Guy A in parking lot sees Guy B getting out of his car and putting a gun under his jacket. Upon their entering Walmart, Guy A tackles Guy B, shouting that Guy B has a gun. Despite Guy B yelling back that he has a permit, Guys C and D run over and help Guy A, who puts a choke hold on Guy B restrain him …
… until the police arrive and determine that, by cracky, Guy B does have a concealed carry permit.
Oh, would you be surprised to find out that Guy B is black, and Guys A, C, and D are all white?
I suppose we should probably count ourselves luck that Guy A wasn't also toting a gun. Or that Guy B didn't feel in fear of his life and manage to get a shot off.
Guy A is charged with assault, which is a mild surprise, though I'd not at all be shocked to find out he gets off with a slap on the wrist.
Black man lawfully carrying gun gets pummeled by white vigilante at Walmart
Florida’s vigilante spirit, once again in action.
The only way to stop a black guy with a gun…
Props to Guy A. If you're Guy B and you don't have the sense to CONCEAL your weapon BEFORE you exit your vehicle, you just might be suspected of something else and get a beat down.
+Rob Go Why?
+Greg S. I really need to clarify further? Really?
+Rob Go Sure. He's got a concealed permit, and he placed the gun into a concealed setting. Why does that give the other guy the right to jump him? (Besides that if it had been the situation the guy was thinking of, he might well have gotten shot for his trouble.)
+Greg S. Dude, I'm just pointing out that he shouldn't be that shocked to getting jumped. A lot of peeps might just report it with a call, but more "zealous" folks might just go for the tackle. Guy B got the tackle. Oh well.
And filed the assault charges, too. I guess "Oh well" goes in more than one direction!
+Rob Go Not being a regular gun-toter, I don't know how comfortable or convenient or safe Guy B's holster was; it may have made more sense for him to secure the gun about his person after getting out of the sitting, belted confines of the car.
Getting a "beat down" because you're "suspected of something" is not quite the way things are supposed to work. It's problematic when it's actual law enforcement doing it; when it's some guy who thinks that anyone carrying a gun (particularly when it's a white guy drawing conclusions about some (gasp) black guy with (gasp) a gun).
I'll be interested to see if the NRA comments on the case. I should think they'd be outraged that a person exercising his 2nd Amendment Rights was attacked because of it.
+Dave Hill I think the real point here is that they tried to put a racial spin on this. If it had been all white guys no story would have ever shown up.
If it had been a white guy, I wonder if the other white guy would have jumped him?
+Rob Go As +Greg S. suggests, if Guy B had been white, I sincerely wonder if Guy A would have assumed he was going in there to rob the place.
That said — I think if everyone had been white, it would still have made an interesting story. I mean, people don't get tackled by other people in Walmart every day (except on Black Friday), and the whole gun/permit thing would have had some interest.
Frankly, it's not hard to see why Mr. Daniels felt the need to carry a gun. He's apparently surrounded by stupid.
+Dave Hill, many holsters used for carry outside of a vehicle are, at best, grossly uncomfortable when used inside of a vehicle due to the seat belt.
Two better solutions for the assault victim would have been to holster inside the vehicle after removing his belt, or pocketing his legally carried firearm so it remained concealed and entering into a bathroom stall to holster it there.
Out of sight, out of mind.
I believe what +Rob Go was saying was that the victim shouldn't be overly surprised about what happened because he chose to holster in plain view of anyone in the parking lot looking his way. In firearm circles we would refer to this as poor situational awareness.
This does not in any way excuse the assailants behavior.
The racial question is an interesting one and one we can speculate on it to our hearts content.
+Nello Jennings I'm sure you are offering sound advice but in the case discussed above it comes off as being persnickety. If you accept conceal carry you accept it. Why are you offering advice for the person following the law and getting the shit beat out of him for it? What about advice for those breaking the law?
Or are you insinuating that conceal carry laws have inherent issues because we have zero clue now who the bad guy is?
It's shocking to see people defend this. Guy B followed the law and got beat up for it. Where are his rights and protection?
+Jon Weber, I was answering the question +Dave Hill raised earlier in the comments. But thank you for your baseless conspiracy theory.
+Nello Jennings Thanks for being one of the few with the insight to see what I was talking about.
+Rob Go Still not seeing it, BTW. The merest flash of what might be taken to be a gun means one deserves a beat-down?
You're welcome +Rob Go
+Nello Jennings But we don't know what he saw – how can you conclude that it was necessarily "much more than a brief flash"?
> this type of reaction should not come as a surprise
Nor should the assault charges that follow it. Glad to see this guy deciding to make an example (and fool) of himself made it to the media.
+Greg S., this quote from the article would indicate that he did indeed see the entire firearm as Mr. Daniels holstered it in the parking lot:
" According to local news reports, Foster originally spotted Daniels in the store's parking lot placing his legally owned handgun underneath his coat."
Also, personal experience and familiarity with the process. Unless you're carrying a very small frame pistol or revolver (which could also easily be concealed in a pocket holster. A holster style which would also not typically create an issue while driving a motor vehicle.) Much more than a brief flash will be visible.
And I wholly agree with you on the assault charges against Mr. Foster following the incident!
+Nello Jennings Doesn't say a thing about what he spotted that made him think that, though. We're still in the dark about what he saw.
What he saw was a black guy with a gun. Don't y'all know the second amendments is only for white folks?
I sincerely doubt the NRA will even comment.
+Greg S., I was able to find this quote from the actual Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, which may shed more light on what was actually seen:
" It was learned that the suspect had observed the victim getting out of his vehicle in the parking lot and saw that the victim was in possession of a handgun (under his coat and in a holster)."
Here is a link to the publically available Sheriff's Office report on the matter:
http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/About-HCSO/Press-Releases/Releases/2015/January/15-034.aspx
Although, also not a direct quote from the assailant, I believe this is the closest we can reasonably expect to get for the moment.
+Nello Jennings So the question becomes, should a person with a concealed-carry permit expect to get assaulted if someone should happen to spot their gun. I hope the answer is no.
(In a sane world, for a couple dimensions of sanity, I'd expect zero to extremely few people to be carrying a gun, as far as that goes.)
It seems to me that if someone sees another person carrying a firearm, but otherwise making no sort of threatening move, the thing to do is to, at most, alert the store security. Presumably Walmart's rent-a-cop on duty, or the management, have a procedure for this (and presumably that doesn't involve tackling the guy or drawing on him first).
I was at my local 7-11 one morning when a gentleman came in with a holstered automatic at his hip. You don't see that too often where I live and I chatted with him for a while: just a Federal marshal on a car trip with his family.
At no point did I feel the urge to tackle him.
Funny that.
I hope the answer is no as well +Dave Hill although one anti-gun rights group has allegedly been calling for their members to do just that. Which is mind-boggling to me.
I agree with pretty kuch everything you've said in your reply to me. Alerting store security, management and/or PD under those conditions would absolutely be the right thing to do. Although…I will add the caveat "feel the need to…" to your statement in parentheses.
Amongst the pro-second amendment groups and pages I follow, Mr. Daniels is receiving a lot of support and several people have expressed a desire to not only see him press charges against Mr. Fowler but to also sue him civilly. Two opinions which I also strongly support.
+Nello Jennings I'm glad to hear that Daniels is getting support in the gun rights community; if freer concealed carry (let alone open carry) are a goal of theirs, than this sort of reaction needs to be discouraged.
It does raise the question of what you should do if you see someone toting a concealed weapon. Assume he is a freedom-loving citizen who is defending his person and his country? Assume he is a miscreant about to rob, kill, or terrorize? Fob the problem off on security (and how many false alarms until they simply ignore the concern?)? Unlimber your own weapon and keep an eye on him? Figure that your other armed fellow citizens will take him out if he causes trouble, or, if they don't, they should have been quicker on the draw?
+Dave Hill It is called judgment, which far too many people are incapable (like this Mr. Fowler) and would rather the government do for them. The problem being, of course, that the government isn't always very good at it either.
+Dave Hill, I'm uncertain how to respond. I thought we were having a civil discourse on the topic but your latest reply betrays a certain and significant bias.
(It's not your questions, it's your wording of them.)
How would you like to proceed with our conversation?
+James Karaganis Certainly there's a lot of judgment call involved here, but just as clearly there are a lot of people with poor judgment in this arena. The problem is, as we see on a regular basis, when dealing with firearms or reaction to same, poor judgment can have serious, even bloody, results.
+Nello Jennings I'll confess to a bias against widespread carry of firearms. I don't know the reason Mr Daniels felt the need to carry a concealed firearm (and I don't know Florida firearms laws well enough to know if he even needed a reason). One problem, which is raised by this particular incident, is how to deal with discovering that someone nearby is carrying a gun.
A bias, or a differing opinion, is fine +Dave Hill. If we all had the same opinions, life would get pretty boring. It is when that interferes with civil discourse I say something.
Let me do my best to address your concerns and questions:
The concealed carry vs. open carry discussion is an individual thing and the people I speak with generally take a dim view of open carry.
In the state of Florida, you do not necessarily need a specific reason to obtain a Concealed Carry Permit. If you are a resident you do need to be fingerprinted twice, several months apart, pass a FBI level background check both times, show residency, submit proof of successfully passing a Florida approved safety course and I believe there is also an interview with an officer from the issuing agency or your local police precinct and I believe you also must provide multiple personal references who are not family and do not reside at your address that you have known for a set period of time. I believe these references are also investigated for warrants and criminal history and such.
How to deal with discovering someone nearby is carrying a gun is another major point of discussion in the pro-gun community. The general consensus is and, as +James Karaganis said, you use your judgement and…a bit of situational awareness (being aware of your surroundings) does figure in pretty prominently here. In the state of Florida there is a high percentage of law-abiding citizens with their CCW. Seeing someone accidentally display their firearm when bending over shouldn't be and isn't a big deal for most, unless they're acting bizarrely. (Key Words: accidentally and bizarrely.) In my home State of New York? Seeing someone accidentally displaying a concealed firearm is going to get my attention Real fast! Because … that's unusual here.
So what do we do? How do we respond?
The first thing I personally tell new CCW holders is we are NOT cops. The general consensus is, if there is something obvious and disconcerting about their behavior, or the firearm they're carrying (gun owners tend to be very knowledgeable about what is and isn't legal in their state) you alert the appropriate authorities. Be it the store manager, store security, the police and just be more alert.
Stalking someone around the store just because they accidentally displayed a firearm isn't going to lead to anything productive. Neither is interrogating them and again … we're private citizens who have elected to exercise our rights, pursued, obtained and are comfortable with the responsibility of having a CCW for whatever reason. We are not cops.
+Nello Jennings I find open carry to be needlessly provocative, in-your-face in a way that seems to border on bullying. It says, "If you cross me, I have the power to kill you, and all you can do is trust my good intentions (or kill me first)." And, of course, in case of any sort of shoot-em-up trouble, even assuming that the weapon used isn't seized from the open carrier, the open carrier is the obvious first target for fire. Seems counter-productive to me.
It sounds like, if one is going to allow concealed carry, Florida is taking fairly reasonable precautions regarding it. There seem to be an increasing number of states and municipalities that take the Second Amendment to mean that one simply need ask and a CCW permit must be granted. Because freedom.
I understand there's a degree of situational consideration in how one might react to spotting someone armed (and taking some pains to conceal it), but even were CCWs known as common, those kind of judgment calls carry with them a lot of risks, because, as seen in this instance and in other possible scenarios, people exercise bad judgment, especially when motivated by strong emotions such as fear. Noting that certain behaviors are non-productive or outside of the individual citizen's purview is well and good for both public and private instruction, but if everyone demonstrated good judgment, the number of accidental (and goodly proportion of the intentional) gun deaths in this country would plummet. When accidents and misjudgments can lead to deaths, the value of a given activity needs to be questioned.
Or so it seems to me.
+Dave Hill many of your reasons, or an extension of them, are why a lot of CCW carriers also frown on Open Carry. Particularly in metro or suburban areas where it is legal. Because people who do not share a pro-gun opinion see it as bullying for one and shoving it in people's faces in that manner really isn't going to help the conversation. If you're out on your private land, particularly in the Midwest where your land can be several acres and predatory animals like rattlesnakes may be a problem, hiking or hunting? Have at it!
Your example of Open Carry in the event of any sort of "shoot-em-up" trouble is word for word shared by many, as well.
I agree, states like Florida and Nevada are prettt reasonable, and actually, even with all thsoe requirements Florida is one of those "Shall Issue" states.
The difference between a "May Issue" state like New York, California, Connecticut, etc. and "Shall Issue" like the majority of the country is that "Shall Issue" states have requirements for the application much like I've previously described for Florida. With some variation. Nevada for instance has a state specific safety course that must be taken in the state and requires "qualifying" (demonstrating shooting accuracy and competency) at specific distances. Vermont is the most liberal in this regard. Your state ID is your permit, but outside of VT your state ID is just a state ID.
"Shall Issue" states have some variation as well. California requires you to take a written firearm safety test for $25. Pretty reasonable as fees go. But the BIG difference is that in a "Shall Issue" state you are required to list why you want a permit in addition to all of the other requirements I've stated for places like Florida and after everything else. You can pass every background check, have excellent references, meet all the stated requirements and the issuing agency can decide your reason for requesting a permit is invalid and deny your application. In any state a permit application can take between 6 and 18 months for an answer.
With regard to the last portion of your comment, this is why CCW (carrying as part of your daily routine) is not only a right but a major responsibility for the CCW holder and why many, if not most, permit holders take training and education very seriously. While the number of accidental gun deaths* in this country would decrease if everyone exercised good judgement, I disagree that they would plummet as they are already a very small number of total gun deaths. (We're getting hit hard with SnowMahGod 2015 here so I expect work to be crazy but I do intend to track down relevant, federal statistics on the subject for you.)
Out of curiosity, the number of deaths and/or injuries from motor vehicles also often stem from accidents and misjudgements. Would you apply the same level of scrutiny there?
Accidents and injuries that can lead to deaths should be minimized, but I stop short of questioning the activity itself. Instead I advocate for finding the source of the problem and correcting that. If that is an individual, charge them criminally. If it is a frequent mechanical fault, the appropriate agency should step in.
*For the purposes of my comment here, Accidental Gun Deaths is defined as Negligent/Accidental Discharges: reported as happening during cleaning a firearm, not knowing the firearm was loaded and shooting or injuring a family member in the course of a defensive firing of the firearm.
I don't have a problem with open carry (permitted or not) on private property, at least when addressing personal safety concerns. (There would be a difference in my mind between some guy having a rifle or pistol in his truck while checking out the North Forty where snakes, or predatory animals are known to be, and some guy sitting on his front porch in the burbs, a pistol on his lap.)
I don't have a problem with regulation of significantly dangerous tools and processes. While prosecuting poor judgment or seeking to correct mechanical issues are good least-intrusive solutions, if they fail then it seems that greater intervention should be possible. Since SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, it seems we have moved more in the direction of broader carry, concealed and open.
Regarding motor vehicles, the number of deaths there is significant (though has also been on the decline, largely due to continuing improvements in vehicle safety and restrictive permitting — more stringent regs on youth driving, cracking down on drunken driving, etc. — as well as a drop in the amount of driving done by younger people. None of those tactics seem to be on the table for guns, either legally or politically. Motor vehicle deaths look to be set to drop below gun deaths (not just accidental) this year (http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21638140-gun-now-more-likely-kill-you-car-bangers-v-bullets).