9 dead in motorcyle gang gunfight at Texas restaurant

[The Minsky Moment]

AFAIK if there are two groups of legal CCL holders in the Denny's parking lot, and one guy in one group 1 starts shooting, that doesn't mean group 2 can just start legally hosing bullets everywhere.  At the very least, the guy who started shooting and everyone who shot at people that weren't him aren't doing something legal.

Guy who started shooting could have believed someone was going to shoot him or assault him by some other means. 
B is laying on the mustard a bit but he has a point - if you take SYG seriously, it is theoretically possible to have a situation like this where everyone acted legally (at least in shooting).   My guess probably not on the actual facts of what happened here but not beyond the realm of possibility.

[Berkut]

Persons A, B, C, and D are in a parking lot. Persons A and B are friends, as are C and D.

Person C says to person B "I think you are an asshole, and your momma dresses you funny!" in a threatening manner.

Person B says "I will kill you for saying that about my momma!", but he is totally joking! He gestures when he does this, exposing his legally carried pistol in his holster.

Person C, not realizing that person B is joking, and seeing the gun, thinks he is is about to get killed, having heard a perfectly credible threat to kill him from someone clearly capable of doing so. So he pulls out his gun and shoots at Person B.

Person A, seeing someone trying to murder their friend, recalls that millions of crimes per year are deterred by law abiding citizens and their guns, pulls out his gun an squeezes of a couple rounds at Person C.

Person D, seeing someone trying to murder their friend, recalls that millions of crimes per year are deterred by law abiding citizens and their guns, pulls out his gun an squeezes of a couple rounds at Person A.

Now we have four people in a gunfight, all of whom can legitimately claim that they felt themselves or someone else was in imminent fear of their life.

Now instead of four people, lets imagine 100 .

[MadBurgerMaker]

Guy who started shooting could have believed someone was going to shoot him or assault him by some other means. 
B is laying on the mustard a bit but he has a point - if you take SYG seriously, it is theoretically possible to have a situation like this where everyone acted legally (at least in shooting).   My guess probably not on the actual facts of what happened here but not beyond the realm of possibility.

It would have to be guy from group 1 feels threatened and blasts one guy from group 2.  Group 2 now feels threatened and shoots at guy in group 1.  Group 1 is now scared and shoots at group 2.

Something like that?

Group 1 might have some issues since they started shooting at everyone in Group 2. You would have your magical firefight, but I don't think everyone would be getting away with it by claiming stand your ground.

This also has zero to do with a couple of biker gangs in the meth business blasting each other in a twin peaks parking lot.

[The Minsky Moment]

This also has zero to do with a couple of biker gangs in the meth business blasting each other in a twin peaks parking lot.

Probably.
But there is a reason why you don't see SYG and conceal carry in NYC for example.  Because it doesn't work so good in a subway system.

[MadImmortalMan]

This is why there is the crime of brandishing I suppose. You can't even let your gun show unless carrying openly.

Also, it is justified to shoot to prevent harm to third parties even if you aren't the one in immediate threat.

I'm sure some of these arrested guys will get off just for the simple fact that a gunfight involving a hundred dudes is a big clusterfuck that nobody will really ever be able to sort out. Probably they'll mostly be up on weapons charges of various kinds.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Persons A, B, C, and D are in a parking lot. Persons A and B are friends, as are C and D.

Person C says to person B "I think you are an asshole, and your momma dresses you funny!" in a threatening manner.

Person B says "I will kill you for saying that about my momma!", but he is totally joking! He gestures when he does this, exposing his legally carried pistol in his holster.

Person C, not realizing that person B is joking, and seeing the gun, thinks he is is about to get killed, having heard a perfectly credible threat to kill him from someone clearly capable of doing so. So he pulls out his gun and shoots at Person B.

If B didn't pull that gun out, I'm not sure how C can say his life was about to be ended and he needed to protect himself with deadly force.  B probably did something illegal too by flashing that gun, but I'm not that familiar with how that part of it works.

E:  If MIM is right about having to keep it completely concealed, then looks like B started the shit. C starting some shit by threatening B to begin with doesn't help his case either, BTW.

[Admiral Yi]

Probably.
But there is a reason why you don't see SYG and conceal carry in NYC for example.  Because it doesn't work so good in a subway system.

Ah, so that's the reason.

[The Minsky Moment]

If B didn't pull that gun out, I'm not sure how C can say his life was about to be ended and he needed to protect himself.

If his defense is that he saw B was armed and charging in menacing way and saying I am going to kill you, that is probably enough to allow the justification defense to go to the jury, no?

[MadBurgerMaker]

If his defense is that he saw B was armed and charging in menacing way and saying I am going to kill you, that is probably enough to allow the justification defense to go to the jury, no?

Well yeah, if there's only one survivor and no one else saw anything at all, he can say whatever he wants, right?  But looking at that, C might also be in trouble for saying something in a threatening manner to kick things off.  B still apparently can't flash that gun too.  So if they weren't both dead, C and B are easily in some shit. 

E:  Really, A and D seem like the only ones who might have a reason to pull a gun out, since there are bullets flying at them and their friends, but the whole firefight is started by a dude threatening someone while carrying and potentially shooting someone for no reason (C), and another dude illegally flashing a gun (B), so...I don't know how that would work with A and D.  It certainly isn't a "legal" firefight though. 

[dps]

If B didn't pull that gun out, I'm not sure how C can say his life was about to be ended and he needed to protect himself.

If his defense is that he saw B was armed and charging in menacing way and saying I am going to kill you, that is probably enough to allow the justification defense to go to the jury, no?

Don't know why any lawyer would want to try that in this case, though.  Once a Texas jury hears testimony that the shoot-out was gang-related, they aren't going to care about any variation of a self-defense justification (of which SYG is just a type of).  The defense I would presume most lawyers would try is simple denial:  "Look the authorities don't know who shot who.  They just picked my client to charge with this particular death pretty much at random.  They've failed to prove that he shot anyone, much less the particular victim he is charged with shooting".

[Tonitrus]

https://www.google.com/search?q=twin+peaks+restaurant&tbm=isch&imgil=KZkkTQjKb2BrfM%253A%253Ba2VeW1e4Up0xGM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.cvmaride.com%25252Fridewaiver.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=KZkkTQjKb2BrfM%253A%252Ca2VeW1e4Up0xGM%252C_&usg=__zoYXLeeyTvuFHPc91qPCVqiUoSs%3D&biw=1429&bih=923&dpr=0.9&ved=0CFQQyjc&ei=CLNbVcf8OsqSsAXe-oDIBQ#imgrc=KZkkTQjKb2BrfM%253A%3Ba2VeW1e4Up0xGM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.cvmaride.com%252FTWIN_PEAKS.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.cvmaride.com%252Fridewaiver.html%3B800%3B600

Who the hell gets a boob job to work at a restaurant? 

I think it is more of a symptom than a cause.

[Berkut]

If B didn't pull that gun out, I'm not sure how C can say his life was about to be ended and he needed to protect himself.

If his defense is that he saw B was armed and charging in menacing way and saying I am going to kill you, that is probably enough to allow the justification defense to go to the jury, no?

People shoot one another with a lot less justification than that and get away with it...

[Berkut]

Don't know why any lawyer would want to try that in this case, though.  Once a Texas jury hears testimony that the shoot-out was gang-related, they aren't going to care about any variation of a self-defense justification (of which SYG is just a type of). 

Of course - that is because people fundamentally realize that the entire SYG/shoot when "threatened", lets all pack guns for a safer society is basically completely bullshit, and even a moment of thought about it makes it clear that you cannot actually use that as an actual standard, since it creates perverse situations that simply cannot be allowed in an actual civil society. IE, if you actually held to it consistently, you could very much have situation where a bunch of people are shooting each other completely legally.

The NRA hasn't apparently figured that out though, so they keep pretending like their position actually makes sense.

[Berkut]

If his defense is that he saw B was armed and charging in menacing way and saying I am going to kill you, that is probably enough to allow the justification defense to go to the jury, no?

Well yeah, if there's only one survivor and no one else saw anything at all, he can say whatever he wants, right?  But looking at that, C might also be in trouble for saying something in a threatening manner to kick things off.

But it is not illegal in and of itself - it migth magically become illegal once the police decide they need to charge someone with something, since in actual society you cannot allow shootouts

But that is pretty much my point. A person can do something that is perfectly legal, but creates in another persons mind a "threat".

  B still apparently can't flash that gun too.  So if they weren't both dead, C and B are easily in some shit. 

He didn't flash the gun, it was accidentally shown. He never intended to flash anything. You can replace that with C just knowing he has a gun in some fashion - maybe they talked about previously.

E:  Really, A and D seem like the only ones who might have a reason to pull a gun out, since there are bullets flying at them and their friends, but the whole firefight is started by a dude threatening someone while carrying and potentially shooting someone for no reason (C), and another dude illegally flashing a gun (B), so...I don't know how that would work with A and D.  It certainly isn't a "legal" firefight though. 

Of course it is - nobody did anything illegal at all, that absent the firefight would get anyone in any trouble. I know this, because I made up the scenario myself.

It doesn't really matter HOW the first person finds themselves "threatened". You can't really tell me you cannot imagine a scenario where some person could feel threatened by someone else without that other person committing a crime?

[jimmy olsen]

Don't know why any lawyer would want to try that in this case, though.  Once a Texas jury hears testimony that the shoot-out was gang-related, they aren't going to care about any variation of a self-defense justification (of which SYG is just a type of). 

Of course - that is because people fundamentally realize that the entire SYG/shoot when "threatened", lets all pack guns for a safer society is basically completely bullshit, and even a moment of thought about it makes it clear that you cannot actually use that as an actual standard, since it creates perverse situations that simply cannot be allowed in an actual civil society. IE, if you actually held to it consistently, you could very much have situation where a bunch of people are shooting each other completely legally.

The NRA hasn't apparently figured that out though, so they keep pretending like their position actually makes sense.

If they haven't figured it out, then they're not pretending. They actually believe it.