Clarence Daniels was going to the store to grab some coffee creamer for his wife when he was taken down by another customer. (Photo: Fox)
Guns dot com (suggested by George Jefferson)
A man was arrested and charged with battery after he tackled a customer in a Brandon, Florida, Walmart Tuesday morning over what was later learned to be a legally carried handgun.
Michael Foster, 43, was in the store’s parking lot just before noon when he noticed Clarence Daniels, 57, take a handgun from his car and place it in a holster on his hip beneath his coat. But rather than calling the police, Foster followed Daniels into the store where he came at him from behind, put him in a chokehold and wrestled him to the ground, a local Fox affiliate reported.
All the while, Foster was yelling out that the man had a gun, but Daniels was yelling out as well, saying that he had a permit to carry the gun.
Witnesses separated the two men and kept them apart until sheriff’s deputies arrived a short time later.
Authorities confirmed that Daniels did, in fact, have a concealed carry permit and was carrying his handgun legally.
“Unfortunately he tackled a guy that was a law-abiding citizen,” Hillsborough County Sheriff ‘s spokesman Larry McKinnon told the Tampa Bay Times of Foster. “We understand it’s alarming for people to see other people with guns, but Florida has a large population of concealed weapons permit holders.”
Foster was arrested and charged with battery. Authorities said part of the problem laid in the fact that Foster never called the police or alerted the store’s security to what he perceived as a possible threat.
The guy has a permit but keeps his gun in a car trunk while driving and gets it out specifically to shop at Walmart? Is it illegal to drive with a gun on your person in Florida even if you have a permit? I don't get why he wouldn't just have the gun on him.
ReplyDeleteI see no mention of the word "trunk." Where do you get the impression that the trunk was the location in the car in which the gun had been?
DeleteI pictured the gun in the front seat of the car with the guy, but I wondered if it's common practice to remove the gun from its holster while seated in a vehicle. Is it more comfortable that way? Sounds like removing and replacing the gun like that increases the risk of negligent discharges in addition to being spotted by a busybody vigilante.
DeleteDon't you mean an anti-carry vigilante? Yes, it does increase the chances of negligent discharges, so the best practice is to holster it and leave it there. However, this isn't always possible. Sometimes you have to make a stop at some "gun free zone," necessitating removing the gun, leaving it behind where it's more vulnerable to theft, and then reholstering afterward.
DeleteI don't think the guy was an anti-carry vigilante. He thought the black guy with a gun was up to no good, which makes him a busybody vigilante and probably a racist. I know you guys love to be the victims, but in this case I don't think it was about concealed carry at all, it was about stopping a crime by a wannabe hero citizen.
DeleteMr. Foster is lucky he didn't get quite justifiably shot. Here is a link with a video of the encounter and it looks like not only did he tackle him from behind and apply a choke hold, it looks like he might have taken the gun from the holster and handed it to a stranger.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/man-shopping-for-coffee-creamer-at-walmart-attacked-by-vigilante-for/2214432
Would have been real amusing if it had been a cop. Mr. Owens on the Bearingarms website summed it up quite well,
"Foster then tackled Daniels from behind and attempted to control him some sort of incompetent chokehold.
At this moment, Clarence Daniels had every legal right to draw his gun and shoot Michael Foster. He made the conscious decision not to take Foster’s life.
Despite behind unexpectedly attacked, Mr. Daniels kept his composure, grasped that while Foster was attacking him from behind, he wasn’t attempting to kill him, and Daniels refrained from drawing his weapon and filling Foster’s entrails full of hot lead.
This interaction rather neatly makes a number of points:
1.Supporters of gun control are fear-filled and ignorant of the law.
2.Some supporters of gun control are not only ignorant of the law, but fearful and violent.
3.Most concealed carriers are extremely reluctant to use their firearms, even when they have a legal right to do so.
Once again, the “rivers of blood” that were promised by hysterical gun control cultists when Florida became the model for the modern concealed carry movement 28 years ago simply never came to pass. Lawful citizens are lawful citizens, and firearms are not talismans that turn lawful concealed carriers into raving sociopaths.
They do, however, apparently drive supporters of gun control completely insane."
http://bearingarms.com/hes-got-gun-florida-man-tackles-concealed-carrier-arrested-battery/
What hogwash. You are going to label gun control people fearful and violent because of one idiot? A good example why they call you guys loony.
DeleteMaybe Mr. Foster will take his potential battery conviction and turn it into a teachable moment. Since there's no mention of him doing this before, and I find it hard to believe he's never seen other people carrying, him being in contact with the public as an employee of Home Depot.
DeleteI wonder what it was about Mr. Daniels that justified such an assault his mind....
There are LOTS and LOTS of idiots like this Fred. Now even Shannon Watts is calling for more of the same claiming that it should be legal to assault lawful and peaceful people carrying their legal weapons.
DeleteWhy are ANTI-gun loons so violent??
"Why are ANTI-gun loons so violent??"
DeleteGood question Gunsmoke. I just came upon this in another blog from Florida and it looks like in this case there are some possible psychological issues. Instead of being released the same day, he appears to be on a 72 hour hold under Florida's Baker Act.
"The Florida Mental Health Act of 1971 (Florida Statute 394.451-394.47891[1] (2009 rev.)), commonly known as the "Baker Act," allows the involuntary institutionalization and examination of an individual.
The Baker Act allows for involuntary examination (what some call emergency or involuntary commitment). It can be initiated by judges, law enforcement officials, physicians, or mental health professionals. There must be evidence that the person:
##possibly has a mental illness (as defined in the Baker Act).
##is a harm to self, harm to others, or self neglectful (as defined in the Baker Act)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Mental_Health_Act
http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/PublicInquiry/ArrestInquiry/ViewArrest?id=15002515&k1=8d204f82cc876cd&k2=NzI5MTc3OTM4
It didn't look like Daniels practiced restraint at all. What I saw was that he couldn't get to his gun - otherwise, I presume, our busybody vigilante would be dead and no charges would be brought.
Delete. . . otherwise, I presume, our busybody vigilante would be dead and no charges would be brought.
DeleteThat sounds like your kind of "presumption," alright, Mikeb--the kind that's directly opposite to the presumption of innocence pending proof of guilt.
And if the guy had called 911 instead of being an idiot, would you guys be blasting him for for that also?
DeleteI'm not going to defend this idiot, but don't claim anyone who has a concern after seeing a guy grab an gun and holster it just before he enters a public place, is fearful and violent. Given the mass shootings in public places lately calling 911 is not an irrational move. Just because there are carry laws doesn't mean it's irrational to be concerned about seeing strangers carrying guns in public places. How can the average person tell a good guy from a bad guy? Let the cops handle it, that's their job. People who carry guns should not take exception that they may be asked about it. Knee jerk reactions on any side does not define the majority of any side. If idiots on the gun control side are calling to assault anyone carrying a gun, that's just asking for trouble and from what I read just more idiots from a minority viewpoint.
What it looked like to me that Daniels was trying desperately to retain his gun as you don't want to loose control of it and have it used against you. He couldn't retain it and it was handed off to other strangers, just how smart is that? One of those strangers could have used it against Daniels, Foster or anyone else in range of it.
Delete"That sounds like your kind of "presumption," alright, Mikeb--the kind that's directly opposite to the presumption of innocence pending proof of guilt."
DeleteMaybe you didn't understand me, Kurt. I meant if the black guy had gotten to his gun he would have shot and killed his attacker, and justifiably so.
Maybe you didn't understand me, Kurt. I meant if the black guy had gotten to his gun he would have shot and killed his attacker, and justifiably so.
DeleteApparently I did not, and I both commend you for your rational outlook on this case, and apologize for not believing you capable of it.
"And if the guy had called 911 instead of being an idiot, would you guys be blasting him for for that also?"
DeleteIf he had called 911, this would never have made the news. The 911 operator would have asked some tough questions like "what is he doing?". The police have done it before and these events are often talked of on concealed carry forums.
And strangely, there don't seem to be similar problems in places like Vermont, where they don't require a permit at all. Its called Constitutional Carry.
I've read on previous post that you gun loons think it's a crime to call 911 on legal gun carriers. How does anyone know a person is a legal gun carrier, or not? If legal gun carriers object to being asked about their status to legally carry, then you should not carry.
DeleteYou have no reading comprehension Fred. What was being criticized there was people suggesting that they should call and exaggerate the situation, and the one case so far where we know that is what happened, resulting in two deaths. Those are the situations where we think the behavior ought to be met with criminal sanctions.
DeleteAs for the idea of calling 911 every time you see someone carrying, as long as you don't exaggerate to try and get a huge response we aren't going to suggest you're doing something criminal--just something stupid, wasteful of the 911 system, and showing a lack of the common sense that allows normal people to look, see if someone is behaving normally, and move on if they are.
"I've read on previous post that you gun loons think it's a crime to call 911 on legal gun carriers."
DeleteIts a crime when someone calls 911 and reports something that is inaccurate and would lead someone to getting hurt. That is called SWATTing. Calling to report seeing someone carrying and reporting it accurately is just fine.
The 911 operator might even tell you that what the person is doing is completely legal, and it might go on the list prioritized a little lower than say traffic accidents and such.
Requirements requiring showing documents to police vary from state to state. Is anyone here familiar with these requirements in Constitutional carry states like Vermont? There might not be much to show there.
It's so nice you gun loons always start your replies with insults. Please don't complain when I do the same to you. I did not misread. I remember the reply by one gun loon saying, "do you call the cops when you see a cop carrying a gun?" And went on to claim anyone who makes such a 911 call should be arrested. You loons can't even remember the loony shit you say, and then deny it.
DeleteYou know what would simplify everything, if you gun nuts who think you need a gun at all times would just leave them at home.
DeleteYou know what would simplify everything, if you gun nuts who think you need a gun at all times would just leave them at home.
DeleteYou know what would simplify everything, if you [gratuitous, puerile libel] who think you need a gun at all times would just leave them at home.
Yeah--I've heard that before. Women wouldn't get raped if they wore less revealing clothing; African-Americans wouldn't be terrorized, brutalized, and killed, if they'd just stay out of white people's places; people wouldn't get carjacked if they drove cheaper, less ostentatious cars, etc. All of that is the thinking of swine.
Mike, it would really simplify the situation if all the criminals would just re-think their actions and just stay home, or find a real job.
DeleteYou have to wonder if this guy ever goes up to police men/women and tries to tackle them for carrying a gun. How would he know whether or not they are legit police officers without taking them down and holding them until the real cops get there - oh wait he doesn't call the cops.
ReplyDeleteIt not clear from the info available if Mr Foster is on the pro or anti side of the firearms issue..However it is clear that he made a dangerous and likely expensive choice to attack another person in a foolish attempt to play the hero....First rule of self defense is avoid the situation completely if at all possible......Be a witness not a victim.
ReplyDeleteI doubt Mr Foster will see any type prison or jail sentence from this unless he has priors...And i betting he wont go around attacking people for no reason again either or maybe he will he was foolish enough to do it once. And Mr Daniels likely will not have any problem finding an attorney to file a civil suit against Mr Foster....Good luck Mr Daniels
For a lawsuit to fly there must be damages.
DeleteFJ there very well could be damages that we are unaware of...damages can include things other than bodily injury....
DeleteAssault, an unprovoked assault is damage and grounds for a lawsuit.
DeleteJust another racist anti-gun type who saw a black man with a gun, claims to have feared the man was going to rob Wal-Mart, and then attacked him and put him in a choke hold. Where is the progressive outcry?
ReplyDeleteAnd Fred, y'all try to use a few outliers to label the rest of us every day--why shouldn't you be susceptible to the same criticisms? As for the notion that this is one idiot and not doesn't reflect the movement, do we need to dredge up the "mom's demand" comment thread about how they wanted to SWAT people who they saw carrying in Kroger--and then the lack of statements from the Moms or the Mayors telling their people not to do this? Or maybe we should point to how the small amount of pro-gun-control coverage of the shooting in that Ohio Wal-Mart focused on making Wal-Mart and Open Carry the problem rather than the lying anti-gunner making the 911 call.
Great Points!
DeleteOne progressive outcrier here. Foster is a racist asshole who should pay for what he did.
DeleteApparently, Mr. Foster is getting some atta boys over on the CSGV Facebook page. I'd invite everyone to go take a look,
Deletethanks for trying Michael
No one should have to tolerate some asshole bringing a gun into a store. Tackling someone IS the correct response. Fuck this permit bullshit, these laws need to be repealed and guns need to stay home with the crazy fucks who think they need them.
https://www.facebook.com/CoalitiontoStopGunViolence/posts/1020725831288315
SJ, I don't remember making a comment supporting calling SWAT people just because some saw a person carrying a gun in Krogers. Maybe you can refresh my memory.
DeleteI don't support telling a lie just to get the cops on scene. I have no problem with citizens calling the cops if they see strangers carrying guns. Let the cops decide who is a good guy, or a bad guy.
I have a problem with idiots like this that simply attack someone without knowing. I have a real problem with idiots who would advise that be the guiding act. I have no problem with charging an idiot like this.
Why the cries of "racist"? Can't he just be a run of the mill anti-gun asshole?
DeleteFor one thing, TS, he wasn't necessarily anti-gun at all. He thought he was stopping a crime. Secondly, when a white guy sees a black guy with a gun and assumes the black guy is up to no good, that's racist, in my view.
DeleteFred, I didn't say you had supported any of those things. I said that there are a lot of people in the gun control movement who do, and there is pretty much crickets as far as response to them from the movement's leadership.
DeleteNice try at deflecting by pretending I had claimed that YOU supported these things specifically--clever dodge, but no cigar.
For one thing, TS, he wasn't necessarily anti-gun at all. He thought he was stopping a crime.
DeleteTo paraphrase Jeff Foxworthy, if the sight of a gun makes you think "crime," you might be an anti-gun fanatic.
Secondly, when a white guy sees a black guy with a gun and assumes the black guy is up to no good, that's racist, in my view.
How about when a black guy sees a white guy with a gun and assumes the white guy is up to no good? Is that racist, too, or is this another of your famous unidirectional racism charges?
Apparently, Mr. Foster is getting some atta boys over on the CSGV Facebook page. I'd invite everyone to go take a look
DeleteWow, judging by Foster''s fanboys at CSGV, this asshole appears not to be quite the progressive outlier some would have us believe him to be.
Assume racist, don't assume anti-gun. Got it.
Delete"And Fred, y'all try to use a few outliers to label the rest of us every day--why shouldn't you be susceptible to the same criticisms?"
DeleteI read this as you saying it was me.
Again, I don't accept that a small minority doing some thing means the majority does, or supports the same. You can find anecdotal evidence of anything, that doesn't mean it's accepted by all.
All right, let's assume he was an anti-gun liberal who's afraid of the very sight of an evil and dangerous firearm? Then he jumped on the guy with the gun, disarmed him and put him in a choke hold?
DeleteKinda ruins your theory, doesn't it?
All right, let's assume he was an anti-gun liberal who's afraid of the very sight of an evil and dangerous firearm? Then he jumped on the guy with the gun, disarmed him and put him in a choke hold?
DeleteKinda ruins your theory, doesn't it?
Not even close. Attacking that which one irrationally fears is a very well-known phenomenon. Ever hear of fear-biting? For a "gun control" advocate to behave like a dangerous, inadequately socialized beast is hardly surprising.
This CSGV hero of "gun control" (dare I call him a "prominent" advocate of "gun control"? By Southern Beale's and Mikeb's standards, it would appear safe, especially if I called him "approximately prominent," right, Mikeb?) could be the new poster boy for the famous combination of anti-gun fanaticism and racism so well established in history.
Who said anything about him being "afraid of the very sight of a [gun]"? Stupid, yes. Afraid, not so much.
Delete