TexasCHLforum.com

https://www.ksl.com/article/46400745/st ... police-say

Another good guy with a gun stops a bad guy beating a Starbucks employee. The Starbuck's employee's co-workers screamed and fled rather than assist.

Another one with "the eyes."

Starbucks "We are grateful local authorities were there to help and would direct any further questions their way." Local authorities were not there when needed, only after the fact.

I think they need to be grateful to the LTC holder. The battered employee sure is.

More detail here: https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900 ... e-say.html

The police were already looking for this guy before he started beating the woman.

Maybe time to rethink this?:

In 2013, Starbucks made a request that customers not bring firearms into its stores or outdoor eating areas, but the company specified that it was a request and not an outright ban.

Bitter Clinger wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:11 pm Maybe time to rethink this?:

In 2013, Starbucks made a request that customers not bring firearms into its stores or outdoor eating areas, but the company specified that it was a request and not an outright ban.

The lady is fortunate that someone who cares enough about personal safety and the well being of others still cares about drinking that stuff SB calls coffee.

Really good article!

...he continued hitting her. Hamilton’s co-workers, however, remained frozen, unsure what to do, she said. “I started to think why no one was helping me, ‘cause he was only hitting me, and I felt kind of angry for a moment,” she said.

Before Hamilton had much time to ponder the question, however, the man picked up a metal supply basket and hit her on the side of the head. Hamilton crumpled, and the man continued kicking her in the back. The only thought left in her mind: "I don't want to die this way."

As soon as she fell to the ground, however, her co-workers ran out the door and began screaming for help....Soon after, she heard a gunshot.

Maybe Starbucks management needs a training day to figure out what they did wrong here. When the only security in Starbucks is the customers who have been respectfully requested not to bring firearms or any weapons by Starbucks chairman Howard Schultz there is a problem.

“I never would have expected that from him," she said. "He just seemed like a very meek guy. So I was surprised, but also very grateful. I was very grateful that he was there.

The concealed carrier did this exactly right. People like Hamilton who saw him regularly in public were surprised that he was armed and would have never expected the CHL would do what he did. The CHL was meek, didn't raise any attention or suspicion, and took action at the moment when action was needed. Outstanding job!

I havent drank any of that brown swirl SB calls coffee or set foot in there store since i started buying my coffees from BRCC. There coffee and there No Gun request left a bad taste in my mouth.

rotor wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:18 pm Starbucks "We are grateful local authorities were there to help and would direct any further questions their way." Local authorities were not there when needed, only after the fact.

I think they need to be grateful to the LTC holder. The battered employee sure is.

Just waiting for SB CEO to double down on that inane statement with a official Corp response to criticism being levied against their no weapons policy for employees, and "don't like" police for legal carry by non employees .

Can the barista sue SB for failing to allow then to secure them selfs all while failing to provide security for them at the company level? (sorry, yes can sue....I should have said, win such a suit)

The co-workers that ran away instead of helping the woman should be fired!! Now SB should understand why customers need to be armed. If the SB employees won't help one of their own, they surely won't help a customer.

Maybe its just the type of person that would work at a SB, but I'm a little surprised that anyone in Utah would just up and run away in a situation like that. I thought they had tougher folks up there than that.

I'm glad this situation worked out. But from a different perspective, it could have gone a different way. The attacker was not armed except for the basket that he picked up. Would that be enough of a potentially deadly weapon in many other circumstances to justify a deadly force response?

The story said that the CHL was in his 60s. I have always hoped that a disparity in age would help if I had to respond to a much younger physical attacker. But I worry about situations where the drug crazed man in Arlington was in a car lot, beating on cars and LE ended up shooting him. The aftermath of that one dragged on. I don't see any way for a normal person, particularly an older one to deal with those under significant influence of drugs or alcohol without some sort of force multiplier. It is fortunate for the defender that this was in UT and not a blue State.

I agree with pretty much everything said here and glad a good guy with a gun was able to stop this assault. My question is what was he shot with that he was able to run away from a shot to the chest.