Fatal shooting of Austin LEO at Walmart- Walmart OC policy change may result.

I am surprised that the early Friday morning shooting death of the Austin Texas police officer at a Walmart hasn't been brought up yet so here is an Austin American Statesman link with video support.

WWW.statesman.com/news

Although "open carry" was not involved, and Texas is not an open carry state, I predict Walmart may use this incident as cause for changing its policy regarding open carry in other states.

I am concerned that the suspect at the Austin Walmart may have possessed a CHL although there has been no official report to that effect yet. Brandon Montgomery Daniel is reported to be a 24 year old "Asian" male who moved to Austin from Ft. Collins , CO a year ago. He is a software engineer, and was apparently intoxicated due to celebrating a recent promotion- not exaactly the sort of person that would be carrying a handgun without a CHL in Texas.

Perhaps premature to jump to conclusions - but this doesn't bode well for the carry movement - open or concealed - if he held a CHL.

http://www.statesman.com/news/local...ital-murder-in-officers-shooting-2288450.html

He doesn't sound like a LAC.

The only open carrier here was the victim of a murder, why would Walmart use this to disarm those lawfully open carrying?

Another "Why?"

Murder is what was illegally done, and the person who allegedly done it was not OCing.

WalMart has a long history of folks coming in with their guns and not committing murder, or disturbing the peace, or looking like freaks at a side show. They also have a long history of folks driving their cars around the parking lot looking for either a slot right next to the door or big enough to park their beater using three spaces, as well has having had a few more incidents of driver A hitting Driver B's car while doing so. They have not banned cars nor forced valet parking.

So, "Why?"

stay safe.

protias said:

He doesn't sound like a LAC.

Click to expand...

I haven't seen anything that indicates he is anything BUT a usual law abiding, legal gun owning citizen, with a decent job and a home. Probably has got an alcohol problem. But that doesn't exclude Daniel from owning a gun or from being a part of our contingent.

We'll see what the details are that are released, especially about the gun purchase and any prior criminal record, but so far it looks like Brandon Montgomery Daniel may be one of us.

Appears he got trashed on drink or drugs then made a horrible decision on how and when to use a gun. If he really is (was) a LAC, then he is a
certainly a goof with a gun.

Pity, I guess.

HankT said:

I haven't seen anything that indicates he is anything BUT a usual law abiding, legal gun owning citizen, with a decent job and a home. Probably has got an alcohol problem. But that doesn't exclude Daniel from owning a gun or from being a part of our contingent.

We'll see what the details are that are released, especially about the gun purchase and any prior criminal record, but so far it looks like Brandon Montgomery Daniel may be one of us.

Appears he got trashed on drink or drugs then made a horrible decision on how and when to use a gun. If he really is (was) a LAC, then he is a
certainly a goof with a gun.

Pity, I guess.

Click to expand...

Maybe he is, but from the article I linked makes him sound as if he isn't. Then again, the media did the same thing to Mr. Zimmerman.

protias said:

Maybe he is, but from the article I linked makes him sound as if he isn't.

Click to expand...

You may very well be right, protias. I assume you're referring to:

"A man charged with fatally shooting an Austin police officer had
talked of robbing a store and told investigators he intentionally
shot the officer because he was trying to stop him from fleeing,
according to court documents released late Friday."

I hadn't quite processed that part. It was so disjointed. Did he rob a store THAT NIGHT?

protias said:

Then again, the media did the same thing to Mr. Zimmerman.

Click to expand...

Ahhhggghhh. Don't get me started on Zimmerman. That guy is DEFINITELY a goof with a gun! He has damaged my gun rights. How could one measly cop wannabe cause so much trouble with a gun??????

Even if he is not charged, even if he is found innocent, the damage that Zimmerman has done to us/me is MAJOR.

Ahhhggghhh, my BP is up again.

The mother ... says her son is a talented software engineer who has been struggling with depression for months after a bitter breakup with his longtime girlfriend... says ... he'd been taking Xanax and drinking tequila.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2017932919_apusofficerkilledtexas.html


Yikes.

The breakup blues + tequila + Xanax = bad news

The breakup blues + tequila + Xanax + a gun = BAD NEWS like 9/11 times a 1,000.


BTW, regardless of whether Daniel is one of us or not, I have to be sickened by the underlying tragedy of a cop going on a so-called 'routine call' and meeting up with a sick, stupid, homicidal man at exactly the wrong moment in exactly the wrong circumstances.

Ofc. Jaime Padron left behind a wife and two girls. At times like this, I don't blame the antis one bit for feeling as they often do.

HankT said:

..... At times like this, I don't blame the antis one bit for feeling as they often do.

Click to expand...

Oh, sure. He was not someone who did a bad thing. It was all the fault of the darned handgun.

If he did not have a handgun he never would have killed the cop. Because we all know allegedly drunk, depressed, despondent people would never use knives, baseball bats, pickaxes or their SUV (as a few quick examples) to hurt anyone. It's all the fault of the darned handgun.

I remain saddened over the death of the police officer and the way in which this person ruined not only their own life but the lives of the officer's family, his co-workers, his friends, the community where he was employed, and a whole raft of folks I'll never know about. But the one thing I am certain about is that it was not the fault of the handgun. It did not cause any of this to happen.

But you feed the frenzy of antisto dance in the blood of an (apparently) innocent man by giving support to their irrationality of blaming the handgun.:banghead::banghead::banghead:


stay safe.

HankT said:

I haven't seen anything that indicates he is anything BUT a usual law abiding, legal gun owning citizen, with a decent job and a home. Probably has got an alcohol problem. But that doesn't exclude Daniel from owning a gun or from being a part of our contingent.

We'll see what the details are that are released, especially about the gun purchase and any prior criminal record, but so far it looks like Brandon Montgomery Daniel may be one of us.

Appears he got trashed on drink or drugs then made a horrible decision on how and when to use a gun. If he really is (was) a LAC, then he is a
certainly a goof with a gun.

Pity, I guess.

Click to expand...

Carrying while intoxicated is a crime, moreso if he didn't have a license. If he has a drinking problem, he is a prohibited person. If he does illegal drugs, or abuses prescription drugs, he is a prohibited person. He is from Colorado, which could very easily mean he doesn't have a license. I constantly run into people that do not realize that you have to have a license to carry in Texas, and people that don't even realize that OC is illegal. If he is carrying without a license, he is committing multiple crimes. Can't carry in Walmart without a license, can't carry into a bar without a license, can't carry at all without a license. Can't
Carry into a 51% establishment even with a license.

There are plenty of reasons to believe this man is not normally a LAC.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk

skidmark said:

Oh, sure. He was not someone who did a bad thing. It was all the fault of the darned handgun.

If he did not have a handgun he never would have killed the cop. Because we all know allegedly drunk, depressed, despondent people would never use knives, baseball bats, pickaxes or their SUV (as a few quick examples) to hurt anyone. It's all the fault of the darned handgun.

I remain saddened over the death of the police officer and the way in which this person ruined not only their own life but the lives of the officer's family, his co-workers, his friends, the community where he was employed, and a whole raft of folks I'll never know about. But the one thing I am certain about is that it was not the fault of the handgun. It did not cause any of this to happen.

But you feed the frenzy of antisto dance in the blood of an (apparently) innocent man by giving support to their irrationality of blaming the handgun.:banghead::banghead::banghead:

Click to expand...

Strawman. Called.

I don't blame the gun by itself.

I blame the goof that used it and the fact that he was armed while (apparently) intoxicated.

It's a system, skid.

Man and machine.

I would say that it is self-evident that if Daniel did not have the handgun at THAT time at THAT place, he would not have killed THAT officer.

Guns don't shoot people. Men with guns do.

HankT said:

Strawman. Called.

I don't blame the gun by itself.

I blame the goof that used it and the fact that he was armed while (apparently) intoxicated.

It's a system, skid.

Man and machine.

I would say that it is self-evident that if Daniel did not have the handgun at THAT time at THAT place, he would not have killed THAT officer.

Guns don't shoot people. Men with guns do.

Click to expand...

You seem to suppose giving the gun a life and a will of it's own. I do not blame the gun at all, not one iota. To even suggest that is repugnant to logic.

Man and machine are not a system - the tool neither identifies the man nor his purpose/intent. What a man does and how he uses a piece of equipment, marks whether he is a LAC or a criminal. The introduction of the tool is superfluous to that distinction.

It would be vastly superior to have said that is it self-evident no other man (with or without a gun) at that time and place killed that officer.

Guns don't shoot. Guns are inert.

I fear your remarks castigate all that might chose to be responsible men (and women) with guns.

Your post implies a bias that is neither understood nor well received. Contained are distortion and misdirection (emotion triggers) rather that recounting of facts. That is more to them shame of it.

I strongly suggest that it would not be a good idea to continue the discussion in this direction.

HankT said:

I haven't seen anything that indicates he is anything BUT a usual law abiding, legal gun owning citizen, with a decent job and a home. Probably has got an alcohol problem. But that doesn't exclude Daniel from owning a gun or from being a part of our contingent.

We'll see what the details are that are released, especially about the gun purchase and any prior criminal record, but so far it looks like Brandon Montgomery Daniel may be one of us.

Appears he got trashed on drink or drugs then made a horrible decision on how and when to use a gun. If he really is (was) a LAC, then he is a
certainly a goof with a gun.

Pity, I guess.

Click to expand...

Killing someone usually means one isn't a LAC unless we're talking about something like self defense. So unless he was defending himself from the LEO (or LAWFULLY resisting arrest) that alone means he isn't a LAC, and that's before looking at other things such as if he was licensed or not.

As for those relating it to the Zimmerman incident, that's like comparing apples to oranges. Sure they might both be fruits (shootings), but outside of that they are completely different to the point that one can't really compare the two.

Texas allows people to resist arrest in very limited instances. Basically only if the officer is using greater force than necessary to make the arrest and even then you are only authorized to use the same level of force. Basically, if you cooperate and surrender to the officer, then he starts punching you in the face, you may return the punches. But nothing more. Which raises a lot of questions really, but I think that discussion is for another time.

The point is that if it's true he shot the officer to prevent being arrested, he has violated the law. He can only shoot the officer if his life absolutely depends on it and only if he was cooperating fully with the law when the officer decided to start shooting at him.

Again, don't matter if the attest is unlawful, Texas specifically states you can't use force to prevent an unlawful arrest. I would quote the law, but unfortunately I can't from this phone. You can find this bit in the part of Texas law that speaks to difference"self defense, should be in the PDF available on the Texas CHL website. The state run site.

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk

lockman said:

The only open carrier here was the victim of a murder, why would Walmart use this to disarm those lawfully open carrying?

Click to expand...

Perhaps for the same reasons they don't pay their employees a decent (living) wage.

Perhaps for the same reasons the medical insurance they offer employees is so worthless their insurance and NO insurance is practically the same thing.

Perhaps for the same reasons they refuse to place women in upper management positions because they feel women are inferior to m** as managers.

Perhaps for the same reasons they treat their employees like shyt.

noname762 said:

Perhaps for the same reasons they don't pay their employees a decent (living) wage.

Perhaps for the same reasons the medical insurance they offer employees is so worthless their insurance and NO insurance is practically the same thing.

Perhaps for the same reasons they refuse to place women in upper management positions because they feel women are inferior to m** as managers.

Perhaps for the same reasons they treat their employees like shyt.

Click to expand...

Wow, I'd better call my sister and tell her that:

1. Her Pay Sucks
2. Her Insurance Sucks
3. She lied to me , because they don't let women into upper management.
4. She really doesn't enjoy working at WalMart because they don't treat their employees good.

Not too mention all the people I know that work at Walmart that seem to think that is a pretty good place to work.

As far as the actual topic of this thread; I don't think Walmart will use this to change any polices, otherwise they would have changed them after those people were killed 2 years ago on Christmas Eve. As far as the idiot with a gun; He may have been a LAC the day before he killed this cop, but he was NOT an LAC when he shot the cop, or while he was carrying the gun if he did not possess the proper permit in Texas. I take offense to someone being called LAC, when they broke how many laws doing the deed?

A citizen is presumed legally innocent until convicted in a court of competent jurisdiction.

More Background Details

HankT said:

I haven't seen anything that indicates he is anything BUT a usual law abiding, legal gun owning citizen, with a decent job and a home. Probably has got an alcohol problem. But that doesn't exclude Daniel from owning a gun or from being a part of our contingent.

We'll see what the details are that are released, especially about the gun purchase and any prior criminal record, but so far it looks like Brandon Montgomery Daniel may be one of us.

Appears he got trashed on drink or drugs then made a horrible decision on how and when to use a gun. If he really is (was) a LAC, then he is a certainly a goof with a gun.

...

Click to expand...

Some BMD Backround details:


"He moved to Austin about a year ago."

"...with a degree in computer science and math. In Austin he works as a software engineer for Hewlett-Packard."



"Daniel was a “quiet computer nerd” and a “good person.” He went out Thursday night to buy Xanax."



"It wasn’t his first brush with the law. In 2007 he was charged with 10 misdemeanors in Colorado, including possession of marijuana and attempting to elude police."

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/04/07/parker-man-accused-of-shooting-austin-police-officer/

---

""He said dude how cool would it be to rob a store and you know I joked around with him," said Davis. "But I kind of joked it off like there is no way this guy would do that.""


"Something Davis says he still doesn't understand since his roommate had a job as a software engineer at Hewlett Packard making over $70,000."

http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/local/austin/accused-killers-roommate-speaks


----

"Daniel told Davis that that he had "gotten away with" more serious crimes before and that he flees from police on his bike “almost daily.”"


http://austin.ynn.com/content/headl...veals-new-details-surrounding-officer-s-death

----

"...a call about an intoxicated male wandering around the store, trying to hide stolen merchandise in a backpack."

" Daniel told investigators he intentionally shot Padron as he tried to stop him from leaving.Daniel told police he had the .38 semi-automatic handgun with him, "for display of intimidation should anyone attempt to stop him.""


http://www.wfaa.com/news/texas-news...tal-shooting-of-Austin-officer-146559525.html



It's looking like Daniel was a normal tech professional who happened also to use alcohol and drugs to excess and who may have been a repeat violator of the law (possibly repeated thefts) at least up to misdemenor level and maybe more. He appears to have been totally intoxicated at the time of the shooting. Why would a guy with a $70K job go shoplift with a handgun at 2:30 AM? Makes no sense.

Nothing yet about how Daniel obtained the handgun. That's a key piece of information in determining whether this guy is a LAC.

If he illegally obtained the handgun, then it's clear: Daniel is a criminal from the get-go. If he obtained the gun through the lawful process, then...it gets a little difficult to categorize him. Much will depend on his actual violations of law, both officially recorded and those not.

The drugs/alcohol factor is big, too. It could be that Daniel was a studious productive software engineer by day--but a crazed out-of-control substance abuser the rest of the time. With either with a legally-obtained gun or with a criminally-obtained one.

Good grief... anyone who commits theft and murder is a criminal, regardless of what else he is or does.

And yes, he must be considered innocent until proven guilty. Doesn't sound as if that will be too hard to do.

IF WalMart changes their policy, then I guess some of us will be finding a different place to shop. How complicated is that?