“A man was shot Sunday evening in the parking lot of the Target store at The Prado shopping center on Roswell Road in Sandy Springs. The man, whose name has not been released, was taken to Grady Memorial Hospital with a gunshot wounds to the back and arm,” ajc.com. Steve Rose said. TTAG reader KA writes: “Well, I wonder if Shannon and friends would consider getting carjacked and shot in the back in a Target parking lot #offTarget. Personally, I find victim disarmament zones leave me feeling #targeted, to use their vernacular. Oh well, at least it didn’t happen inside the store, because, you know, that would be against Target’s, um, polite request that guns stay in the car. Best wishes to the guy who got shot.”
Grady Hospital in Georgia? Shades of “Doc Hollywood!” Hope the guy can sue Target for forcing him to give up his Constitutional right to self defense!
Won’t get very far; despite what the “Moms” and their media megaphones say, Target isn’t forcing anybody to do anything. They just made a request.
Sorry, but Target did not “force” him to give up anything.
Do you know the guy would have been carrying without Target’s press release “request?”
No matter the answer to that question, though, their press release “request” carries no force at all. If he was not armed, it is purely on him.
To be sure the word “force” is way overused. It really ought to be reserved for cases were someone will ultimately try to commit violence against you if you refuse.
The armed individual wishing to go to Target has three choices open to him, none of them involving compulsion: A) Don’t go. B) Go, but unarmed. C) Go armed. Those are the same three choices one faces going to walmart, the difference being that the owner of Target recently asked you not do C but also pointedly didn’t say they would eject you if you did. (Still there’s a chance some officious employee will attempt to do so.)
Given that I know of the request, C would smack to me of violating a property owner’s stated wishes, so I won’t do it. I also don’t want to reward the SOB for his stance by giving him money. Sucking up to MDA should hurt in the pocketbook. B of course would comply with the owner’s request…but also reward him for his stance and leave you unarmed. Blecccch, in a (non-) word. A suits me. The SOB gets nothing from me, I remain armed, and I’ve respected his request.
But none of that justifies using the word “force” or any of its forms (‘forced,” “forcing,” etc.).
Several of wrongs here. One, you don’t have a constitutional right to carry at Target because it’s private property. Two, Target didn’t ban anything, they expressed a preference. Three, it happened in the parking lot so he could have been armed. Given two and three, if the victim did have a permit his misunderstanding of Target’s policy was costly to him.
Wrong, a private property that operates under a public permit is called collective property. Meaning they lose the rights to restrict people based on rights. Since open carry falls under first amendment strict protections and second amendment rights. ..their permit to operate is less than personal rights. Or they can close shop and make it members only so that the members have to agree to giving up rights for discount crap.
I have supreme court cases if you are an attorney and wish to sue.
You will be misinterpreting those cases if you do cite them. Just ask Shannon Watts. Kroger kicked MDA’s butt out of one of their stores. Better yet, go to Tysons Corner Mall and refuse to leave when they discover your gun.
Im working on it. Im trying to get all permits struck as unconstitutional. Since it is a tax on a right that established a separate class. I can’t find anyplace that will throw me out for open carry. As soon as I start I will post but seems most of the places I go just really dont care about my rifle. Is seems its mostly 2 amendment supporters and true antis.
Hee hee… Target. Because shooting terms. Puns for the win. Happy healing to the gentleman. Should have been a DGU, too…
maybe a frivolous lawsuit against MDA and Target is in order. . . .? If Brady Bunch can sue ammo sellers. . . . .
I’ve heard you know a good lawyer, Dirk…
I believe some turgid litigation is in order against the Mommies. ; )
No doubt a stand-up lawyer for dealing with Shannon.
While I don’t agree with the Mom’s nonsense, in this case, I’m not sure a gun would have made much difference. One of the shots was in the back. While it’s possible the victim was tagged as he tried to run, it’s just as likely the victim was shot in the back by the thugs and would not have been able to deploy a pistol even if he had one.
This speaks more to situational awareness. Don’t let the perps get the drop on you. If you are paying attention, then a gun in your possession would be far more effective.
The guy shot was in the middle of a drug deal according to the linked article. Not exactly a poster child to wave around for defenseless citizen in a parking lot.
Why did the drug dealers feel safe about dealing drugs at the Target? If I had to guess they felt comfortable dealing drugs there because of Target requesting that their loyal customers not bring guns.
They were drug dealers, so the likelihood they were even technically legal to own a gun is low.
Ummm yeah. Read the article. Not a poster boy for the 2nd Amendment. That is all…
Did the cops check the Starbucks next door? Nothing goes better with a shooting in #targetrichenviroment like a nice iced chai….Or there’s Chipotle and a Panera a few miles down Perimeter if they felt a bit peckish…
Interesting. Anyway you guys should update the title; the article says he was part of a drug deal. Not your average carjacking like the video made it seem like.
While it was a drug deal and not a poster boy for the 2nd Amendment it does ring true that drug deals do happen in their parking lots. So as I a consumer I can understand that I can leave my guns in my cars to pick up paper towels at Target then get shot by drug dealers in their parking lot. Furthermore the shady characters that buy and sell drugs does not appeal to me, caught in the crossfire or just mugged leaving their store is a lose/lose to me. Why does Target wish me hurt? Good thing there is a Kroger right next to Target here in TN 🙂
Drug deal and car jacking? The old “combo platter!”
Criminals do not care about corporate rules? Astounding! Give me a Frappucino with that drug deal!
If only Target had extended their “No Firearms” policy to their parking lot, this victim would never have been a victim.
/end_sarcasm
Once again, Target does not have a no guns policy. They have merely expressed a preference. You are quite free to exercise your preference and they are happy to take your money.
That would be a fair question to ask the Target corporate managment. Does the no firearms request extend to the parking lot? If it doesn’t then they risk alienating the Mommy group if they afirm. If it does then it’s a glaring admission that the request isn’t effective. Either way lose/lose for them in the PR department. They should have just played Switzerland like Kroger did.
Thugs….
Comments are closed.