Page 1 of 3

Warning shots at SA Little Red Barn Steakhouse

Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2016 5:06 pm
by mojo84
Not the best decision regarding tactics. This guy may be in trouble.

http://www.ksat.com/news/employee-invol ... ith-police
The shooting, which was caught on camera, showed the waiter firing three rounds at the wall. Some people at the restaurant said the server was verbally and physically assaulted after he brought out the wrong order.

Re: Warning shots at SA Little Red Barn Steakhouse

Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 5:55 am
by longhorn86
It was reported on local news this morning that the waiter did not have an LTC. This coupled with the restaurant's reported no guns policy for their employees, I would venture to say he is in deep. Fired at the very least, charges most likely.

http://www.ksat.com/news/waiter-who-fir ... t-incident

Re: Warning shots at SA Little Red Barn Steakhouse

Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 6:19 am
by goose
Why is everyone upset? Anyone with a bit of sense knows that all walls are made to trap bullets. Wasn't it just last year that San Antonio passed new building codes requiring all dead air spaces in walls be filled with shredded old tires? That's why we shoot into 'em...............

Re: Warning shots at SA Little Red Barn Steakhouse

Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 6:57 am
by mojo84
Glad to learn he does not have an LTC. Just another example of how making a rule prohibiting guns does not actually prevent guns from being brought into a location. When will people realize rules do not prevent bad behavior.

Re: Warning shots at SA Little Red Barn Steakhouse

Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 9:14 am
by SoConfused
He took quite a stupid risk discharging his weapon without being sure of the backstop and will probably lose his job due to the company's gun policy.

However, he's perfectly within his legal rights to carry concealed there without a license.

Re: Warning shots at SA Little Red Barn Steakhouse

Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 9:21 am
by goose
SoConfused wrote:He took quite a stupid risk discharging his weapon without being sure of the backstop and will probably lose his job due to the company's gun policy.

However, he's perfectly within his legal rights to carry concealed there without a license.
Under what authority? Castle doctrine and MPA aren't in play as best as I can tell.

Re: Warning shots at SA Little Red Barn Steakhouse

Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 9:35 am
by mojo84
SoConfused wrote:
However, he's perfectly within his legal rights to carry concealed there without a license.
I think you are confused. ;-) It is not perfectly legal to do so since the owner of the property and business has advised the employees there is a no guns policy.

However, I would be interested in your reasoning or logic. I wouldn't claim his being an employee of the owner gives him the right. That won't fly.

Re: Warning shots at SA Little Red Barn Steakhouse

Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:17 am
by SoConfused
mojo84 wrote:
SoConfused wrote:
However, he's perfectly within his legal rights to carry concealed there without a license.
I think you are confused. ;-) It is not perfectly legal to do so since the owner of the property and business has advised the employees there is a no guns policy.

However, I would be interested in your reasoning or logic. I wouldn't claim his being an employee of the owner gives him the right. That won't fly.
Ha! I like what you did there. :lol:

I believe the waiter was legally carrying on premises under his control. This is evidenced by the fact that any employee has apparent authority to ask someone with an LTC to leave.

There's also the common practice of giving waiters a section of the premises in which to work that are then under their control.

We'll see if he's charged, but if he does get a charge of unlawful carrying of weapons, he'll only be convicted by not having enough money for a quality defense that can twist the definition of "premises" and "control" into what he needs them to be. That would be very bad for him since there's alcohol served there, bumping it up to a Felony.

Re: Warning shots at SA Little Red Barn Steakhouse

Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:29 am
by goose
SoConfused wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
SoConfused wrote:
However, he's perfectly within his legal rights to carry concealed there without a license.
I think you are confused. ;-) It is not perfectly legal to do so since the owner of the property and business has advised the employees there is a no guns policy.

However, I would be interested in your reasoning or logic. I wouldn't claim his being an employee of the owner gives him the right. That won't fly.
Ha! I like what you did there. :lol:

I believe the waiter was legally carrying on premises under his control. This is evidenced by the fact that any employee has apparent authority to ask someone with an LTC to leave.

There's also the common practice of giving waiters a section of the premises in which to work that are then under their control.

We'll see if he's charged, but if he does get a charge of unlawful carrying of weapons, he'll only be convicted by not having enough money for a quality defense that can twist the definition of "premises" and "control" into what he needs them to be. That would be very bad for him since there's alcohol served there, bumping it up to a Felony.
I think that analogy that I would apply here is one of a ship Captain being relieved of duty for not following protocol. Once he violated his employer's firearms policy I think that it would be a trick to claim his employer then granted him control. Granted, I can't say you're wrong until there is case law. That said, I would NOT want the employer on the stand saying I was not granted control of a space and then my lawyer trying to argue the definition of control. Could it be done? Possibly. Is it a stretch to claim he was legally carrying? Probably.

Re: Warning shots at SA Little Red Barn Steakhouse

Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:44 am
by mojo84
SoConfused wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
SoConfused wrote:
However, he's perfectly within his legal rights to carry concealed there without a license.
I think you are confused. ;-) It is not perfectly legal to do so since the owner of the property and business has advised the employees there is a no guns policy.

However, I would be interested in your reasoning or logic. I wouldn't claim his being an employee of the owner gives him the right. That won't fly.
Ha! I like what you did there. :lol:

I believe the waiter was legally carrying on premises under his control. This is evidenced by the fact that any employee has apparent authority to ask someone with an LTC to leave.

There's also the common practice of giving waiters a section of the premises in which to work that are then under their control.

We'll see if he's charged, but if he does get a charge of unlawful carrying of weapons, he'll only be convicted by not having enough money for a quality defense that can twist the definition of "premises" and "control" into what he needs them to be. That would be very bad for him since there's alcohol served there, bumping it up to a Felony.
That argument might fly if the owner hadn't advised the employees of the no gun policy. Even in the analogy you provide, the owner or superior can overrule a subordinates directive. A subordinate cannot overrule a superior's decision or directive. Real authority is not overridden by someone' else's "apparent". The owner has real authority.

Re: Warning shots at SA Little Red Barn Steakhouse

Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 11:42 am
by SoConfused
mojo84 wrote:
SoConfused wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
SoConfused wrote:
However, he's perfectly within his legal rights to carry concealed there without a license.
I think you are confused. ;-) It is not perfectly legal to do so since the owner of the property and business has advised the employees there is a no guns policy.

However, I would be interested in your reasoning or logic. I wouldn't claim his being an employee of the owner gives him the right. That won't fly.
Ha! I like what you did there. :lol:

I believe the waiter was legally carrying on premises under his control. This is evidenced by the fact that any employee has apparent authority to ask someone with an LTC to leave.

There's also the common practice of giving waiters a section of the premises in which to work that are then under their control.

We'll see if he's charged, but if he does get a charge of unlawful carrying of weapons, he'll only be convicted by not having enough money for a quality defense that can twist the definition of "premises" and "control" into what he needs them to be. That would be very bad for him since there's alcohol served there, bumping it up to a Felony.
That argument might fly if the owner hadn't advised the employees of the no gun policy. Even in the analogy you provide, the owner or superior can overrule a subordinates directive. A subordinate cannot overrule a superior's decision or directive. Real authority is not overridden by someone' else's "apparent". The owner has real authority.
It'll be interesting to see if the employers policy has force of law. I don't think it does. Obviously the employer can fire him for violating policy, but as far as criminal consequences go, the most I could see happening is a criminal trespass warning.

I'm anxious to see the outcome. I'm up for a gentleman's bet that there won't be an unlawful carrying of weapons charge. :cheers2: Of course the actual discharging of that weapon in a crowded restaurant is a whole other stupid act with its own consequences, both criminal and civil.

Re: Warning shots at SA Little Red Barn Steakhouse

Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 11:51 am
by TexasTornado
SoConfused wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
SoConfused wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
SoConfused wrote:
However, he's perfectly within his legal rights to carry concealed there without a license.
I think you are confused. ;-) It is not perfectly legal to do so since the owner of the property and business has advised the employees there is a no guns policy.

However, I would be interested in your reasoning or logic. I wouldn't claim his being an employee of the owner gives him the right. That won't fly.
Ha! I like what you did there. :lol:

I believe the waiter was legally carrying on premises under his control. This is evidenced by the fact that any employee has apparent authority to ask someone with an LTC to leave.

There's also the common practice of giving waiters a section of the premises in which to work that are then under their control.

We'll see if he's charged, but if he does get a charge of unlawful carrying of weapons, he'll only be convicted by not having enough money for a quality defense that can twist the definition of "premises" and "control" into what he needs them to be. That would be very bad for him since there's alcohol served there, bumping it up to a Felony.
That argument might fly if the owner hadn't advised the employees of the no gun policy. Even in the analogy you provide, the owner or superior can overrule a subordinates directive. A subordinate cannot overrule a superior's decision or directive. Real authority is not overridden by someone' else's "apparent". The owner has real authority.
It'll be interesting to see if the employers policy has force of law. I don't think it does. Obviously the employer can fire him for violating policy, but as far as criminal consequences go, the most I could see happening is a criminal trespass warning.

I'm anxious to see the outcome. I'm up for a gentleman's bet that there won't be an unlawful carrying of weapons charge. :cheers2: Of course the actual discharging of that weapon in a crowded restaurant is a whole other stupid act with its own consequences, both criminal and civil.

I foresee the waiter being out of a job and (with a good lawyer) receiving a fine for discharging his firearm.

In my opinion just deserts....

Re: Warning shots at SA Little Red Barn Steakhouse

Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 12:01 pm
by Flightmare
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/ ... 182404.php
SAPD spokesman Douglas Greene said the department is looking for both the employee and the patron. The customer may face an assault charge — depending on if the employee wants to press charges. The waiter may face a charge of unlawful carry of a weapon, Greene said.

Re: Warning shots at SA Little Red Barn Steakhouse

Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 12:50 pm
by mojo84
SoConfused wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
SoConfused wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
SoConfused wrote:
However, he's perfectly within his legal rights to carry concealed there without a license.
I think you are confused. ;-) It is not perfectly legal to do so since the owner of the property and business has advised the employees there is a no guns policy.

However, I would be interested in your reasoning or logic. I wouldn't claim his being an employee of the owner gives him the right. That won't fly.
Ha! I like what you did there. :lol:

I believe the waiter was legally carrying on premises under his control. This is evidenced by the fact that any employee has apparent authority to ask someone with an LTC to leave.

There's also the common practice of giving waiters a section of the premises in which to work that are then under their control.

We'll see if he's charged, but if he does get a charge of unlawful carrying of weapons, he'll only be convicted by not having enough money for a quality defense that can twist the definition of "premises" and "control" into what he needs them to be. That would be very bad for him since there's alcohol served there, bumping it up to a Felony.
That argument might fly if the owner hadn't advised the employees of the no gun policy. Even in the analogy you provide, the owner or superior can overrule a subordinates directive. A subordinate cannot overrule a superior's decision or directive. Real authority is not overridden by someone' else's "apparent". The owner has real authority.
It'll be interesting to see if the employers policy has force of law. I don't think it does. Obviously the employer can fire him for violating policy, but as far as criminal consequences go, the most I could see happening is a criminal trespass warning.

I'm anxious to see the outcome. I'm up for a gentleman's bet that there won't be an unlawful carrying of weapons charge. :cheers2: Of course the actual discharging of that weapon in a crowded restaurant is a whole other stupid act with its own consequences, both criminal and civil.
Where in the law is an unlicensed person allowed to carry a handgun off their property or property in their control? Since he was at work, he can't even argue he was traveling.

They may not charge him for the unlawful carry but I bet they do charge him for unlawful discharge. However, just because they may not charge him with unlawful carry, it doesn't mean hee want breaking the law.

Re: Warning shots at SA Little Red Barn Steakhouse

Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 1:04 pm
by Soccerdad1995
mojo84 wrote:
SoConfused wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
SoConfused wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
SoConfused wrote:
However, he's perfectly within his legal rights to carry concealed there without a license.
I think you are confused. ;-) It is not perfectly legal to do so since the owner of the property and business has advised the employees there is a no guns policy.

However, I would be interested in your reasoning or logic. I wouldn't claim his being an employee of the owner gives him the right. That won't fly.
Ha! I like what you did there. :lol:

I believe the waiter was legally carrying on premises under his control. This is evidenced by the fact that any employee has apparent authority to ask someone with an LTC to leave.

There's also the common practice of giving waiters a section of the premises in which to work that are then under their control.

We'll see if he's charged, but if he does get a charge of unlawful carrying of weapons, he'll only be convicted by not having enough money for a quality defense that can twist the definition of "premises" and "control" into what he needs them to be. That would be very bad for him since there's alcohol served there, bumping it up to a Felony.
That argument might fly if the owner hadn't advised the employees of the no gun policy. Even in the analogy you provide, the owner or superior can overrule a subordinates directive. A subordinate cannot overrule a superior's decision or directive. Real authority is not overridden by someone' else's "apparent". The owner has real authority.
It'll be interesting to see if the employers policy has force of law. I don't think it does. Obviously the employer can fire him for violating policy, but as far as criminal consequences go, the most I could see happening is a criminal trespass warning.

I'm anxious to see the outcome. I'm up for a gentleman's bet that there won't be an unlawful carrying of weapons charge. :cheers2: Of course the actual discharging of that weapon in a crowded restaurant is a whole other stupid act with its own consequences, both criminal and civil.
Where in the law is an unlicensed person allowed to carry a handgun off their property or property in their control? Since he was at work, he can't even argue he was traveling.

They may not charge him for the unlawful carry but I bet they do charge him for unlawful discharge. However, just because they may not charge him with unlawful carry, it doesn't mean hee want breaking the law.
I think he should be charged with unlawful carry. If the restaurant serves alcohol, that is a felony, as has been pointed out.

But playing devil's advocate to my belief, if the employer explicitly allowed employees to carry guns, then he might be OK. I'm thinking of the practice at just about every public range where employees openly carried guns prior to OC going into effect in January. The only way that was legal is if every employee at that range was "in control" of the premises by virtue of being an employee at a place where the owner explicitly granted permission to carry. Since LEO's are regular visitors at most ranges and (to my knowledge) no employee was ever arrested for illegally openly carrying, LEO's in general must believe that it is OK for them to do so.