CCW Holder Wrestled to the Ground at Walmart

[Warp]

The attacker is indeed lucky, that is an excellent way to get shot, or stabbed, or sliced, or get your eye messed up, etc.

This is why it is crucial when one CONCEAL carries!

To keep it CONCEALED!

The attacker was an idiot, but even in our CCW class, Our instructors drilled the fact that Concealed means Concealed and that even "printing" can cause problems in a public place.

I disagree.

You do as you like, I will do as I like.

PS: I have always contended, and this seems as good of an example as any, that the worst possible is to try to conceal, yet fail. I doubt somebody tackles you and yells "he's got a gun!" when you are carrying openly. And if they did, you'd have a level 2-3 retention holster instead of an open top.

 

[Cee Zee]

The vigilante here is mighty lucky he didn't kill that man. Lots of 62 year old men have serious health issues. Being tackled by someone 20 years younger is "very" likely to cause problems. If the CCW holder had died the vigilante would be looking at a very long stay at the Raiford Ramada otherwise known as the Union Correctional Institution. And it could well be argued that the victim here could have fired in self-defense based on health issues. There is no law forcing you to submit to a lunatic because they have "good intentions". Many would argue that Mohammed Atta had "good intentions". That doesn't excuse what he did. His reasons don't excuse what this vigilante did either.

 

[Warp]

The vigilante here is mighty lucky he didn't kill that man. Lots of 62 year old men have serious health issues. Being tackled by someone 20 years younger is "very" likely to cause problems. If the CCW holder had died the vigilante would be looking at a very long stay at the Raiford Ramada otherwise known as the Union Correctional Institution. And it could well be argued that the victim here could have fired in self-defense based on health issues. There is no law forcing you to submit to a lunatic because they have "good intentions". Many would argue that Mohammed Atta had "good intentions". That doesn't excuse what he did. His reasons don't excuse what this vigilante did either.

The heck with age difference or health issues...if anybody attacks from behind, attempts to choke you, and/or attempts to take your gun, that is lethal force. At least in my states, and likely in Florida too, even if it was a 62 year old attacking a 21 year old.

Anybody who attacks a person with a gun is doing well to avoid getting shot.


*I am not a laywer

 

[Sunray]

"...reacted entirely inappropriately..." And assaulted a law abiding citizen. I wonder if the 62-year-old Daniels is going to name Wally World in the suit.

 

[Warp]

"...reacted entirely inappropriately..." And assaulted a law abiding citizen. I wonder if the 62-year-old Daniels is going to name Wally World in the suit.

Why in the world would he do that?

 

[BSA1]

OK, show me the video that has audio to answer all your questions. Show me the video that shows more than about a minute with just the immediate assault and disarming. So me the police report that documents the times and events as they recorded them after the fact by interviews.

The people around these two had no idea what all the background was between them. The fact of the matter is that those people knew only that Foster tackled a man while yelling "HE'S GOT A GUN!". They didn't know who EITHER of these guys were, so a few stepped up and removed the gun from the picture. At that point, things could more safely play themselves out for everybody in the area while the police arrived to sort things out.

So yeah...I don't blame them for what they did, nor do I believe they deserved to be charged with anything.

At 6 seconds Foster runs up behind Daniels and tackles him.

From 6 –16 seconds they wrestle on the gun with Foster attempting to disarm Daniel.

At 16 seconds a second white male joins the fight. Daniels is laying on his back.

At 21 seconds a third white male joins the fight. All three men are on top of Daniels who is laying on his back.

At 30 seconds the second white male is shown with Daniels gun in his hand.

At 38 seconds a fourth white male joins in and takes the gun from the second white male.

At 38 seconds he hands the gun off to a fifth person and at 58 seconds walks away.


So from this video I conclude that;

Daniels did not have a firearm in his hands.

Daniels firearm is not visible from the camera angle.

Daniels could have been carrying his handgun in the front his body so it would have been visible to people that were approaching him. However the news reports state the gun was concealed at the time of the attack.

Daniels was aggressively attacked by behind by Foster.

As evidence by the video at the 16 and 21 seconds mark both the second and third white males physically assist in holding Daniels to the ground and one of them disarms Daniels. This means your two "good Samaritans" were active participants in the attack.

Since Daniels was laying on his back facing his attackers who were only 1 or 2 feet away from his head and chest they clearly could hear Daniels saying he has a concealed carry license. There has not be any reported dispute that Daniels did not announce repeatedly and loudly that he had a concealed carry permit.

There is no 20/20 hindsight here for me. I KNOW for a fact that Florida allows legal concealed carry. I KNOW that anyone regardless of their race, gender, religion, physical condition, the manner in which they dress, their sexual preference are not restricted by law from legally carrying a concealed weapon.

I HOPE that Daniels hires a good lawyer and wins a large substantial judgment from Foster and the second and third white males.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwVS9ApWCtI

This incident has caused me to make a change in my choice of weapons. I am going to throw my Gerber knife into the tool box and buy a better quality knife that I can clip to my pocket and open with one hand.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Road to Hell....

There is a old Garth Brooks diddy about; The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

I'm not 100% sure but I think in Florida(which like AZ & PA has a huge senior population) the age to catch a "elder abuse" charge is 65(victim).

I agree the subjects(all of them) should face civil actions or damages in addition to formal criminal charges.
Id add that I only viewed the clip a few times but it looks like the victim(CCW holder) goes limp, does not fight or resist & is not violent.
This will help him in the civil actions or court.

RS

 

[Leader]

I'm not going back through 5 pages to find and quote the poster that said something to the effect that concealed means concealed and printing justifies attack.
It was also mentioned that the mere sight of a gun causes panic & fear in much of the population.
Open carry is legal in M I.
When I open carry, 1) MOST people by far don't even notice my gun. I have been in conversations with people for over 15 min and later they didn't know I had been carrying during the conversation.2) I have NEVER seen anyone react in a fearful manor. The VERY FEW that notice, don't say or do anything. I have had a couple of questions as to what the gun was and about licensing.
NEVER calls to 911 or an attack.

 

[Elkins45]

When I carry a gun IWB, which is to say on the weekends and in the summer, I carry a serrated Spyderco Delica with the wave opener in my left pocket. It's my weapon retention knife. Should someone ever attempt to reach for my gun my plan is to clamp down on the gun with my right hand and use my left hand to draw the knife and fight off the attack.

I shudder to think that I might have been the old guy in this situation. If somebody runs up to me and grabs for my gun I think that after I got over the initial shock I would start slashing and stabbing just to prevent myself from being shot with my own gun. The only thing I can think is that because the 'vigilante' yelled GUN he knew it was a mistaken attack instead of a true assault.

Lots of people are lucky this didn't turn out MUCH worse.

 

[harrygunner]

Warped sense of reality, inability to assess situations and a hero complex.

Here's hoping Michael Foster has a few years to contemplate the fact he was the dangerous person in the store.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

At 6 seconds Foster runs up behind Daniels and tackles him.

From 6 –16 seconds they wrestle on the gun with Foster attempting to disarm Daniel.

At 16 seconds a second white male joins the fight. Daniels is laying on his back.

At 21 seconds a third white male joins the fight. All three men are on top of Daniels who is laying on his back.

At 30 seconds the second white male is shown with Daniels gun in his hand.

At 38 seconds a fourth white male joins in and takes the gun from the second white male.

At 38 seconds he hands the gun off to a fifth person and at 58 seconds walks away.


So from this video I conclude that;

Daniels did not have a firearm in his hands.

Daniels firearm is not visible from the camera angle.

Daniels could have been carrying his handgun in the front his body so it would have been visible to people that were approaching him. However the news reports state the gun was concealed at the time of the attack.

Daniels was aggressively attacked by behind by Foster.

As evidence by the video at the 16 and 21 seconds mark both the second and third white males physically assist in holding Daniels to the ground and one of them disarms Daniels. This means your two "good Samaritans" were active participants in the attack.

Since Daniels was laying on his facing his attackers who were only 1 or 2 feet away from his head and chest they clearly could hear Daniels saying he has a concealed carry license. There has not be any reported dispute that Daniels did not announce repeatedly and loudly that he had a concealed carry permit.

There is no 20/20 hindsight here for me. I KNOW for a fact that Florida allows legal concealed carry. I KNOW that anyone regardless of their race, gender, religion, physical condition, the manner in which they dress, their sexual preference are not restricted by law from legally carrying a concealed weapon.

I HOPE that Daniels hires a good lawyer and wins a large substantial judgment from Foster and the second and third white males.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwVS9ApWCtI

This incident has caused me to make a change in my choice of weapons. I am going to throw my Gerber knife into the tool box and buy a better quality knife that I can clip to my pocket and open with one hand.

OK, YOU conclude all that...from SECURITY FOOTAGE after the fact. You'll also notice in that same footage one very key factor: none of the other people around noticed ANYTHING out of the ordinary UNTIL Foster tackled Daniels and started yelling "HE'S GOT A GUN!"

THEN people took notice, started moving away, started videoing with cell phones, started calling 911, and started stepping in to remove the gun from the action. All this from observations, with no audio to support what was being said and heard by others.

Those two "good Samaritans did NOT initiate the assault and did NOT act to bring about any harm. They only acted to remove the firearm and, from what I interpret, keep things from escalating from their perceived standpoint of dealing with a man with a gun.

There were no beatings, there were no knifings, there were no shootings by these other people. They did not act out of any apparent malice, nor did any of them take any overt physical action which could have otherwise been construed as deliberately harmful.

There is a WORLD of difference between the intent and the actions of Foster and the intent and the actions of these other people. Foster should ba hammered like a finishing nail under a 20 ounce claw hammer. These other people? Nah.

 

[lxd55]

in Washington state they, the other guys, would have had to have an ffl to transfer the firearm. what a country.

 

[Poper]

He is very lucky he didn't grab someone who might have tied him in a knot and justifiably shot him

I was just thinking Foster was lucky that Daniels wasn't a retired cop.....

 

[shep854]

My takeaway as a 59 y/o: Stay in the best shape you can, and pick up some basic self-defense moves, AND of course, look around!

 

[Sauer Grapes]

Why in the world would he do that?

Because lawyers go after everybody with deep pockets.

 

[BSA1]

OK, YOU conclude all that...from SECURITY FOOTAGE after the fact. You'll also notice in that same footage one very key factor: none of the other people around noticed ANYTHING out of the ordinary UNTIL Foster tackled Daniels and started yelling "HE'S GOT A GUN!"

Not sure what your point is. The fact that nobody else noticed anything out of the ordinary mean that Daniels was acting just like every other shopper?

"THEN people took notice, started moving away, started videoing with cell phones, started calling 911, and started stepping in to remove the gun from the action. All this from observations, with no audio to support what was being said and heard by others."

Humm, ok. I raised this point back in previous post.

Those two "good Samaritans did NOT initiate the assault and did NOT act to bring about any harm. They only acted to remove the firearm and, from what I interpret, keep things from escalating from their perceived standpoint of dealing with a man with a gun.

The other two men joined the fight at the 16 and 21 seconds mark in the linked video. The video clearly shows Daniels struggling with all three men and the three men on top of him fighting him and pinning him to the ground. The video clearly shows the second man taking Daniels gun from Daniels waist.

There were no beatings, there were no knifings, there were no shootings by these other people. They did not act out of any apparent malice, nor did any of them take any overt physical action which could have otherwise been construed as deliberately harmful.

So three men on top of me doing a totally unprovoked act, pinning me to ground, ripping my gun away from me while I am yelling that I have a concealed carry permit is not a deliberate harmful action?

There is a WORLD of difference between the intent and the actions of Foster and the intent and the actions of these other people. Foster should ba hammered like a finishing nail under a 20 ounce claw hammer. These other people? Nah.

There is ample case law for both criminal and civil cases on all three of them. One of my careers in my misspent life was retail store security. (I was even the security director for one upscale clothing store). In every retail store and company I worked for it was policy not to make physical contact with someone unless you personally see the crime occur. The only crime that can be seen is Foster beating up Daniels in a unprovoked attack.

How do you know what their intent was? Maybe they are racially prejudice towards blacks. Why did they take Fosters side and assist him? Did Foster announce he was a police officer and needed help?

Large financial judgments have been awarded for stuff like this. The second and third men assisted in fighting, restraining and disarming a citizen. They acted intentionally an in a manner to cause harm to Daniels.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

It looks like you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this one, then, BSA1.

There are a whole lot of assumptions being made here on all sides (mine included) that aren't clearly supported or overtly disproved by the footage alone. There's no indication of racially motivated acts here. There are clearly black people involved in standing around and passing the gun around, for example.

I suppose if this goes to court, we'll see what everybody has to say then. Until then...people like you and I will just be critiquing this video footage second hand as filtered through our own perceptions.

 

[Ignition Override]

Please inform us whether the victim actually hires an attorney to begin a lawsuit against his attacker.

If a lawsuit begins, many other ignorant, potentially "citizen heroes" might not even read/hear about what happened in that WalMart?

 

[Cee Zee]

i also hope that a lawsuit is filed. And I hope the media gets wind of it but my guess is they will whitewash the whole situation and try to make the victim the bad guy ("that's what happens when people carry guns" blah blah blah).

Personally I try very hard to make sure no one ever sees me strapping on my hardware before I head into a store like Wally World. You just never know what kind of idjit is out there ready to make your life miserable because they think they're John Wayne. I would have thought by now everyone would know that I'm John Wayne but some people just ain't figured it out I guess.

Ever since I went to Lowe's and bought an axe and they forced me to let a sales guy carry it to the check out lane I've been wary of just how wacky the tv generation can be. I got so many "here's Johnny" looks I couldn't believe it. You'd think I was Lizze Borden reincarnated walking along with mom and dad.

People are wacky, flighty paranoid animals and I don't trust their reactions for anything. And guns make some people comletely crazy as we see here. Too much tv. Too much hysteria about "mass shootings" (which have NOT increased in frequency desptie what the media tries to make you think). But I would just as soon avoid the inevitable no-good, do-gooder who can make my life miserable in many ways despite the fact that I'm breaking no laws.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

So from this video I conclude that;

Daniels did not have a firearm in his hands.

Daniels firearm is not visible from the camera angle.

Daniels could have been carrying his handgun in the front his body so it would have been visible to people that were approaching him. However the news reports state the gun was concealed at the time of the attack.

Foster saw Daniels remove the gun from his vehicle and put it under his coat, as per the new reports. Daniels then headed into the Wal-Mart.

That it was concealed at the time of the attack isn't really an issue, is it? It was already a known to Foster.

 

[wojownik]

That it was known to Foster is immaterial as well. It may have set Foster off, but the brief exposure while holstering could fall under 790.053 as not being illegal, right?

That it was concealed is also immaterial. This was a straightforward battery. If the assailant grabbed the gun while continuing to commit the battery, I'd hope the prosecutor piles on an aggravated assault charge.

Let's see if Foster gets hit with a civil lawsuit by the victim. I don't think the other two+ people involved did anything to rise to the level of a criminal complaint, but they have certainly opened themselves to a civil action by the victim as well by literally dogpiling on.

 

[2ifbyC]

I live in AZ which has no permit requirement for concealed carry. However, I attended a class and obtained a CCW permit primarily for training and reciprocity. I do not feel a need to carry concealed but I am thankful that it is my choice to make.

The Wal-Mart situation at hand is complex. Many elements are at play: race, terrorists, gun violence, etc., have heightened our anxieties and polarized our nation. The lack of leadership from the WH has also exacerbated the issues.

Initially, it is hard to find fault given our country’s state of mind. I will not attempt to try the case here. Mistakes were made. I would like to say that justice will be served in court. But as we have seen, justice is not blind. It caters to those that have the deepest pockets and loudest voices.

 

[BSA1]

That it was concealed at the time of the attack isn't really an issue, is it? It was already a known to Foster

Did Daniels violate Florida law by putting on his gun in a public place where Foster could see it?

If so what law?

In Post 36 Frank states "Brandishing" almost never, ever, EVER means simply that someone else happened to see your gun.

Daniels was in compliance of the law at the time of the attack.

I suppose if this goes to court, we'll see what everybody has to say then. Until then...people like you and I will just be critiquing this video footage second hand as filtered through our own perceptions.

Actually RETIREDUSNCHIEF I believe your position is the correct one. I believe that all three white men will not be convicted of any criminal act and will win in a civil suit.

Although I am amateur legal beagle I will place my bets on the defense easily winning this case.

This case will be won at the jury selection phase.

It has already been posted in this discussion that Daniels was wrong by putting his gun on outside of his vehicle.

It will be easy to portray them as heroes. The terrorists attack in France were committed by at least one person of color.

Then we have attacks in Walmart's here in the U.S. Remember the Walmart incident on June 16, 2014 where a man and woman killed two police officers, then went to Walmart and killed a customer before final killing themselves?

In a criminal case all you need is for a holdout to vote not-guilty. I would want a white older female that votes Democrat or admits to being liberal. Attitude towards guns is important. Their are THR members that do not believe in conceal carry and/or support severe training requirements before they may be issued a permit. I would also play on the race card.

Since the burden of proof is lower in a civil suit and not all the jurors have to vote the same the chances of Daniels winning may be better. But the news reports state Daniels was not injured.

 

[wojownik]

The Wal-Mart situation at hand is complex. Many elements are at play: race, terrorists, gun violence, etc., have heightened our anxieties and polarized our nation ... Initially, it is hard to find fault given our country’s state of mind.

I disagree, respectfully. The situation is simple. Very simple. The assailant committed battery by attacking an individual without any real provocation.

The victim was licensed to carry, and was not breaking the law. From all appearances, he was not doing anything illegal or untoward. It is quite straightforward to find fault in this case.

If the assailant made any decisions based on race, stuff in the news, personal anxieties, etc... that is 100% on the assailant. What the assailant had in his mind is speculative on our part. The bottom line is that the assailant made a very, very poor decision.

 

[jerkface11]

I would want a white older female that votes Democrat or admits to being liberal.

Prosecution then plays race card.