unless you are prepared to open it.

Of course the guy in the bar was a jackass and most CCW holders are not jackasses. Thank heavens! Problem is, how many jackasses get CCW permits every day and how many jackasses does it take to fuck things up for everyone?
Those who support CCW need to clean their own house and support sensible legislation that screens individuals on a federal level, or shit like this will only happen more frequently. Those who encourage others to carry and spew NRA propaganda about constitutional rights to justify the insanity of flooding the streets with armed citizens, are the problem. They are shills for the NRA, the gun manufacturers and the gun peddlers. They care nothing about public safety or a peaceful society. They are invested in the opposite.

[Starboard Tack]

19. Welcome to DU

If you want to know my discourse, do your research. Or stick around, you'll figure it out sooner or later.
Regarding the OP, do you have anything constructive to add? If so, I'd love to hear it.

[hack89]

7. Because a human was involved? That would be my guess.

Unlike you, I am not surrounded by perfect people that never screw up or do bad things.

[Starboard Tack]

12. A human in a bar waving a gun? A "GOOD GUY" human, you mean

Is that really your guess? Maybe you need to seek out some of those "perfect people" to surround yourself with. They're all over the place.

[hack89]

14. Not all gun owners are good guys. That would be impossible

hence my comment.

I know it is one of your favorite memes but have you actually given it any thought? If you could show that anyone here believes that every gun owner is perfect and incapable of error or committing a crime, you might have something. But you can't.

[Starboard Tack]

21. And what do "gun owners" have to do with this OP?

Please feel free to show me where I have, in any way suggested that gun ownership is a problem. Au contraire, mon ami, my problem is not with gun ownership, but with assholery committed by HUMANS with guns, and on this occasion, major assholery, committed by one of the "HOLY" CCW holders that so many of you love to recruit into the insanity of carrying fucking guns around, that pretends to be about freedom, self defense , civil rights (like you really give a shit about civil rights or freedom), what "our founding fathers wanted" (like you give a shit about what they wanted [slavery comes to mind] oops!)
You dare to talk about "memes"
Have I given it any thought? You must be kidding. Why else do you think I'm here?
The question you really need to be asking is "Have you given it any thought?" You know, like "real thought". Because, if you had, you wouldn't be asking me that question. If you carry a gun around wherever you go because, one day some asshole with a knife, asking for money, scared you when you were out running up telephone poles, you don't need to be asking ME if I've given it any thought. You need to be looking in the mirror and asking those questions.

[hack89]

24. I understand your frustration

Unfortunately for you we live in a time of expanded civil liberties. Religious fundies rage at gay marriage. Gun control fundies rage at expanded gun rights. At some point you will need to get over it and move on to a "problem" you can actually solve.

[Starboard Tack]

30. I'm not here to solve your problems. I'm here to comment.

I have no vested interest beyond intellectual curiosity.
"gun control fundies"? What on earth are they? Absolutists who want to ban all gun ownership are a tiny minority, as are absolutists who want to carry everywhere.
"gun rights"? What are they? Guns don't have rights.
The only "fundies" I see are those who interpret 2A as a God given right to be armed wherever and whenever.

Firstly, I am not in favor of restricting gun ownership. I think an efficient registration system makes sense though.
Also, restricting the types of weapons available to civilians makes sense. Allowing only a few with special licenses to own certain weapons does not make sense.

The answer is self control, not gun control.

[hack89]

33. What kinds of weapons would you restrict and why? nt

[Starboard Tack]

35. Not my job. That's for you guys to figure out.

But the obvious ones are full autos, RPG's and the like. Also, stockpiling should probably be addressed. None of that is of immediate concern, but when the shit hits the economic fan, the preppers and whacko militia groups are gonna cause some serious problems. People are buying guns and stockpiling food and guns, instead of dealing with the real problems, like rampant consumerism and climate change.
More guns will translate into more carnage is each tries to protect his stash, which will eventually run out.

That said, government restrictions rarely work. Self restriction is the only viable solution, but that involves thinking outside the box.

[hack89]

37. We made that decision in 1934 and it has served us well every since. No need to change it.

Full autos are very rare and very expensive. Explosive devices like RPGs are illegal for civilian use.

As for your fears about stockpiling, seems to be irrational fear based on bigoted perceptions of gun owners.

[Starboard Tack]

41. There you go again. Sometimes I wonder if you actually read my posts.

I have no FEARS about stockpiling. Thinking something is foolish does not mean I'm afraid of it. We're having a conversation here and you're calling me a bigot. Well, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I have many friends and family who own lots of guns. I enjoy shooting with them. I do not currently own a firearm, because it is not conducive to my lifestyle.

My only objection regarding guns is to how people use them. I think indiscriminate carry is extremely foolish behavior.
I think carrying at specific times in specific places, for a good reason is extremely smart behavior.

The fact that something is "rare and expensive" is irrelevant. How rare do you think they are? Do a Google search and find out. $4,000 on up to $40,000 will get you just about anything. Expensive is a relative word.

Do you think it's cool for civilians, or anyone for that matter, to possess guns that fire 800+ RPM?

[hack89]

42. Full auto weapons are a red herring

they are heavily regulated, registered, very expensive, and require extensive and expensive background checks to own. On top of that, no new weapons have been made available for sale since 1987 so they become rarer and more expensive every year.

They are toys for rich men. More to the point, they are so rarely used in crimes that it is asinine to waste time trying to make them even harder to acquire.

On the list of things that represent a threat to you and your family, automatic weapons are not even in the top 1000.

[Starboard Tack]

44. And I never said they were a present threat to anyone.

But it would probably be a good idea to get rid of them all. They serve no practical purpose besides killing lots of people quickly.
In terms of what I consider threats to my family, guns don't enter the equation. Never have. What baffles me is why others think guns are such a threat that they feel the need to carry them around.

[blueridge3210]

46. So, if they are not a present threat

why is it such a good idea to get rid of them all? You do realize you are talking out of both sides of your mouth? First you claim that some weapons need to be restricted or gotten rid of; next you "don't care, because they aren't a threat to your family"? What baffles me is why people cannot realize that someone may carry a firearm due to the possible threat of something other than another firearm: knife, bludgeon or sheer physical size. Cognitive dissonance is the only reason that comes to mind.

[Starboard Tack]

50. Why is it such a good idea to get rid of them all?

For the same reason we should eradicate smallpox, or rid the world of nukes. Do you have a valid reason to keep them in circulation? These weapons exist in the present. We've seen what they are capable of in the past. Decisions we make today affect the future. I think you can connect the dots.
I don't "claim" anything. I said it would probably be a good idea. Putting words in either side of my mouth is a poor way to present your case. Seems like you're looking for an easy target and when you don't find it, you create it.
You might try reading my other posts in this thread. You'll find that I do not support bans in general, especially if the object banned has a positive purpose when used appropriately.
I am against carrying guns, except when it makes sense to carry. That does not mean I believe laws should be enacted to prohibit all carry. Common sense should prevail. If I felt my life or my family were under a viable threat, I would not hesitate to carry. The last thing I would be thinking about would be having a permit. If you feel more comfortable having a permit, then good for you. Doesn't mean you have to carry your gun everywhere it's legal to do so. That's your choice, of course. It's also your choice to be an occasional drinker or a lush. Or snort an occasional line or become a coke head. Life is full of choices.
If you walk through this world worrying about being knifed, bludgeoned or pounced on by giants, the last thing you need is a gun. But there is help out there, if those are really your concerns. I think you may have hit the nail on the head with the "cognitive dissonance" realization. Too many people are afraid to reach out for the help they truly need. Some end up self medicating or finding solace in a bottle and some, tragically, keep a gun handy. None of these are problem solvers.

[hack89]

47. Legal concealed carry is not a problem

It is illegal concealed carry that should concern you. This focus on legal concealed carry baffles me - how come every "solution" to gun violence focuses on legal gun owners instead of the people actually doing all the killing? You are not as bad as Hoyt but you appear equally misguided.

[blueridge3210]

38. Can you make up your mind?

Also, restricting the types of weapons available to civilians makes sense.

So you favor restricting what types of firearms civilians can own.

Not my job. That's for you guys to figure out.

But you won't say which ones.

But the obvious ones are full autos, RPG's and the like.

Then you list some. Currently full auto are effectively "restricted" since the NFA list has been closed and no more full auto weapons can be added. Same for RPG rounds. Regarding "stockpiling"; how many weapons/ammo should one be allowed to keep before one is "stockpiling"?

[Starboard Tack]

40. I'm not interested in the details of which weapons you restrict.

I'm saying it's probably a good idea, but self restriction is far more important than legislation. That might be achieved by education and awareness. You live in a society that is so manipulated by the media, political fear mongering and corporate advertising, that independent thought has become a rarity.
If you think it's OK to buy hundreds of weapons to defend your prepper compound, then I wish you luck. As I say, this is not yet a problem, and may never become one.

The fact that no more full autos can be added does not make them disappear. It leaves them in the hands of their current owners and dealers, who I'm sure are the most responsible people around and will never lose possession of those weapons, or sell them to anyone less responsible.
Fact is, you can buy them, Thompson's, Uzis, Stens, M16s, Mac10s, you name them, any gun you want.
All you need is the $$$, the right state and a background check.

[gejohnston]

43. UK and Australia has more machine gun crime than we do

Fact is, you can buy them, Thompson's, Uzis, Stens, M16s, Mac10s, you name them, any gun you want.
All you need is the $$$, the right state and a background check.

Hell, I can get a Mac-10 for 200 quid without a background check. In Australia, I can buy an Owens, STEN, or some homemade design from the Hells Angels without a background check. Both are a lot easier than jumping through ATF hoops. Not legal, but still can be done.
Until 1977, Canadians had to jump through hoops to buy a pistol, but legally buying a machine gun wasn't that much different than a lever action .30-30.
The only legal machine gun used in a crime since NFA was a cop with a Mac-10 registered with the department. Before and just after NFA (other than the mob like Al Capone) were usually stolen from the cops or national guard.
So banning something that is not used in crime in the name of "public safety" seems kind of absurd and illiberal.

[Starboard Tack]

45. So, are you OK with every country, or any country having nukes too?

After all, nobody has used them since 1945.

[blueridge3210]

48. Since no one is arguing for everyone to have firearms

I don't see why anyone would propose every country or any country having nukes. You must be getting low on straw; probably need to go back to Lowes to resupply.

[Starboard Tack]

53. Did I say anyone was arguing for that? Thought not.

You still want to put words in my mouth to make a non-existent argument. Maybe you're out of ammo.

So, do you want an actual conversation or not? I'm not the enemy. You say you don't see why anyone would propose any country having nukes, yet you live in one that has the most. Do you really not see it? You'd rather talk about straw.

I must admit, I've always had my doubts about guys with numbers in their SN's. They're usually either trolls, wingnuts or just seriously lacking in imagination. You just cashed in your "benefit of the doubt card". Enjoy the rest of your stay.

[gejohnston]

49. What does that have to do with anything?

countries are not people any more than corporations.

[tosh]

8. Yes, and we've been assured over and over again...

that his CCW permit guarantees that he has been pre-screened as both responsible and law-abiding.

How COULD this happen?

[blueridge3210]

9. Reading comrehension fail.

The only claim made regarding holders of a CCW permit it that, IN GENERAL, they are more responsible, law abiding than the general public. This claim appears to be supported by the data; no claim was ever made that no CCW permit holder would ever do anything unlawful.

[Starboard Tack]

10. Beats me. It's a "good guy" thing.

Maybe he was one of those "good guys" who carry in case another "good guy" like him comes along, waving his piece around. Then maybe they get to practice shooting each other. I guess it's just as well there was an adult present to defuse the situation, instead of another "good guy".

[hack89]

15. Where did you get that "guarantees" bullshit?

Last edited Tue May 20, 2014, 05:20 PM - Edit history (2)

you know as well as I that it is a strawman. All you will find us saying is that in general CCW holders commit violent crimes at significantly lower levels then the general public. Do I really have to explain that lower rates =/= no crimes?

You don't do your cause any good by destroying strawmen. All it does is produce childish memes parroted over and over again in the place of rational argument.

[blueridge3210]

16. If all you have is a hammer......(nt)

[Starboard Tack]

20. Right, I forgot, it's a "in general CCW holders blah, blah, bullshit" kinda thing

Love ya, hack#######. Always love guys with ###'s after their name. Cos' ya know they gotta be the "good guys".

[hack89]

23. This is where you present your data

Last edited Wed May 21, 2014, 06:49 AM - Edit history (1)

That show that we are wrong. Surely you have more than emotional diatribes? Imagine you are a prosecutor - what evidence can you present to the jury.

But then you don't do facts, do you? That is why your side is on a 20 year losing streak. I can understand your frustration -that's why I cut you some slack when you vent like this.

[Starboard Tack]

27. Wrong! This is where we discuss and exchange thoughts and ideas.

It is neither a laboratory, nor a courtroom. Yes we deal with facts and interpretation of those facts.
I do not have a "side", as you well know, unless you mean I'm on the side of sanity.

[hack89]

29. Do you dispute the fact that CCW permit holders

Commit violent crimes at a significantly lower rate than the general population?

[Starboard Tack]

31. No. There is probably little or no difference.

I do think that CCW holders probably commit more "justifiable homicides" than the general population. George Zimmerman is the poster boy.

[hack89]

32. There is a huge difference - we have discussed it here many times.

That is part of your problem. You view all gun owners with disdain, therefore you are unable to distinguish between legal carriers and illegal carriers.

While I think Z was guilty, your point about "justifiable homicides" is irrelevant. Any justifiable self dense shooting is justifiable homicide - it is not a crime nor is it a problem. Or are you saying that there is no right to self defense.

[Starboard Tack]

39. Wrong again.

I do NOT view all gun owners with disdain. I have owned guns and may again, especially if I decide to live on land.
I do not view all gun carriers with disdain either. I just think many who carry do so for the wrong reasons and don't fully think through what they're doing to themselves and to society as a whole. I say many, not all. A few have a damn good reason to carry, but they are a very small number. That said, if gun carry is legal, then it can be argued that everyone should have the right to carry. There we have the slippery slope and inevitable decline of civil society.
It is a dilemma for America, and I wish you luck with it.

Of course there is a right to self defense, regardless of the existence of guns. It is a natural right. That's how Z avoided a guilty verdict. He created a situation that escalated to the point he could legally kill Martin. Z started it and ended it. He was the puppeteer. You think he was guilty. Me too. How many others walk every day in similar situations, especially cops? They don't get recorded as crimes, because they are "justifiable homicides". They all still end up with dead people.

[gejohnston]

34. I do think more CCW holders commit more "justifiable homicides" than the general population

Why is "justifiable homicides" in quotation marks? Are you saying you agree with Daryl Parks that Zimmerman should have endured Martin's assault until the cops got there? Yes, the family lawyer told Piers Morgan that Zimmerman should have let Martin continue to bounce his head on the sidewalk. If not, please clarify it for me.
It reminds me of a review of one of Gary Kleck's:

H. Laurence Ross's review of Gary Kleck's book Point Blank in the American Journal of Sociology. Kleck's book was awarded the Hindelang Prize, as the most significant contribution to criminology in the last three years; Ross praises Kleck's meticulous research and analysis, and Kleck's debunking of many of the myths surrounding the gun issue. And Ross does not deny Kleck's conclusion that, because handguns are frequently used by law-abiding citizens for lawful defensive purposes, the availability of handguns to law-abiding citizens results in a large net saving of innocent lives every year, even after accounting for the large number of handgun murders and suicides. Yet saving lives, according to Ross, is not the most important goal: "But despite the masses of data and the cleverness of his analysis and argument, Kleck has missed the point ... [To accept Kleck's viewpoint is to] embrace a society based on an internal as well as an external balance of terror. The social order is seen to rest adequately on masses of potential victims using the threat of gun violence against masses of potential armed criminals.... [The] spectacle is one that ought to disgust rather than cheer the civilized observer." Not only is Ross willing to sacrifice the protection of innocent life in order that "civilized" persons will no longer need to feel "disgust" at crime victims using force for protection, Ross actually looks forward to more criminal gun violence as a spur to further controls. After noting the "fate of James Brady" (confined to a wheelchair after being struck by a bullet intended for President Reagan), Ross notes approvingly that Brady's tragedy provided "impetus for attempts at broader control." Ross looks forward to the spur of "more incidents, more heinous ones with more tragic or important victims, to develop the necessary determination" for society to progress beyond "narrow controls" to the confiscation of all firearms

http://www.guncite.com/journals/dk-ideo.html#h9-63

Actually, since the legal definition justifiable homicide includes any legal taking of a human life, I would guess it would be the State of Texas alone. After that cops, and home owners. Detroit is up to 12 "would be home invasions this year." I would like to see what you base this on. Of the two CCW holders that you know of, Zimmerman and Dunn, one was justifiable (SYG or not) beyond any doubt to the objective observer (Of course there are those who cling to the publicly debunked myth, just like there are fools that believe that the Duke La Crosse team got away with something.)
If he (and the sports team) are poster boys for anything it is: why prosecutors should never be elected, why political pressure should never interfere with the legal system, and the media has zero integrity. Oh, and Bonfire of the Vanities wasn't just a novel, it was prophecy.

[AtheistCrusader]

36. Statistics are hard.

[SevenSixtyTwo]

26. Sounds to me

Like the isolated incident ended without injury and was dealt with properly.
Odd how people who protest blanket statements and stereotypes the most are also the ones who perpetrate them the most.

[Warpy]

51. Drunks in a bar carrying guns.

What could possibly go wrong?

[doc03]

52. Well you woke up the DU gun lobby. n/t