TexasCHLforum.com

Appears that shooter was CHL, not a lot of info, sounds like self defense, but a "verbal altercation" is mentioned...

http://www.ksat.com/content/pns/ksat/ne ... hyatt.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

longhorn86 wrote:sounds like self defense, but a "verbal altercation" is mentioned...

Verbal altercation shouldn't matter as the shooter retreated and was then pursued/confronted.

I most certainly would have done the same given those circumstances.

Sounds like the deceased might have been on drugs.

johncanfield wrote:Sounds like the deceased might have been on drugs.

Investigators said the victim was banging on the man's door and when he opened it, the victim charged at him.

I wonder why he opened the door to this guy--I think I would have called hotel security and/or 911 and let him flail-away at the door?

I take offense to the deceased being referred to as a victim.

Investigators said the victim was banging on the man's door and when he opened it, the victim charged at him.

Did the investigators say that or did some festering pustule editorialize that?

Based on those events, it sounds like the attacker was shot when he charged into the victim's room to assault him.

What I read yesterday was that the aggressor forced entry to the hotel room of the man after the altercation. There were no details on how the door was "forced" open though. Sounds like a good shoot.

*Edit*

The dead man, McManus said, reportedly was breaking lights in a hallway when he got into a verbal confrontation with another man, believed to be in his 40s.

The victim followed the man to his room, McManus said, where he knocked on the door until the man opened it. When he did, McManus said, the victim allegedly tried to barge in, and was met with a fatal gunshot to the chest.

Source

I might have to rethink my "good shoot" comment. Every hotel I've been in has had a peephole and I certainly wouldn't open the door for a man I just had an issue with.

That hotel has a "firearms policy" which may be a problem for the shooter. It is on their website. Don't know if this has validity of a 30.06.
Firearms Policy
The safety and security of our guests and associates is of utmost importance to Hyatt. This policy is designed for the protection of our guests and associates, and pertains to the presence of firearms on hotel premises.

Hyatt recognizes that guests or visitors may legally possess firearms for a variety of legitimate purposes. This policy is intended to create a safe environment for all guests and visitors by providing appropriate guidance over the custody of firearms on our premises.

Hotel premises are private property. Guests or visitors of a Hyatt hotel who lawfully are permitted to possess a firearm, may bring such firearm onto hotel premises for storage purposes only. Any guest or visitor who is in possession of a firearm on hotel premises is personally responsible for abiding by all applicable federal, state and local laws with respect to firearms, in the jurisdiction where the hotel is located and ensuring that the firearm is:
· unloaded;
· secured in a locked, hard-sided firearm container provided by the guest; and
· securely safeguarded at all times in a guest room (or personal vehicle), except when transporting the firearm into or out of the hotel.

Guests who fail to abide by this policy may be asked to leave the hotel premises. A blanket exception to the restrictions described in this policy statement applies only to law enforcement officers and designated military personnel, who are on-duty and required to carry firearms in the performance of their duties. No exemption to this policy is allowed for private persons, even those licensed and permitted to carry a firearm, and/or where applicable, to conceal-carry a firearm.

I'm sure he won't mind being asked to leave at this point.

The above does not constitute 30.06. It must be written notification in the language specified by the statute.

CoffeeNut wrote:What I read yesterday was that the aggressor forced entry to the hotel room of the man after the altercation. There were no details on how the door was "forced" open though. Sounds like a good shoot.

*Edit*

The dead man, McManus said, reportedly was breaking lights in a hallway when he got into a verbal confrontation with another man, believed to be in his 40s.

The victim followed the man to his room, McManus said, where he knocked on the door until the man opened it. When he did, McManus said, the victim allegedly tried to barge in, and was met with a fatal gunshot to the chest.

Source

I might have to rethink my "good shoot" comment. Every hotel I've been in has had a peephole and I certainly wouldn't open the door for a man I just had an issue with.

Roger that!

Oldgringo wrote:

CoffeeNut wrote:What I read yesterday was that the aggressor forced entry to the hotel room of the man after the altercation. There were no details on how the door was "forced" open though. Sounds like a good shoot.

*Edit*

The dead man, McManus said, reportedly was breaking lights in a hallway when he got into a verbal confrontation with another man, believed to be in his 40s.

The victim followed the man to his room, McManus said, where he knocked on the door until the man opened it. When he did, McManus said, the victim allegedly tried to barge in, and was met with a fatal gunshot to the chest.

Source

I might have to rethink my "good shoot" comment. Every hotel I've been in has had a peephole and I certainly wouldn't open the door for a man I just had an issue with.

Roger that!

In this instance I think "good shoot" equals "legal shoot". Tactically, opening the door probably wasn't a good idea, but that doesn't negate his right to self defense.

rotor wrote:That hotel has a "firearms policy" which may be a problem for the shooter. It is on their website. Don't know if this has validity of a 30.06.
Firearms Policy
The safety and security of our guests and associates is of utmost importance to Hyatt. This policy is designed for the protection of our guests and associates, and pertains to the presence of firearms on hotel premises.

Hyatt recognizes that guests or visitors may legally possess firearms for a variety of legitimate purposes. This policy is intended to create a safe environment for all guests and visitors by providing appropriate guidance over the custody of firearms on our premises.

Hotel premises are private property. Guests or visitors of a Hyatt hotel who lawfully are permitted to possess a firearm, may bring such firearm onto hotel premises for storage purposes only. Any guest or visitor who is in possession of a firearm on hotel premises is personally responsible for abiding by all applicable federal, state and local laws with respect to firearms, in the jurisdiction where the hotel is located and ensuring that the firearm is:
· unloaded;
· secured in a locked, hard-sided firearm container provided by the guest; and
· securely safeguarded at all times in a guest room (or personal vehicle), except when transporting the firearm into or out of the hotel.

Guests who fail to abide by this policy may be asked to leave the hotel premises. A blanket exception to the restrictions described in this policy statement applies only to law enforcement officers and designated military personnel, who are on-duty and required to carry firearms in the performance of their duties. No exemption to this policy is allowed for private persons, even those licensed and permitted to carry a firearm, and/or where applicable, to conceal-carry a firearm.

Policies like this are designed to protect the hotel from liability rather than actually provide safety for guests. If a firearm is misused, they can say the guest broke the rule and whatever happened isn't their fault. They also no doubt know that their rule doesn't have the force of law so folks don't have to comply with it as long as they're discreet. This means they keep the business of lawful firearm owners.

The rule is much like Target's "respectful request" that people not bring guns into their stores.

The takeaway I see is: Concealed is concealed, and carry on.