Man arrested after tackling shopper carrying gun

[Nuclear Unicorn]

Them gun nutters are gonna shoot each other. Bunch paranoid, racist idiots are just going to start running around attacking innocent people, or hopefully, just each other.

So sayeth the cartoons --







'Cause, you know, only the paranoid and irrational carry guns (and only those who fear guns are truly rational and responsible).

And then there is the actual reality --

Man arrested after tackling shopper carrying gun

RIVERVIEW (FOX 13) - Hillsborough deputies arrested a man who spotted someone with a gun, followed him into a Walmart, and tackled him. The problem? The man with the gun had a concealed weapons permit, and the man who rushed him didn't call 911 or alert store security.

According to the sheriff's office, Michael Foster, 43, saw Clarence Daniels, 62, in the Walmart parking lot with a gun holstered under his coat.

Foster followed Daniels into the store, put him in a choke-hold and brought him to the ground, the sheriff's office said. He then started yelling that Daniels had a gun.

A struggle ensued, with Daniels yelling that he had a permit. Security detained both men until deputies arrived.

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/27896784/man-spots-gun-then-tackles-concealed-carry-license-holder

Thank God Mr. Daniels was not seriously hurt by this nimrod. We've already seen one innocent man shot and killed for holding a BB gun because of the irrational fears of others.


Well-played, anti-RKBA'ers. Well-played.

*slow-metered sarcastic clap*

[bowens43]

1. we have a right to protect ourselves against gun toting idiots.

he should have broken his damn arms....

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. There was no threat except in the febrile, paranoid imagination of the attacker.

[DonP]

4. So you favor assaulting law abiding people?

The guy's lawyers and your cellmates would love that.

[beevul]

27. I don't think thats even in question at this point, Don. N/T

[GGJohn]

7. You don't have the right to tackle someone not posing any threat.

You're a real internet tough guy aren't you?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. They're selective tough guys.

They have a right to SWAT and tackle law-abiding, peaceable citizens but law-abiding peaceable citizens don't have the right to defend themselves from rapists, robbers, muggers, burglars and stalkers perpetrating forcible felonies.

Gun control isn't about stopping violence because gun controllers are endorsing violence. This story has forced the mask to fall away. It's about control and nothing more.

[sarisataka]

10. That mask slipped long ago

More and more gun control proponents are becoming less concerned about keeping up the illusion of concern for victims except as props.

The above poster is cheering a white man's assault on a 62 yro black man and wishing he would have caused serious injury.

we have a right to protect ourselves against gun toting idiots.
he should have broken his damn arms...

WHERE is there the slightest concern for the VICTIM here?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. "he should have broken his damn arms..."

That comment is so absolutely disturbing. It's right up there with, "We'll teach her to wear short dresses."

[ileus]

18. regressives are violent....that's why they want to be sure folks are disarmed.

makes for easier victims.

[sarisataka]

9. Absolutely

people should attack other people who made them feel scared. It's the only way to be safe.

Instead of being arrested he should get a medal. After all he saw a black man with a gun going into Walmart what was he supposed to think would happen. He probably saved many lives that would have been killed when that man snapped.






What was that other suggestion? Oh yes

I have often wondered about that, it should be assumed that they are potential terrorists

Maybe if a few of these jackasses get taken down maybe some of the others stop being such assholes.

Gun owners in general are cowards, one or two times should be enough to have them cowering under their bed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025861647

[friendly_iconoclast]

42. What a completely fucked-up thing to say. You should be ashamed of yourself

Unfortunately, your sort being what you are, you probably won't be...

[Duckhunter935]

51. and you guys think

firearms owners are a threat. Break his arms for doing nothing illegal. You know that is just one fucked up attitude and you really should think about an edit.

[bravenak]

52. Broken his arms?!?

He was commiting no crime and NOT bothering the criminal who assaulted him. Wtf?
No. You cannot just attack people because you are scared. Lucky the guy had enough self control to not pull his weapon and fire upon him.
If people just start 'breaking arms' of anybody they see with a gun, the homicide rate will increaee dramatically. That's crazy talk.

[Politicalboi]

54. I agree about protecting ourselves

But the broken arms is too far. I've been saying the guy who tackled the gun nut could have been a crazier nut, and now he would have a gun to use at a Walmart yet. They need to keep their guns at home. To think about where they are going, and does it "really" pose a threat to the level of being armed. Also Walmart needs to change their "gun" policy to NO guns allowed.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

57. Why are nutty antis allowed to "protect" themselves from peaceable people who mean them no harm

but peaceable people aren't allowed to protect themselves from rapists, muggers, robbers, killers, stalkers and other violent criminals?

Also Walmart needs to change their "gun" policy to NO guns allowed.

Ah yes. The inviolable certitude and safety of the "gun free zone"

[Veganstein]

81. Nope. You don't have that right.

Not unless one of them attempts or explicity threatens to do you harm.

[DonP]

2. SWATing moving to the next level I guess

Why didn't he just throw a can of beans at him to disarm him or show him a bunch of cartoons about how stupid gun owners are?

Every dedicated gun controller knows those are winning activities?

[Starboard Tack]

5. Sounds like it wasn't too well concealed

A lesson for those who like to carry.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. Better concealed than the lunacy of the attacker.

[Starboard Tack]

12. Why lunacy?

The man saw the gun. I thought the whole point was that it had to be hidden. Unless it was in an OC state. This is the problem I have with the whole carry thing. Either do it openly and honestly, so others know what they are dealing with and can act accordingly, or have a CC permit and a damned good reason to have one, and if you have one keep the gun hidden. The only time a concealed weapon becomes visible should be when it is about to be used.

That said, I do not think the carrier should've been attacked. The attacker could have alerted LE and the matter would have been resolved more peacefully. OTOH, if you carry loaded weapons around in public, you should be prepared for such reactions. Presumably, the guy was carrying for SD. How did that work out for him?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. "you should be prepared for such reactions"

Oh man. You guys are a riot.

"I'm not saying he deserved it but he definitely deserved it."

Next Up: Is That Immodest Dress Too Taunting?

[Veganstein]

55. Hold on.

Last edited Fri Jan 23, 2015, 08:09 AM - Edit history (1)

I actually agree with this statement, in part. This is exactly the sort of thing we should be prepared for on a daily basis, and not only if we carry a gun.

This guy was minding his own business, in a place we've been told is super duper safe and we don't need to worry about being attacked, and he got attacked by a violent nutcase. He could have easily been after his wallet, or upset because the victim stole his parking spot, or just a general violent nutcase. He could have been a reader of any number of anti-gun message boards whose posters encourage violence against CCW holders and decided to go on his own personal crusade.

The victim certainly didn't do anything wrong, from my perspective, but maybe his situational awareness wasn't quite at the level it should have been.

I dunno, now it sounds like I'm second-guessing the victim, and that's not my intent. I'm just breaking down the event and trying to see how the rest of us could prevent it in the future, since this is the kind of violence being encouraged by some fringe anti-gunners.

[Starboard Tack]

68. The problem was the victim was obviously not prepared to defend himself

Yes, the attacker was completely out of line, maybe crazy. But what is the point of carrying if an unarmed idiot can take you down so easily and potentially take your loaded gun and shoot you and others with it. This is my only problem with guys who walk around with loaded guns. How many are prepared and how many live under the illusion that the mere fact of being armed is going to end well for them, and or others.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

69. IMO you cannot be reasonably expected to protect yourself...

...from a surprise attack. At least not the surprise attacks that really surprise you. Second, since the racist asshole did attack Mr Daniels without a weapon, it is also possible that Mr Daniels assessment was that neither his death nor permanent serious injury was likely and that killing the man would be more trouble than it was worth.

[Starboard Tack]

70. I couldn't agree more

Just as well he wasn't attacked by a "thug" who wanted his gun. Carrying a gun comes with a lot of responsibility.

[branford]

71. The victim appeared to have acted responsibly as well as complied with all relevant laws.

The fact that he possibly wasn't prepared, or actually chose not to defend himself with his firearms is not really dispositive of anything.

Few would claim that a firearm is some panacea that will always protect you from violence. A firearm is simply an option or fail-safe that you hope you never need, and pray you can use, when serious violence is set upon you or other innocents.

[Veganstein]

73. That's exactly the problem!

That's what I try to get across to many of the concealed and open carriers I know, and what I strive for and sometimes still fail at myself - you have to be prepared, you have to be aware all the time.

This freak actually managed to disarm the victim. If he had actually had any ill intent(toward anyone except his innocent target), he'd now be armed and it would partially be the fault of the victim.

But even when you're taking all reasonable precautions, there's still a chance for someone to sneak up on you. At the end of the day, this is a story of an unstable nutjob randomly assaulting an innocent shopper at a grocery store. How many of us would be prepared to deal with that?

[Starboard Tack]

75. Not many of us would be prepared to deal with such a situation

So, my advice to those who would carry is, if you don't consider yourself prepared to handle such a situation, then you and the world would probably be better off if you left your gun at home.
We have a lot of folk out there who live in a fantasy world, thinking the mere act of carrying is actually making things safer. Incidents like this demonstrate how that is not the case.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

76. good grief

This freak actually managed to disarm the victim. If he had actually had any ill intent(toward anyone except his innocent target), he'd now be armed and it would partially be the fault of the victim.

I can't believe you want to blame the victim. Blaming the victim mitigates the responsibility of the assailant. Is that what you really think is the right thing here?
Is the victim of a rape partly at fault for wearing a miniskirt?
Is the victim of robbery partly at fault flashing a bit of cash by mistake?

[Veganstein]

77. I see what you mean.

That's the last thing I want to do. It wasn't a very well thought-out statement, and now I regret it.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

78. in truth...

...I sometimes read a preview of something I spent a while writing and realize it's terrible and give up.
No biggie

[ileus]

16. everyone on this side of the ground has a damned good reason.

[Starboard Tack]

29. What ground? You OK?

[Veganstein]

56. I'm sure he meant anyone alive.

Not buried, or on the upper side of the grass.

I'm a bit new, so I can't tell if you really didn't understand or if you were being sarcastic.

Anyone with a life worth defending has a good reason to carry a gun.

[Starboard Tack]

66. Are you suggesting the opposite is true?

That by not carrying a gun, one does not have a life worth defending. Is this what society has been reduced to?

[gejohnston]

67. no, but his ability to so

is often diminished. Before you mention less than lethal means, which have their place, they are more often than not banned or strictly regulated in the same places firearms are.

[Veganstein]

72. Definitely not.

Every life is precious and worth defending. That's what I was trying - probably quite clumsily - to say. Everyone's life is worth defending, and thus everyone has a good reason to carry a gun, whether they choose to do so or not. Everyone has a good reason to eat healthy foods, to exercise, and to avoid smoking, whether they choose to do those things or not.

Though, now that you've got me thinking about it, maybe I'm suggesting that a person who doesn't do those things doesn't highly value his or her own life. But I know there's much more that goes into the decision of whether or not to carry, and many people come to entirely the opposite conclusion.

[Starboard Tack]

74. I tend to agree. The key word being "everyone"

Which is the very reason why many of us choose not to carry a gun. I have no issue with gun ownership or even carrying a gun to defend oneself or others from credible and existent threats. However, to carry a gun out of habit, just in case one may need to defend oneself from a random and unexpected attack, raises the risk of someone being hurt.
It is interesting that we can come to diametrically opposite conclusions over such matters, yet our goals are the same.

[Veganstein]

80. My family...

Is under a threat you would likely classify as credible, but I don't think that I, or any other entity guided by flawed human minds, is qualified to tell any individual what constitutes a credible and existent threat.

I think that what you meant by that is a specific person or group that has threatened or attempted to cause harm in the past, or some other outstanding set of circumstances.

Would you approve of Ferguson shop owners arming themselves and their employees? What if they still felt the need to do so three months from now?

What about New Orleans residents in the weeks following hurricane Katrina, and for how long would it be reasonable for them to continue being armed?

I'm not trying to put you on the spot; just hoping to share ideas. It seems like, even if you personally have a problem with carry, you have more understanding and empathy for those who do it than a lot of others here.

[Starboard Tack]

82. You make some excellent points

It is also refreshing to discuss this with someone who appears to have an open mind on the subject of carrying.
I don't mind being put on the spot either. This is how we evolve as individuals,, by examining and re-examining our positions on these things.
I think a lot of our decisions in life are based on context, and you come up with some challenging examples. As I said previously, my issue is not with carrying, but with carrying indiscriminately.

I don't know about Ferguson. But I think I would not carry if I lived there.
I was fortunate enough to get out of New Orleans a few hours before Katrina hit. However, I have friends who stayed and some carried. I do not blame them. The city was in a state of total anarchy. I would most likely have done the same and definitely would have been prepared to defend my home.
I completely understand females who have been attacked or stalked choosing to carry. I also understand those who choose not to. It is a personal choice.

What I do not understand is why some guys choose to carry virtually everywhere they go. That this behavior has become, or is becoming accepted as normal, I find very disturbing. The issue with me is not about freedom or individual rights, but rather am I contributing to the collapse of society. Because an armed society is, in my mind, a failed society.

[Veganstein]

84. Understand, or approve?

I think it's quite understandable. The prevailing advice regarding carry is to do it regularly if you're going to do it, and if you only plan to carry in situations where you think you'll need it, don't walk into those situations in the first place. I think that's kind of extreme to be a rule of thumb - a person can make an educated decision about the danger of a given place at a given time, and decide if it makes sense to carry. Then again, I can see the wisdom in acknowledging that you can never predict when it may be necessary. Like you said, I understand those who do, I understand those who don't.

I carry 95% of the time or more. If I weren't doing so in response to a specific threat, I don't know how or if that would change.

I don't think there's much chance of it becoming accepted as normal. Less than 5% of Americans have carry permits, and I'd be willing to bet less than half of those carry frequently. I'd be happy if it simply became accepted as something not to freak out over, so that fewer businesses would post "no guns" signs, and so stories like the one in the OP wouldn't take place.

You seem to be someone who is more about appealing to the sensibilities of others to convince them of your position, rather than using government force to impose it. If that's really the case, we can get along just fine!

[gejohnston]

32. One thing I noticed in Florida

and other southern states, plainclothes cops and parole officers open carry even though not in a visible uniform. It could have gone very bad for Mr. Foster. As bad as a bar in Old Homosassa (if you are black, don't go there unarmed. Not shitting you. The "town" gives lost in time a new definition. Don't confuse the place with the rest of the township on the other side of US 19.) who refused service to the wrong black person, who happened to be a sheriff of a different county and was friends with the Citrus County sheriff (and a good Democrat).

[beevul]

28. And your first post in the thread says it all.

Not so much as a word about the fella who did the taclking.

[djean111]

14. Last Saturday, in Melbourne, Florida, a man carried three guns into the mall, and

shot and killed one person before turning the gun on himself.

People are a little fucking wary around here, and it is idiocy to just wait and see if someone is actually going to shoot you, seems to me. Who the fuck needs a gun to go into Walmart and buy coffee creamer? Someone hoping they can use the gun, is what I believe. Not hoping to tackle someone, hoping to shoot someone.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. You know nothing about the victim in the OP except "he's one of THOSE people"

The rest is nothing more than your assumptions about him. His gun was holstered, he was minding his own business.

None of the people excusing this attack have pointed out why the knucklehead attacker is allowed his sense of self-defense but the elderly victim is not. Unprovoked violence is excused but if the victim wanted to defend himself from a mugger or home invader or someone robbing his business -- well -- he's just a horrible person and he should be pummeled even if he is just minding his own business.

[ileus]

17. No one that carries wants to be put in the position of having to use their PSD.

Safety first...victim later.

[jimmy the one]

19. rush to judgement

link: A struggle ensued, with Daniels yelling that he had a permit. Security detained both men until deputies arrived. They confirmed Daniels had a permit for the gun, and arrested Foster.He is charged with one count of battery

nuc uni: Thank God Mr. Daniels was not seriously hurt by this nimrod... Well-played, anti-RKBA'ers. Well-played. *slow-metered sarcastic clap

Uh, you so sure of yourself to put this guy Foster in our gun control camp?
Did you look at the pictures in your link? It sure looks to me like ccw carrier Mr Daniels is a 62 yo black man, while arrested mr Foster is a 43 yo white man.
.. So, is it even remotely possible to you nuclear uni, that in florida with stand your ground mentality, that Mr Foster the white man, saw a black man's pistol as black man moved exposing it under his coat, so that white man foster saw red & thunk a black man with a gun was trying to rob the store? So he, in his righteous stand your ground mentality, decided to play vigilante & suppress black man to thwart his misperceived evil intentions?
I doubt a bona fide 'anti-gun' person, or gun control advocate, would resolve this in the manner Foster did, with a vigilante assault (we be far more passive). I think that method lies far moreso in the realm of a progun rightwing SYG mentality.
I wonder, do you think mr foster living in tampa bay, might be a gun owner? you can't say for sure one way or the other, can you, nuc uni?

a man who spotted someone with a gun, followed him into a Walmart, and tackled him. The problem? The man with the gun had a concealed weapons permit, and the man who rushed him didn't call 911 or alert store security. According to the sheriff's office, Michael Foster, 43, saw Clarence Daniels, 62, in the Walmart parking lot with a gun holstered under his coat.
Foster followed Daniels into the store, put him in a choke-hold and brought him to the ground, the sheriff's office said. He then started yelling that Daniels had a gun. A struggle ensued, with Daniels yelling that he had a permit. Security detained both men until deputies arrived.

I'm taking bets & giving odds, that mr foster, is a gun owner.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. The other grabbers in this thread and the one in GD are excusing the attack if not

outright wishing Mr. Daniels had his arms broken. There certainly a rush by the grabbers to claim Mr. Foster as one of their own.

[sarisataka]

21. "we be far more passive"

From 'anti-gun' person, or gun control advocates-

we have a right to protect ourselves against gun toting idiots.

he should have broken his damn arms....

2. I have often wondered about that, it should be assumed that they are potential terrorists

Maybe if a few of these jackasses get taken down maybe some of the others stop being such assholes.

Gun owners in general are cowards, one or two times should be enough to have them cowering under their bed.

9. Takes mere seconds to un-sling and shoot.

I say shoot them on sight , just to be safe. No sane person would carry a rifle around a grocery store. Only the insane and the criminally motivated. So, again, I say shoot them on sight, let their bodies rot in the streets as a message to other hell-bent gunners.

Nothing but good could come of this.

10. Nonsense.

That gun can be readied and fired in only seconds. Best to just shoot them.

If this is "passive" I'll take an average gun owner any day of the week.

[gejohnston]

22. so much nonsense

Uh, you so sure of yourself to put this guy Foster in our gun control camp?

I guess he could be like

Did you look at the pictures in your link? It sure looks to me like ccw carrier Mr Daniels is a 62 yo black man, while arrested mr Foster is a 43 yo white man.

relevance?

.. So, is it even remotely possible to you nuclear uni, that in florida with stand your ground mentality, that Mr Foster the white man, saw a black man's pistol as black man moved exposing it under his coat, so that white man foster saw red & thunk a black man with a gun was trying to rob the store? So he, in his righteous stand your ground mentality, decided to play vigilante & suppress black man to thwart his misperceived evil intentions?

Since California (half the states really) and UK have had SYG much longer than Florida, why hasn't the problem existed there? Better yet, do you know what SYG actually is? I doubt it. It simply means no duty to retreat (even then, it is only if you can do so safely) if faced with an immediate objectively reasonable threat to your life or physical well being. Since the guy with holstered pistol posed no reasonable, immediate threat of death or grave bodily harm to anyone, no self defense theory would apply. He committed assault. If it were on an off duty cop, the charges would be much greater.

I doubt a bona fide 'anti-gun' person, or gun control advocate, would resolve this in the manner Foster did, with a vigilante assault (we be far more passive). I think that method lies far moreso in the realm of a progun rightwing SYG mentality.

I will go as far as saying that not only was Foster an "anti gun person", but maybe a racist.

I wonder, do you think mr foster living in tampa bay, might be a gun owner? you can't say for sure one way or the other, can you, nuc uni?

Don't know much about Florida do you? Chances are kind of slim. Florida's gun ownership rate is about 25 percent, or roughly the same as France. One thing I noticed about Florida, the former New Yorkers and retired auto workers tend to be more racist than the rednecks. It is also possible that Foster is a "snowbird" from Ontario. Quebecois tend to prefer the state's east coast.

[jimmy the one]

25. hate cream?

nuc uni: The other grabbers .. are excusing the attack if not outright wishing Mr. Daniels had his arms broken. There certainly a rush by the grabbers to claim Mr. Foster as one of their own.

So your own rush to judgment is condoned by their rush to judgment? that makes it acceptable to you? you're hedging blowing smoke.

sari: If this is "passive" I'll take an average gun owner any day of the week.

Right; the average gun owner never says 'I'd like to blow (that criminals) head off'. It's only un-average gun owners who say that.

jto: Did you look at the pictures in your link? It sure looks to me like ccw carrier Mr Daniels is a 62 yo black man, while arrested mr Foster is a 43 yo white man.
Johnston asks: relevance?

You fail to understand the possible relevance????? were you born yday? have you been asleep the past 6 months & ferguson & NYC death of a black man by a white cop & the current news headlines about 'black lives matter', all these went over your head somehow???
You need to wake up Johnston.

Johnston: Since California (half the states really) and UK have had SYG much longer than Florida, why hasn't the problem existed there?

Who said it hasn't? to some degree. It's not all present everywhere everyday in SYG places, Johnston. You need to wake up.

Johnston: I will go as far as saying that not only was Foster an "anti gun person", but also a racist.

Uh... oh ****, now you got me all confused. Why did you ask of 'relevance' above when I pointed out the salt & pepper aspect? that was what I was hinting at, without foster being a GC advocate. Gee, ya think it could be a hate crime? foster hates blacks to have cream in their coffee?

Johnston: Don't know much about Florida do you? Chances are kind of slim. Florida's gun ownership rate is about 25 percent, or roughly the same as France.

You're right! I don't know much about florida! but doesn't matter, you're wrong anyway, since foster is a WHITE Man more prone to own a gun, than a lady floridian or a black Floridian. I'd wager it's in the 40-50% range that foster is a gunowner, hardly 'slim'.
I'm not saying he is, just that it's my bet he is a gun owner, & I doubt he's a guncontrol advocate, but I certainly could be wrong. Ooo, & he could be a gun owner denier, lotsa them out there, accd'g to some posting gun enthusiasts.

One thing I noticed about Florida, the former New Yorkers and retired auto workers tend to be more racist than the rednecks. It is also possible that Foster is a "snowbird" from Ontario. Quebecois tend to prefer the state's east coast.

Wow, you're just full of silly irrelevant conjecture today, aren't you?

[gejohnston]

26. perhaps you need to wake up and know what you are talking about

You fail to understand the possible relevance????? were you born yday? have you been asleep the past 6 months & ferguson & NYC death of a black man by a white cop & the current news headlines about 'black lives matter', all these went over your head somehow???
You need to wake up Johnston.

When you look at the cases objectively, race was not an issue. In the case of NYC, the white cop was maybe negligent but not malicious. He was also following the direct orders of a black superior on the scene. Missouri, same thing. Change the races, the outcome would be the same other than the publicity. Unlike you, I actually read past the headlines and beyond the bullshit.

You're right! I don't know much about florida! but doesn't matter, you're wrong anyway, since foster is a WHITE Man more prone to own a gun, than a lady floridian or a black Floridian. I'd wager it's in the 40-50% range that foster is a gunowner, hardly 'slim'.
I'm not saying he is, just that it's my bet he is a gun owner, & I doubt he's a guncontrol advocate, but I certainly could be wrong. Ooo, & he could be a gun owner denier, lotsa them out there, accd'g to some posting gun enthusiasts.

You don't know gun ownership patterns in the South either. Blacks are just as likely to own guns as whites. Also, women are starting to dominate the shooting sports in general. Given that he is white during this time of the year, there is a fair chance that he is Canadian.
Not only do you not know anything about Florida, you don't know anything about much else either.

Wow, you're just full of silly irrelevant conjecture today, aren't you?

It is called actual observation from spending enough time there. Remember, I split my time between Florida and Wyoming.

[jimmy the one]

30. mounties in orlanda

johnston: You don't know gun ownership patterns in the South either. Blacks are just as likely to own guns as whites.

Pew says 15% blacks personally own a gun(s), 31% whites do, but that's all over not just the south.
I suppose, as usual, you don't have any link or source to back you up, & maybe tell me to disprove what you say, am I right? Well, won't make that much diff anyway, fla only ~18% black.

Johnston: Also, women are starting to dominate the shooting sports in general.

ATTENTION! Attention! Wanted, anyone out there to back up what johnston is saying above!
Black or white, man or woman, doesn't matter!

Oh, does 'making inroads' mean 'domination'?? ... link: Women are increasingly making inroads into traditionally male-dominated hunting and shooting sports.. (while something else is) a troubling hurdle for hunting groups, wildlife agencies and outdoor retailers to a sport that isn’t growing. Based on surveys conducted by Census Bureau, the number of US hunters has largely stayed flat or declined in recent years, Of the 13.7 million hunters in 2011, 11% were women — and that’s up from 9% since 2001.
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2014/12/21/female-hunters-share-tales-sexism/20696377/

.. did you mean women 'dominate', like in the sack or something? dominatrix their gun owning 'sports'?

johnston: Given that he is white during this time of the year, there is a fair chance that he is Canadian.

Hahaha! Searching for someone, anyone, to back johnston up on this!!! This one goes into my book 'gunnuts say the funniest things!'. Let's see, by your previous usage in your post above this, 25% is a slim chance, so a 'fair chance' must be around 50%!!! There you have it folks, if you wanna see a mountie don't go to ottawa, visit orlando in winter!

johnston: Not only do you not know anything about Florida, you don't know anything about much else either.

I agree in a sense; often said that there's far far more in this world I don't know than I do.
But jimmy's rule applies to everyone, & moreso to you.

[gejohnston]

31. shooting sports are more than hunting

and they are the fastest group of competitive shooters.
I don't know about Indiana, or even the quality of that anecdote, but I do know that isn't an issue in Wyoming or Florida.

As for Foster, I stand by what I said, which is the same as the guy who swatted the guy with the air gun: gun control activist and racist.

I agree in a sense; often said that there's far far more in this world I don't know than I do.
But jimmy's rule applies to everyone, & moreso to you.

Not so much. Unlike you, I have an open mind, curiosity, and critical thinking skills. Yours on the other hand, is closer to Fox and Friends and TYT.

[jimmy the one]

33. racial stress exists

johnston: When you look at the cases objectively, race was not an issue. In the case of NYC, the white cop was maybe negligent but not malicious. He was also following the direct orders of a black superior on the scene. Missouri, same thing. Change the races, the outcome would be the same other than the publicity. Unlike you, I actually read past the headlines and beyond the bullshit.

What are you arguing? who cares you objectively think that race wasn't an issue, it currently is an issue; .. the fact is that there currently is racial stress in america due to perceived white on black authoritative violence which is not done white on white. Racial stress exists & possibly played a role in this foster/daniels incident.
I then posted that white man foster might see red when he saw black man daniels with a gun going into the store, & you asked what 'relevance'? Duh, the relevance might've stemmed from racial animosity or stress, that armed black men were up to no good in foster's eyes, whereas had daniels been white, mighta asked him what kinda pistol he owned.

Did you look at the pictures..? It sure looks to me like ccw carrier Mr Daniels is a 62 yo black man, while arrested mr Foster is a 43 yo white man.
Johnston asks: relevance?

Then, inexplicably imo after asking the relevance, johnston says this: I will go as far as saying that not only was Foster an "anti gun person", but also a racist.

Youtube video of the takedown, look how easy it was for an unarmed civilian to takedown a guy with a concealed carry permit & his gun. Action starts about halfway thru it.

[gejohnston]

34. relevance is that

Foster might have been a gun control activist who would have done the same thing if the CCW holder were white. In which case, that would make Foster just a fool instead of a racist. My point was that we don't know if race was a motive or not.
We don't know that for certain.
Since you want to call your fellow anti gun person racist, be my guest. He might be. Most likely, he isn't. He is certainly a fool who went to jail.

Even worse, assaulting someone and putting them in a headlock is a very stupid and dangerous thing. Given that Foster is much younger and stronger than the victim (disparity of force), and it was an unprovoked and unlawful attack, Foster could have been heading to the hospital at best. Yes, the victim would walk. Since there is no ability to retreat from a headlock, he would walk in places like Wyoming, Hawaii, and New York where there is no "SYG", but a duty to retreat.

[jimmy the one]

35. twilight zone

johnston: Since you want to call your fellow anti gun person racist, be my guest. He might be. Most likely, he isn't. He is certainly a fool who went to jail.

Duh, now you got me really confused.
Did you or did you not, in your post 22, call foster an anti gun person, and also a racist?

johnston wrote (I thinks): I will go as far as saying that not only was Foster an "anti gun person", but also a racist.

[gejohnston]

36. no,

I said he was an anti gun person and maybe a racist. Learn to read. Either way, he is certainly a fool.

[jimmy the one]

38. johnston edits out his gaffe, lies about it

johnston: I said he was an anti gun person and maybe a racist. Learn to read. Either way, he is certainly a fool.

Johnston, I copied & pasted twice what you had posted in #22, & both times you wrote 'also a racist', now you have edited your post to make it 'maybe a racist'. (Editing is allowed for a brief period after the initial posting, to get the bugs out).
You have the nerve to lie about it too, & tell me to read.
I can read johnston, I can read you like a cheap book.

I copied & pasted this, I did not retype it word for word: .... after asking the relevance, johnston says this: I will go as far as saying that not only was Foster an "anti gun person", but also a racist.

I also posted, in post 25, the above johnston quote, to which he replied to in his post 26, where he didn't object to 'also a racist'. Why didn't you correct or challenge in your post 26, that what you wrote was 'maybe'?
See, I edited the above sentence at about 4:34, & now at 4:37. It lets you do it for a few hours it seems, never timed it out.

[gejohnston]

39. you assume much

I did get the bugs out, thank you for pointing out my bug. A lie is an intentional untruth. Since I edited to what I meant, and thought I said, it isn't a lie. Sometimes it takes me awhile to get to editing something.
Maybe you can read, but not well. A cheap book? A copy of Madonna's book of her nude photos sold for $50 when it came out. Meanwhile, I was able to pick up a copy of Thomas Wolfe's The Web and the Rock at a thrift store for a quarter. Now I can down load classics like Beowulf for free at http://www.gutenberg.org/
I also have Da Vinchi's notes and drawings free from Google books.
Or you can get a hard cover edition of some Barbra Cartland novel for a lot more.

[jimmy the one]

60. beowolf, a good start

Johnston: you assume much I did get the bugs out, thank you for pointing out my bug

You admit you edited after being exposed. Still exposes you a cheap shot artist for trying to make me out as illiterate for not being able to read your 'edit':
Johnston, after he edited, emphasis mine: "no, I said he was an anti gun person and maybe a racist. Learn to read" .

Johnston: Since I edited to what I meant, and thought I said, it isn't a lie.

.. you lied in #36 to mislead readers that you had written 'maybe a racist' instead of not only was Foster an "anti gun person", but also a racist.
If I hadn't challenged you, the truth would not have come out, & you'd be smirking, living a lie (er, redundantly).

Johnston: I did get the bugs out, thank you for pointing out my bug. A lie is an intentional untruth. Since I edited to what I meant, and thought I said, it isn't a lie. Sometimes it takes me awhile to get to editing something.

I suppose you think that explanation puts you back to being Johnston the Noble, Mr Righteous - takes a big man to...., eh? You thank me for pointing out your 'error', after using it to falsely accuse me of slander, & no apology. Whee. You're welcome. Not.

Johnston: Maybe you can read, but not well.
..check, needs editing.

Johnston: I was able to pick up a copy of Thomas Wolfe's The Web and the Rock.. Beowulf for free.. I also have Da Vinchi's notes and drawings.. hard cover edition of some Barbra Cartland novel..

Prefer history like wm shirer rise & fall 3rd reich, alan bullocks hitler, Durands era histories, like napoleon, roman history, dark & middle ages, & british keegan (died few years back).
Let Beowulf inspire & lead you to greater things.
Now, stand up, place your feet about 3 feet apart, hands over head at 10 oclock & 2 oclock, & spin sideways as many times you can.

[gejohnston]

62. John Keegan died?

I always had you as more of a Kilgore Trout fan.
my reading tastes is much wider. I always found the pacific theater of WW2 more interesting. I also find more, umm, more unsung parts of military history interesting. I just finished a monograph on USAF personnel policy written by a in house USAF historian.

[jimmy the one]

63. john keegan, r.i.p. 34 - 12

John Keegan died?

Yep, couple years back like I said. I read maybe 6 or 7: wiki: Sir John Desmond Patrick Keegan (15 May 1934 – 2 August 2012) was a British military historian, lecturer, writer and journalist. He was the author of many published works on the nature of combat between the 14th and 21st centuries concerning land, air, maritime, and intelligence warfare, as well as the psychology of battle.

.. age of 13 Keegan contracted orthopaedic tuberculosis, which subsequently affected his gait. The long-term effects of his tuberculosis rendered him unfit for military service, and the timing of his birth made him too young for service in the Second World War, as mentioned in his works as an ironic observation on his profession and interest.
In 1960 he was appointed to a lectureship in Military History at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, the training establishment for officers of the British Army. Holding the post for 26 years, he became senior lecturer in military history during his tenure...

[gejohnston]

37. BTW,

given their approval for this asshole's criminal act, I'm guessing he is one of theirs.
https://www.facebook.com/CoalitiontoStopGunViolence/posts/1020725831288315

[sarisataka]

40. I am quite surprised

By the number of people who favor actual violence to stop imagined potential violence

[benEzra]

47. Isn't that what the gun control movement, at its core, is all about?

"I am quite surprised by the number of people who favor actual violence to stop imagined potential violence"

Isn't that what the gun control movement is, distilled to its essence? I don't see too many proposals that they aim to enforce voluntarily. Ultimately, most prohibitionists suggest that those who choose not to comply with their views must be taken down and forcibly disarmed, imprisoned, or shot, do they not?

[sarisataka]

48. We will have a peaceful society!

No matter how many gun owners must die to get there.

If it means elderly men get attacked in Wal-Mart- well it's their fault for doing something the law allows.


What happened to Black Lives Matter? I have yet to see any gun board (liberal, moderate, apolitical or conservative) even hint it was the victim's fault because of his skin color or that he should not be allowed to carry.

Yet that is one of the many convoluted justifications being given to call a white man who blindsided a senior aged black man a "hero"

The situational ethics and double/triple standards are more akin the a site-that-shall-go-unnamed than to DU.

[jimmy the one]

58. cherry picking bad apples

Johnston: BTW, given their approval for this asshole's criminal act, I'm guessing he is one of theirs {member of CSGV guncontrol group}. https://www.facebook.com/CoalitiontoStopGunViolence/posts/1020725831288315

You mean like this one???: Morons the lot of you all!!! You idiots simply do not realize just how many lives are saved each and every day by a law abiding gun owner. (reason, the liberal media does not report this type of activity since they think that might produce, Oh No, more gun owners in our world). So you hear about bad gun encounters and not the good ones.

What's THAT doing in the Coalition to Stop Handgun Violence website?? Is that johnston's 'approval for this AH's act'? I think it's because CSHV's website policy is: Sign Up It’s free and always will be. So it appears to be open forum to everyone, including gunnuts & nra members perhaps (within TOS reason of course).
Johnston cherry picked some bad apple posts supporting white guy foster, & assigns blame for that to guncontrol advocates, when it is more likely their racist tint talking. Broadly assigning illogical posts condemning the gun carrier, to guncontrol advocates, is just as prejudiced {on edit, 9:45fri} as what many are suggesting. Shame Johnston, shame. The comments are a mixed bag indicative of the 'free signup, open forum'. .... (cherry picked bad apples, ha, leave it!).

guncontrol advocate??: Whatever happened to blacklivesmatter. I guess it only applies to law breakers and people you like and not black men with CCW permits. I hope they throw the book at this {white} douchebag..

guncontrol advocate?: Good {white} guy without a gun takes down a bad guy with a gun, who turned out to be a good guy with a gun which made the first good guy into a bad guy.

guncontrol advocate, perhaps, but perceptive one: Did any of you morons read the last line of that article? "Officials say anyone with concerns regarding someone who is carrying what appears to be a concealed weapon should contact law enforcement." Also, where are the usual "racist" cries? White man attacks black man conceal carrying gun...

guncontrol adv?: I've served my country for 20yrs, I've had my background checked, I have a ltcf. I carry for self defense, as is my RIGHT under our constitution that I defended. I am 67 years old, and if you took me to the ground like this idiot gun phobe, I would take that as an act of aggression agaist me .You would not be making that mistake again

Is this what Johnston was talking about? possibly, or is it just veiled racism or a vigilante mentality??: .. the man thought he was protecting fellow shoppers from harm when he tackled the "gun man" or "man with a gun". What difference does it make. A person with a gun is a person with a gun. Why arrest someone who was trying to save others? .. this is craziness to arrest the man trying to protect others. As far as I'm concern, he's the hero. Why arrest him?

[gejohnston]

59. no, they were sane people who

managed not to get deleted. Those who disagree usually get blocked.
Shannon Watts tweeted her approval of his criminal behavior. Given the vile and childish rants, it is probably more representative than you care to admit.
Not "liberal media" simply no story to report. Since the vast majority of them are no shots fired, it doesn't bleed. No bleeding, no leading.

the man thought he was protecting fellow shoppers from harm when he tackled the "gun man" or "man with a gun". What difference does it make. A person with a gun is a person with a gun. Why arrest someone who was trying to save others? .. this is craziness to arrest the man trying to protect others. As far as I'm concern, he's the hero. Why arrest him?

There is no evidence the guy was a threat. The victim was simply getting out of his car when Foster saw the print of the gun. It was not out, was not illegally visible, the victim was not making any threatening actions. For all Foster knew, the victim could have been a cop. The threat or perception of a threat must be immediate and reasonable. Foster failed. The most of the principles that apply to self defense also applies to defense of others. Let's review these:
Innocence, Imminence, Proportionality, Reasonableness, and Avoidance. All a prosecutor has to do is disprove one. Imminence? No, the victim was simply getting out of his car minding his own fucking business. Foster was only able to see the holster or a print of a holster. Using the reasonable person standard, there was no threat. Innocence? No. Foster was clearly the aggressor. He tackled Daniels from behind and put him in a choke hold while Daniels was peacefully walking in the store.
http://lawofselfdefense.com/the-five-principles-of-the-law-of-self-defense-in-a-nutshell/

I've served my country for 20yrs, I've had my background checked, I have a ltcf. I carry for self defense, as is my RIGHT under our constitution that I defended. I am 67 years old, and if you took me to the ground like this idiot gun phobe, I would take that as an act of aggression agaist me .You would not be making that mistake again

Legally and morally, he would be right. You do not assault someone. But we only have Foster's word that he was trying to save others. As we learned from the Wal Mart swatting case, the caller later admitted he was less than honest with 911. His wife was more freaked about the race plus gun, but the dead guy was not doing anything threatening. He acted out of an irrational fear of either blacks, someone with a gun, or a black man with a gun. BTW, that is why open carry was banned in Florida in 1893, the sight of African American farm workers open carrying upset some white people.

BTW, Foster has been charged with battery and "Baker Acted".

[Fred Sanders]

49. Wow. Racist white man tackles carry concealed black man......if it was the other way around?

[sarisataka]

53. Would it really matter?

What combination of skin colors justifies jumping a person because you think they might do something wrong?

The aggressor is the criminal.

[friendly_iconoclast]

43. Foster is *definitely* one of your sort, Jimmy. To quote another vocal antigun DUer:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x471995

Further, every citizen should report anyone carrying a gun in public -- Maybe even hold them until police arrive. You just never know when the gunner is a criminal, has bad intentions, or just walked off their compound with a plan to harm innocent people.

[oneshooter]

44. He was simply doing what Mr."Beans and bicycle tire" suggested. n/t

[petronius]

23. If the case against Mr. Foster proceeds, I wonder if the people who advocate this

sort of misguided vigilante action will crowdfund a good defense lawyer for him...

[DonP]

24. Perhaps a week or two in County General Pop with the word that he jumped a 62 year old black man?

Might make him a little more temperate and thoughtful next time he sees a black man with a holstered gun.

But up in LBN many are still clamoring for vigilante justice on anyone carrying, regardless of race.

[Fred Sanders]

50. One month in the clink for being a paranoid racist on top.

[DonP]

61. Great idea, include hate crime charges

White guy assaults innocent older black guy? Sounds like a racially motivated crime to me.

Or are you OK with assaulting black men if you think they have a gun on them?

Kind of goes beyond Blooomies "stop and frisk" to "stop and beat up"

[jimmy the one]

64. what if daniels HAD shot back in SD?

What happened to {black legal gun carrier} Clarence Daniels isn't an isolated incident, but a part of a pattern of racism in this country which continues in spite of many advances.
Legally, he could've pulled that firearm out and began shooting in self-defense, but you and I know that had he done that, he very well could've been called a murderer and Foster a hero for confronting him.

Right, that's the problem generally overlooked by gun salesmen, the nra, & even gun owners themselves - that they are at possible legal risk if they even let their gun be seen - whether brandishing or accidentally.
Had daniels defended himself with his gun in this justifiable situation (or was it, justifiably with a gun?), that serendipitous video could be the only thing standing in the way of a 15 year sentence, or at least accusations, with a lengthy criminal trial.
There's far more at risk than most younger gun owners realize when they carry a gun outside. Conniving liars framing them, hitting bystanders or thinking the wrong target, suits & counter suits, accidentally shooting themselves, even cops seeing them with a gun & shooting them.
Is it worth it for some remote chance to use it, remoter still where it would really matter, to carry a gun?

Those little kids {arg, bystanders pls} could've been shot and killed. Clarence Daniels could've been shot and killed in the struggle for his own weapon.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/22/1359564/-62-year-old-black-grandfather-choked-and-held-down-by-3-white-men-who-see-his-legal-firearm?detail=email

[friendly_iconoclast]

65. What if you HAD taken that English composition class?

Yuks aside, Daniels would have been legally (and morally, IMO) in the right-
all your "coulda, woulda, shoulda" verbiage notwithstanding:

Had daniels defended himself with his gun in this justifiable situation (or was it, justifiably with a gun?)

It certainly was- chokeholds can be fatal. Fortunately, that's not your decision to make...

[jimmy the one]

83. iconic nitpick

icon: What if you HAD taken that English composition class? all your "coulda, woulda, shoulda" verbiage notwithstanding

Who are you, spellcheck police? Does anyone besides you & maybe a few other cretins, harass others for their spelling style?
'Coulda, shoulda, woulda' are reductions & commonly used American slang in everday use, which I sometimes prefer, saves time & space, including some coined contractions I've developed - unconventional at times but readily understandable. It's my prerogative, my personal style which does not confuse many but the densest bigots. You only harp on it since you take most every opportunity at a cheap shot.
And btw, my English composition puts 90% of gunnuts writing to shame, including yours. The other 10% might be on a par, is all.

shoulda Definitions from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution v. Should have.
Etymologies Written form of a reduction of "should have". (Wiktionary)
You know Robert, you're trying to offer up excuses for every event and manner by which the victims of accidents coulda 'shoulda', been saved by a bystander or first responder
https://www.wordnik.com/words/shoulda

icon: Yuks aside.. all your "coulda, woulda, shoulda" verbiage notwithstanding:

The yuks on you.

[ileus]

41. Walmart video of CHP carrier attacked by thug.

http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/local/2015/01/20/shopper-tackles-man-with-gun-at-wal-mart/22067325/

[sarisataka]

45. It was just an ammosexual

not like he was human or anything


From the video it looks like 2-3 others should also face charges.

[ileus]

46. most unsafe disarming I've ever seen...there needs to be some common sense gun control

practiced by those that "helped"


really how many folks did they pass the pistol around to??? that's not dangerous...

[Hassin Bin Sober]

79. Here's my question: how do we know the assailant is a "gun grabber"?

I mean, except for the fact he literally grabbed a gun. Lol.

Maybe I'm too cynical or have been around the block too many times, but it's just as likely these (3 or 4) chunky white guys (including the helpers ) lost their shit because it was a BLACK GUY WITH A GUN rather than just a guy with a gun.