Shopper tackles man with gun at Wal-Mart

[peejman]

But you are not a 62 year-old man.

 

By which I mean this a-hole would probably not have dared start something with someone who looked like they could physically pose a challenge. Probably the kind who beats his wife and small children.

 

Nope, but I'm a lot closer to 62 than I am to Ralphie's age.  :)

 

And I agree completely... Had it been a 6'3", 250lb, 28yr old with a buzz cut and arms the size of my legs walking into walmart with his wife and kids... there would be no story, regardless of skin color. 

[Sam1]

Holy moly did these people need some kind of award, they bypassed the racism card and turned it into the likes of a vigilante capturing fugitive slaves.

 

There is no snarky remark in my treasure chest that can categorize this kind of stupidity.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/man-assaulted-by-vigilante-at-florida-walmart-230643501.html

[Tncobra]

Walmart

[gl19gobang]

I'm glad and surprised that he got arrested instead of being rewarded with lifetime food stamps and his own talkshow. maybe theres still some hope ( and not change).

[Titansfan]

In next few days, I am going to draft a letter to my rep. about this situation where two groups are advocating the harrassment and even violence towards legal handgun carriers.  

[Oh Shoot]

Why are Jesse, Al, and the NAACP silent on this? It seems to be a clear case of racism (as they define it).

 

Ah yes, surely the White House will want to investigate for civil rights violation and hate crime too, eh?

 

- OS

[Lumber_Jack]

I can't help it, that video really gets me worked up. No one on the general vicinity offered to help the guy on the ground. If I saw a guy tackled and held down screaming he had a permit and a group was I holstering his gun, I'm not sure I could muster the serenity not to intervene. Too many people are more than happy to stand by and watch the civil liberties of others trampled by someone who thinks they're the enforcer of "correctness".

[DaveTN]

Maybe we aren’t all seeing the same video. I see some folks jumping in. I have no idea if they are Wal-Mart employees or not (really doesn’t matter). They break up a fight where I am sure they have no idea what’s going on, they see a gun, remove it from the fight and stay with them until the cops show up. It is determined the guy carrying the gun was attacked and the attacker is arrested for battery.

Other than one person (who probably will turn out to be a mental case) committing a crime I don’t see where anyone that intervened did anything wrong or where Wal-Mart could have done anymore. A gun owner that didn’t conceal got jumped and had his gun taken away by a criminal; it happens. But usually the criminal isn’t held there by citizens/employees/whatever.

[Trekbike]

 A gun owner that didn’t conceal got jumped and had his gun taken away by a criminal; it happens. But usually the criminal isn’t held there by citizens/employees/whatever.

 

Based on the article, it indicated it was not an open carry situation.

Foster had seen Daniels getting out of his vehicle in the lot with handgun, under his coat and in a holster. Foster followed him into the store and attacked the Daniels, the sheriff's office said.

 

Watching the video it appears the guy was wearing a fleece and it does appear to be covered until they start rolling around on the floor.  

[DaveTN]

Based on the article, it indicated it was not an open carry situation.
Foster had seen Daniels getting out of his vehicle in the lot with handgun, under his coat and in a holster. Foster followed him into the store and attacked the Daniels, the sheriff's office said.
 
Watching the video it appears the guy was wearing a fleece and it does appear to be covered until they start rolling around on the floor.  

I didn’t mean to imply he was open carrying; I think Florida requires it to be concealed. But I think briefly displaying it as he did when he was at his vehicle is lawful. I don’t think he did anything wrong (other than probably not paying attention) nor do I think those that intervened did anything wrong.

[Trekbike]

I didn’t mean to imply he was open carrying; I think Florida requires it to be concealed. But I think briefly displaying it as he did when he was at his vehicle is lawful. I don’t think he did anything wrong (other than probably not paying attention) nor do I think those that intervened did anything wrong.

Sorry, I misunderstood. I had seen a couple of earlier comments from others about open carry and then saw yours.

[K191145]

In next few days, I am going to draft a letter to my rep. about this situation where two groups are advocating the harrassment and even violence towards legal handgun carriers.  

 

I've heard/read something about a group planning or advocating that but don't remember a name, I would like to know who they are.

[K191145]

I can't help it, that video really gets me worked up. No one on the general vicinity offered to help the guy on the ground. If I saw a guy tackled and held down screaming he had a permit and a group was I holstering his gun, I'm not sure I could muster the serenity not to intervene. Too many people are more than happy to stand by and watch the civil liberties of others trampled by someone who thinks they're the enforcer of "correctness".

 

That's why I wrote the letter to Walmart. I know they aren't to blame for the man getting tackled but it would be a message to the community that they will not tolerate that kind of vigilantism if they conveyed their regret to the victim that had a tramatic experience in their store.

[daddyo]

I read it all the time on websites and Facebook pages where gun rights are "discussed" - "How are we supposed to know who's a good guy and who's a bad guy?"

 

Like it's rocket science or something. My answer has always been "If he's behaving normally, going about his business and not bothering anyone, he's a good guy. If he's acting erratically, suspiciously, or otherwise looks like he's up to no good, then he probably is looking for trouble.".

 

This idiot didn't have the good sense to know the difference and now he's paying the price for his stupidity.

[Ugly]

The race batters won't make a peep, the ccw holder has an evil gun and as far as they're concerned, he's a white African American.

[E4 No More]

Maybe we aren’t all seeing the same video. I see some folks jumping in. I have no idea if they are Wal-Mart employees or not (really doesn’t matter). They break up a fight where I am sure they have no idea what’s going on, they see a gun, remove it from the fight and stay with them until the cops show up. It is determined the guy carrying the gun was attacked and the attacker is arrested for battery.

Other than one person (who probably will turn out to be a mental case) committing a crime I don’t see where anyone that intervened did anything wrong or where Wal-Mart could have done anymore. A gun owner that didn’t conceal got jumped and had his gun taken away by a criminal; it happens. But usually the criminal isn’t held there by citizens/employees/whatever.

Florida laws...if they wanted to be anal-retentive:

 

784.03 Battery; felony battery.—

(1)(a) The offense of battery occurs when a person:

1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other;

 

787.02 False imprisonment; false imprisonment of child under age 13, aggravating circumstances.—

(1)(a) The term “false imprisonment” means forcibly, by threat, or secretly confining, abducting, imprisoning, or restraining another person without lawful authority and against her or his will.

 

812.014 Theft.—

(1) A person commits theft if he or she knowingly obtains or uses, or endeavors to obtain or to use, the property of another with intent to, either temporarily or permanently:

(a) Deprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit from the property.

 

812.131 Robbery by sudden snatching.—

(1) “Robbery by sudden snatching” means the taking of money or other property from the victim’s person, with intent to permanently or temporarily deprive the victim or the owner of the money or other property, when, in the course of the taking, the victim was or became aware of the taking. In order to satisfy this definition, it is not necessary to show that:

(a) The offender used any amount of force beyond that effort necessary to obtain possession of the money or other property;

[DaveTN]

Florida laws...if they wanted to be anal-retentive:

All of those require intent or state of mind. Who are you suggesting they could use them against?

[Lumber_Jack]

Maybe we aren’t all seeing the same video. I see some folks jumping in. I have no idea if they are Wal-Mart employees or not (really doesn’t matter). They break up a fight where I am sure they have no idea what’s going on, they see a gun, remove it from the fight and stay with them until the cops show up. It is determined the guy carrying the gun was attacked and the attacker is arrested for battery.

Other than one person (who probably will turn out to be a mental case) committing a crime I don’t see where anyone that intervened did anything wrong or where Wal-Mart could have done anymore. A gun owner that didn’t conceal got jumped and had his gun taken away by a criminal; it happens. But usually the criminal isn’t held there by citizens/employees/whatever.

I just think if you were the one on the receiving end of the" dog pile disarmament" you would have a less nonchalant attitude about the events. Maybe not, I know I would for sure. The helpless feeling of being pinned down by three people is hard for me to deal with.

[tnguy]

When two people are getting into it, the important thing to do is stop them getting into it further. The details can be sorted out after. I can't really fault those involved in "making things safe". The idiot who started it needs the book thrown at him, of course.

 

As to the laws above, I think the first two could reasonable apply (he had the intent. That he was ignorant of the law is no excuse, as ever). The second two probably not so much.

[DaveTN]

I just think if you were the one on the receiving end of the" dog pile disarmament" you would have a less nonchalant attitude about the events. Maybe not, I know I would for sure. The helpless feeling of being pinned down by three people is hard for me to deal with.

I’m not being nonchalant; he suffered a brutal attack. The only person I see “piling on” him is his attacker, the second guy gets the gun, a third guy appears to be holding his arm. The second guy appears to be asking them what happened before the video stops. The same thing cops would do if they arrived.

The guy is 62 years old, I commended the bystanders for getting involved before he got hurt worse or the guy got his gun and killed him. Most onlookers would have been too scared to act.

Blaming Wal-Mart or the concerned citizens that acted only takes away from what happened and the person responsible. He attacked a man for no reason other than he had a gun; he should do jail time.

[Wingshooter]

The race batters won't make a peep, the ccw holder has an evil gun and as far as they're concerned, he's a white African American.

True. The irony is that if he was the same guy carrying without a legal permit, then the race baiters would be screaming.

[gun sane]

Too bad the vigilante got a felony battery rap.  That's gonna make it lots harder to get a carry permit.  :taunt:

[Fourtyfive]

Looks like to me the guy that took his gun from him could get in just as much trouble ... Theft of a firearm ...

[DaveTN]

Too bad the vigilante got a felony battery rap.  That's gonna make it lots harder to get a carry permit.  :taunt:

He should have been charged with a felony but it says he was charged with "Battery". That is a misdemeanor.
 

784.03 Battery; felony battery.—

(1)(a) The offense of battery occurs when a person:
1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or

2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.

(B ) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person who commits battery commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(2) A person who has one prior conviction for battery, aggravated battery, or felony battery and who commits any second or subsequent battery commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. For purposes of this subsection, “conviction” means a determination of guilt that is the result of a plea or a trial, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld or a plea of nolo contendere is entered.

History.—s. 5, Feb. 10, 1832; RS 2401; s. 1, ch. 5135, 1903; GS 3227; RGS 5060; CGL 7162; s. 2, ch. 70-88; s. 730, ch. 71-136; s. 19, ch. 74-383; s. 9, ch. 75-298; s. 172, ch. 91-224; s. 5, ch. 96-392; s. 4, ch. 2001-50.

[DaveTN]

Looks like to me the guy that took his gun from him could get in just as much trouble ... Theft of a firearm ...

No intent. No DA in their right mind would charge someone that got involved under these circumstances.