Florida Legal Gun Owner Tackled Entering Wal-Mart By Vigilante…

How much you want to bet the white guy is:  A.) “A Turon”, B.) Hails from the Northeast, C.) Liberal,  D.) All of the above.

A surveillance video from a Walmart located near Tampa shows 62-year-old Clarence Daniels [Black Male] trying to enter the store to purchase some coffee creamer for his wife this past Tuesday. He barely steps through the automatic doors before he is pummeled by shopper Michael Foster, a 43-year-old [white male].

“He’s got a gun!” Foster shouts, to which Daniels replies, “I have a permit!”

According to local news reports, Foster originally spotted Daniels in the store’s parking lot placing his legally owned handgun underneath his coat. Foster decided to take matters into his own hands by following Daniels into the Walmart. Without warning, he tackled Daniels and placed him in a chokehold.

Police soon arrived and confirmed Daniels indeed had a permit for the handgun.

“Unfortunately, he tackled a guy that was a law-abiding citizen,” said Larry McKinnon, a police spokesperson. “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 is now facing battery charges.

(story link)

Advertisements
This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment, Police action, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Racism, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

129 Responses to Florida Legal Gun Owner Tackled Entering Wal-Mart By Vigilante…

  1. Troy W says:

    The consensus among the people at OFCC and Buckeye Firearms is that there are 3 men that are very lucky they were not shot. Assault an battery are light charges if you ask me there should be many many more and they should all be felonies.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. cajunkelly says:

    Mr. Foster;
    I hope you enjoy your life of lawsuits. You clearly profiled this man, ya putz.
    Had you ended up SHOT in this scuffle, THEN what? The man was breaking no law, going about his business and you attacked him. He would have been totally within his rights to defend himself against you.
    IDIOT

    Liked by 9 people

    • BertDilbert says:

      Problem probably started when he saw him in the parking lot place the gun under his coat. Rational person might think “I just saw a man arm himself with a gun and he is now going into a store!”

      The gun owner should not have displayed his weapon in the parking lot.

      Like

      • stella says:

        If the man who attacked him had alerted security guards or police instead of taking the law into his own hands, there wouldn’t have been a problem.

        Liked by 13 people

        • The Johnny Person says:

          Not to be argumentative and mince words here but I don’t really see that this man, “Took the law in his own hands”. I am not aware of any law mandating what this nutcase idiot did. In all actuality he just simply hurt someone. I sincerely hope, and I do mean this, I sincerely hope he goes after him in civil court after the D.A gets done with him.

          Liked by 1 person

          • sundance says:

            It’s a figure of speech. You are being obtuse.

            Stella is not literally saying “the law”, it is a figure of speech from the perspective of the idiot who “took his bizzarro view of the law into his own hands”.

            Liked by 2 people

            • jett black says:

              You’re right, yet not. Precision in thinking and speech is an attribute our society has all but abandoned, just as society has largely abandoned personal responsibility and any genuine concept of law versus mass opinion. I understand what those who say this guy “took the law into his own hands” and that it was “vigilante” action mean, because I know they’re not trying to be precise. But to be accurate, what he did was to react in a criminally violent way to a legal activity by a person who posed no threat and gave no reason for anyone to believe that he was engaged in illegal or threatening activity. Having a pistol, concealed or not, is no crime. It is an individual Constitutional right–second only to free thought and speech. What the attacker did has nothing to do with the law or even vigilantism–it has to do with being a violent, hysterical disrespecter of the law and basic human rights. This is what the progressive culture is breeding and encouraging. Objecting to any suggestion, even inadvertent, that this jerk’s actions involved the law or justification of any kind isn’t obtuse, it’s exact.

              Like

          • stella says:

            He was taking vigilante action – which is why I referred to it as “taking the law in his own hands”. It wasn’t just an assault, in that he saw what he was doing as justified.

            Liked by 3 people

        • Col.(R) Ken says:

          I call this attack, the Audie Murphy Syndrome, the Hero, the proverbial 15 minutes of fame. You are right, Stella, those guys are very lucky, very lucky, they could have been shot.

          Liked by 2 people

      • The gun owner should not have displayed his weapon in the parking lot.

        And Zimmerman and Darren Wilson shoulda stayed in the car.

        Liked by 2 people

        • WestCoastThot says:

          Steve Jacobs, I am sorry and will admit I do not get into discussions here often enough to recognize if you have a point to make or if you are sharing more than a couple of one-liners for attention. I will have to assume the latter since the tone of this thread seems to be that Mr. Foster was in the wrong. I share that belief…Mr. Foster was wrong although he clearly is someone who is alert to issues in his community and his surrounding environment. Good intentions, however, don’t make what he did right….IN THIS CASE. At best, it was foolish what he did.

          Yes, the “armed man” should have been more aware of his need to carry more appropriately and not be so careless in having his firearm seen as it was. But you lost me with your reference to ZIMMERMAN and DARREN WILSON.

          You seem to be comparing Mr. Foster’s case to the ZIMMERMAN and DARREN WILSON cases as though they are similar. The only comparisons you can make to these three incidences is that two males were involved in each case and there was at least one firearm in each case. Outside of that, there is nothing similar about these cases tat all. But again, I’m guessing you knew that and I just fell prey to your blistering one liner.

          Of course, if you are being completely sarcastic…..please be more clear that you are. Please tell me….you were being sarcastic that DARREN WILSON (in particular) should have stayed in his car, not involved himself as he did, and I just missed your sarcasm somehow.

          Like

          • QuadGMoto says:

            Yes, Steve used sarcasm.

            In defending wrongdoing, the BGI claimed that Zimmerman and Wilson should not have done what they had every right to do; even a duty to do. Likewise, Daniels did nothing wrong either. While it is possible that Mr. Daniels was less circumspect with transferring the gun to his holster than he could have been, it is quite literally impossible to transfer a gun from anywhere in a car to a holster without such an action being visible to someone, even if all that can be seen is the obvious motion of doing so.

            The claim that “if you don’t want to be attacked, don’t do x” is being used to destroy freedom when x is something a free man has every right to do, and especially when it is something someone has a duty or responsibility to do.

            And yes, being armed for your own protection, and consequently the protection of others is taking on a very serious responsibility.

            This case highlights the key difference between acting responsibly and irresponsibly. My Daniels is aware that there could be threats, therefore he did the responsible thing by making sure he knew the law, getting a permit, and treated his responsibility appropriately. Mr. Foster saw something that might or might not be a threat. But instead of making sure whether there was an actual threat, he showed a complete lack of sound judgement and became the threat. Both men seem to have thought about public safety, but only one of those men acted responsibly to those thoughts.

            Like

          • auscitizenmom says:

            Yes, it was sarcasm. The connection between Zim and Wilson is simply that some in the BGI said in both cases they should have stayed in their car and everything would have been all right. It is a running joke here about the Safari Principle, that when in a wild animal park, you are to remain in your car. We should be more careful about the /s tag. 🙂

            Like

            • WestCoastThot says:

              All is understood. Seemed pretty open to any interpretation since a two-liner doesn’t show attitude, context, or background of the speaker, although I assumed it was very possible.
              Thanks, QUAD and AUS.

              Like

      • cajunkelly says:

        Bert,
        A rational person would not have designated himself as the hero of the day, stalk that man and attack him. He obviously was looking for his fifteen minutes of fame, and though I believe he is a stinking liberal, he DID profile the man. Further proof (for me) that those “white privilege” rotten-to-the-core liberals who point fingers and accuse conservatives of racism are themselves the racists.
        To put it another way; the winds of nosey, busy body liberalism blew his skirt up and revealed his dirty racist underoos.
        I hope Daniels sues those dirty racist underoos clean off of him. I hope Daniels gets a good attorney that will find more than assault to charge him with, along with the other two busy bodies that assaulted him.
        We have OPEN carry in our state, no permit required. It’d probably give Foster a good old southern case of the vapors I’m sure, and I’d LMAO at the fool.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lou Ann Watson says:

        why? the fool shouldn’t have tackled him, that’s what the problem is. as a concealed carry participant, i am well aware of people who might be watching me. stay away or i’ll ruin your day

        Like

      • doodahdaze says:

        Suppose the man had purchased a gun at the wal-mart and was returning it because it was defective?

        Liked by 1 person

      • pete says:

        I’m 62 and place my gun in its holster when I leave the car. I have a concealed carry permit and my state is open carry. I promise that no one would succeed in jumping me.

        Like

    • auscitizenmom says:

      I can’t help but feel he profiled this guy and that if it had been a white guy he wouldn’t have been so quick to tackle him.

      Liked by 8 people

      • cajunkelly says:

        BINGO! (or Bingeaux as it’s spelled in this neck of the woods) 😉

        Liked by 3 people

      • Kitty Smith says:

        I agree. I wonder what made Foster suspect Daniels. Because he’s black? From what I could see of Daniels in the video, he sure didn’t look like a thug. Daniels is 63 yrs. old and it doesn’t read like he behaved like a robber or suspiciously in any manner. Daniels could just as easily have been an off-duty cop.

        I wonder how stupid Foster feels now, on a scale of 1 – 10. 20? 90? If Daniels sues, I doubt if Foster’s home owners insurance (if he has it) will cover it. Geez, what an idiot.

        Like

  3. Al says:

    Both Idiots #1 taking the law into his own hands & #2 needs to conceal his weapon @ all times per his CONCEAL carry permit. Mr.Foster guilty of assault. Mr.Daniels should lose his carry permit for exposing his weapon. This could of been much worse.

    Like

    • kihn says:

      Unintentional display is something that happens. The law even makes exceptions for it. If it’s not deliberate and/ or threatening, it’s a non-issue pretty much. Not a good thing to happen obviously, but it happens. Best practices is to not print or flash accidently of course…

      Liked by 1 person

      • BertDilbert says:

        It may be a non issue most times but in this case the man may have placed a 911 call instead which means the permit holder is going to have to deal with cops.

        Liked by 2 people

        • stella says:

          Which is what should have happened. He had no right to assault the man.

          Liked by 4 people

        • kihn says:

          And he can explain how the accidental exposure happened if questioned. If his behavior isn’t out of the norm, if he’s not using it to intentionally threaten or intimidate a particular person and the officer recognizes that, it’s pretty much a done deal. There’s no reason to cite if it isn’t a blatant and provocative display.

          Like

          • oldiadguy says:

            From what I read, it looks like Daniels had his pistol in his car and he placed it on his person when he exited the vehicle and went into Walmart. Apparently Daniels did not wish to leave a loaded weapon out of his control or some place someone could steal it. Good move on Daniels’ part. Foster is a hero want-a-be. Now he gets to see the jail from the inside.

            Liked by 4 people

        • Rurik says:

          Exactly. Call 911, and if you are of heroic intent, shadow your suspect until the Law arrives. If the situation turns sour first, then, and only then, you can be a hero. And the situation will be able to justify yer action. If it turns out a false alarm, apologize, and its no foul.

          Liked by 1 person

      • Correct. There is a distinction in most states for this — brandishing vs. display.

        I am a CPL holder. Many times while I’m driving I take my side arm out of the holster and place it down between my seat and console because it is more comfortable. Then when I hop out of the car, I put it back in my holster and conceal. I figure if someone sees me, oh well. Its my right.

        And there are times that I print, just by nature of what I’m wearing and I’ve come to the conclusion that its OK.

        How did this “vigilante” know this gentleman wasn’t an off-duty cop or reserve deputy?

        Liked by 1 person

    • auscitizenmom says:

      Harsh on the permitted guy.

      Like

      • Al says:

        Permits are a serious responsibility & those that violate them shouldn’t have them. As this story just proved. Luckily no serious injuries happened this time.

        Like

        • Chip Bennett says:

          Maybe your police academy training was deficient. The permit is the Constitution, through which the people permit the government to exert specifically enumerated authority. That document specifically binds the government from interfering with the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

          The very concept of needing a government-issued piece of paper to exercise a natural, God-given, and constitutionality peprotected right is in itself anathema.

          Unfortunately, too many people like you run the government – people who think they are better than everyone else, and have the right and moral authority to control others in the exercise of their rights.

          People like you are the reason that people like the rest of us have the right to keep and bear arms.

          Liked by 7 people

    • sundance says:

      The shopper did nothing wrong. He was putting on his coat, at his vehicle, when the idiot -in the parking lot- noticed the shoppers’ legally owned firearm.

      Liked by 8 people

      • BertDilbert says:

        “Foster originally spotted Daniels in the store’s parking lot placing his legally owned handgun underneath his coat.”

        According to the article the man saw the shopper arming himself. There is a difference.

        Like

        • kihn says:

          Then why didn’t the officers arrest or cite Daniels?

          Like

          • BertDilbert says:

            The point is this. If you are a legal concealed carry holder, how do you prevent something like this happening to you? Taking the stand that the CC holder is in the right does not stop you from having to deal with cops or being tackled or both. Learn from someone else’s bad experience and don’t do that!

            My guess is this CC holder has learned that being in the right does not protect you from your own carelessness.

            Like

            • kihn says:

              No the point is the CCWer did nothing wrong as far as the law is concerned. The law recognizes that flashing/ printing is a part of legal concealed carry and provide safeguards from overzealousness by authority.

              The point is he ran into a nutbag. But somehow this gets turned around into “we must look into ourselves for these terrible outcomes”. I find it interesting you never mention any fault with the nutbag Foster. I don’t see you pointing a finger his way in your quest to find fault….

              Liked by 2 people

        • stella says:

          He was probably moving his handgun from the glove compartment and putting it in its holster. Maybe he was in his car and the other guy looked through the car window and saw him. There isn’t enough information to know.

          Liked by 3 people

        • Ok now that is silly. What exactly, is the difference between “placing his legally owned hand gun underneath his coat” and “arming himself”??

          In my mind, if you are “arming” yourself, you’re drawing, one in the chamber, ready to shoot.

          Now I’m going to have to worry about getting tackled and beaten for carrying my legal pistol? What in hades is going on in this country.

          Like

      • Al says:

        Sorry Sundance. As a retired Detroit Police Officer who is in support of intelligent Citizens carrying with proper care & permits are fine. When you expose a weapon to other citizens your violating the rules of your permit which could get you or an innocent person killed. Fla. doesn’t have open carry laws. I have arrested people who have exposed there weapons & notified the state weapons board who takes that very serious as they should. That said The citizen should of left the situation up to the proper authority. I & most officers carry concealed without anyone spotting our weapons & thats how it is done or you shouldn’t have a permit.

        Like

        • sundance says:

          Sorry Al, I see CCW firearms frequently. And I see CCW firearms carried by Off Duty police officers frequently also. If you know what to look for you can see them all the time.

          Just because a firearm is noticed, does not mean the CCW rules are violated.

          Liked by 7 people

          • LetJusticePrevail" says:

            I am in 100% agreement with you.

            Note the section of FL statutes (790.053) which I quoted below. This man was carrying legally, and violated no law when he allowed his weapon to be viewed.

            He was assaulted by someone for no good reason, and his assailant should face civil and criminal penalties for acting rashly.

            Liked by 3 people

          • Al says:

            Really! You better reread you ccw laws. If you see them then there not concealed. I,ve been properly carrying since 1970. I think you should check with an expert before putting out false legal advice!

            Like

            • LetJusticePrevail" says:

              I quoted the exact law straight from FL Statutes. What more do you need?

              Liked by 2 people

            • sundance says:

              Get over it Al, you are wrong. Quit Digging:

              790.053 Open carrying of weapons.—
              (1) Except as otherwise provided by law and in subsection (2), it is unlawful for any person to openly carry on or about his or her person any firearm or electric weapon or device. It is not a violation of this section for a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm as provided in s. 790.06(1), and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, to briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.

              Liked by 5 people

          • yankeeintx says:

            Heck, here in Texas, bumps are a fashion accessory.

            Liked by 3 people

          • Al says:

            Sundance I stand corrected on the fla. existing Concealed carry law on unintentionally exposing your firearm, but I think this is very dangerous & that leads to this type of situation that just happened.

            Like

            • Al, I live in Michigan and my husband is a reserve deputy and an FFL holder as he’s in the firearms industry. I am a CPL holder. Michigan also has open carry.

              There is a clear distinction in our laws for brandishing. If I am hopping out of my car and putting my pistol in my holster and placing my cover, that is not considered brandishing and is not a violation of my CPL.

              Quite honestly, I’d rather a criminal know I have a weapon.

              Liked by 1 person

          • justfactsplz says:

            Exactly. If you know all about them and the laws for your state you pretty much can tell. Not always, but a lot of times.

            Like

        • stella says:

          The local police apparently had no problem with whatever he had done, and I’m sure they know more of the details than we do.

          Liked by 3 people

        • Greenmirror says:

          A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.

          The weak minds of legislators have softened way too many citizens. In my opinion throughout the nation a US citizen of legal age should have the right to carry their firearm fully operational concealed or open…constitutional carry.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Solomon says:

            First response I agree with. In Ak we carry open or concealed, no permit required. Have even had chats with local PD strapped. I don’t really walk around armed much but do from time to time because it’s a constitutional right, one that needs to be demonstrated from time to time.

            Liked by 1 person

          • LetJusticePrevail" says:

            It’s my opinion that neither open carry OR concealed carry should require any type of “Permit” whatsoever, since the requirement of having a “Permit” reduces our 2nd amendment RIGHT to the status of a Privilege.

            There are laws on the books that can be used to keep firearms out of the hands of violent felons and the criminally insane. The entire “Permitting” process is an infringement on the rights of the honest citizens and does NOT deter criminals in any fashion. If criminals want to carry a firearm for use in a crime, they certainly aren’t going to worry whether they need a permit to do so.

            Liked by 5 people

        • LetJusticePrevail" says:

          Well, your assessment might be true in Detroit MI, but it doesn’t “fly” in FL.

          THIS is straight from FL Statutes:

          790.053 Open carrying of weapons.—
          (1) Except as otherwise provided by law and in subsection (2), it is unlawful for any person to openly carry on or about his or her person any firearm or electric weapon or device. It is not a violation of this section for a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm as provided in s. 790.06(1), and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, to briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.

          Liked by 3 people

          • Coast says:

            This is exactly what I learned in my class, which I took last summer. Examples included bending over, reaching of something, putting on/off jackets, etc. If the guy was getting out of his vehicle, then he did nothing wrong.

            Liked by 2 people

          • Well, your assessment might be true in Detroit MI, but it doesn’t “fly” in FL.
            It might not even fly in Michigan either. Michigan is an open carry state.

            Liked by 1 person

            • The Johnny Person says:

              After seeing your comment I went and looked for myself. You are correct. Michigan is an open carry state.

              Like

            • LetJusticePrevail" says:

              I used “might” because I’m not familiar with MI statutes, but knew that FL law accounted for brief display of a firearm when not intended for the purpose of threat. I also assumed that “Al” would have been familiar with the laws in his home state, since he claimed to have been a LEO from Detroit.

              This makes me wonder about “Al” and his reason for posting those comments. How can he explain “charging” CCW holders for an accidental display of a firearm in an “Open Carry” state?

              Liked by 3 people

        • No wonder Detroit is so screwed up.

          Like

        • tdwesselman says:

          Then you broke the law and violated not only your oath but the rights of the citizens you arrested for open carry. Michigan is an OPEN CARRY STATE!!!

          Liked by 1 person

          • The Johnny Person says:

            Opencarry.org covers a lot of this kind of thing. Especially the personal experiences of people openly carrying a sidearm on their person. Of course this is done in states where it is in fact legal. Some have found their selves actually being handcuffed/arrested for this. Mainly due to the cop’s own stupidity. This has a way of correcting itself after the cop finds himself on the wrong end of a really really bad lawsuit. And of course the city itself is usually next in line. Some are now trying to circumvent the “immunity” from suits that police are protected by “acting under color of law” or whatever it’s called. In other words, go after the cop personally where he is named specifically in the suit. Again, I said there are current attempts to do this. I am not stating that they are successful. Also please note, I realize the above sounds like “cop bashing” but it is simply the truth. I believe it does reveal the current state and mindset of our country at this stage in the game.
            =-=-=-=-=-=-=-

            Like

          • cajunkelly says:

            Far too many cops these days apparently couldn’t care less about that oath, and couldn’t care more about their job bennies and pensions.
            Shame on them.

            Like

        • Chip Bennett says:

          Besides the point that you are factually incorrect regarding Florida carry laws, it is obvious that you have no clue what shall not be infringed means, nor any respect for it.

          By the way, Al? Police officers commit crimes at a rate an order of magnitude more frequently than non-badged citizens who possess carry licenses. You’re in a bit of a glass house with your holier-than-thou attitude regarding the lawful carry of firearms.

          Liked by 2 people

        • Kitty Smith says:

          This is just sad.

          Like

    • pete says:

      Where I live it’s OK to open carry. Good thing this idiot didn’t cross my path

      Like

    • Patrick says:

      Do you actually carry a gun? If I don’t feel like carrying 2 handguns around, I unholster and place my gun in its car holster and vice verse when I arrive at my destination. The reason for this is quite simple: virtually no holster allows you to draw while wearing a seatbelt. I normally try to be discreet, but I’m sure there are times somebody might have caught a peek. The same thing occasionally happens when I conceal my gun in an outside the waist-band holster with a coat.

      At the end of the day, I’m right and anybody who paints bad intentions over me is wrong. Maybe people would act so irrational and tackle strangers to the ground if we all didn’t have to act like carrying a gun is some secret guilty personal proclivity we have to hide from the public like a brown bag full of MD 20/20 or nude mags

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Sentenza says:

    Twitchy has Shannon Watts’ tweet about this
    http://twitchy.com/2015/01/21/gun-grabber-shannon-watts-fires-off-what-may-be-her-dumbest-tweet-ever/

    For those of you who don’t know, Shannon Watts is an anti-gun activist and the founder of Moms Demand Action.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moms_Demand_Action

    Like

  5. lovemygirl says:

    Turn took me a minute… 😂

    Like

  6. lovemygirl says:

    I’m beginning to despise auto correct
    “Turon”

    Like

    • LetJusticePrevail" says:

      Other than being a tasty Pinoy snack (my son-in-law is Filipino and has introduced us to many wonderful Pinoy foods) what IS “Turon”?

      Like

      • sundance says:

        What is a Turon? Al from Michigan is behaving as a demonstrative example.

        See above.

        [Technically speaking a “turon” is one step above a “frog head” on the insufferability scale for a FL cracker in interactions with visiting progressives. “Turon” is a conjunctive word formed by combining “Tourist” and “Moron” into a singular word, “Turon”. There are also “Newrons” from New York/New Jersey, and O’Rons from Ohio]

        Liked by 7 people

        • LetJusticePrevail" says:

          Ahhhh…. I get it now! Thanks!

          PS: I prefer being called “Saltine American” to “Cracker”. It’s part of MY “Ritzy” effort to rewrite the lexicon in a fashion that provides positive self-images for children born south of the Mason-Dixon line. 🙂

          Liked by 3 people

          • doodahdaze says:

            Worse than Tourons are the Immigrons. They don’t go back North anymore. They stay all year. We used to call em Snowbirds. Now the Snowbirds don’t migrate back to their nesting zones in New Yawk and New Joisie. You can hear their cry at the store. If they spot a fellow Touron it is …Hello Dere, how ya doin. Awright Awready.

            Liked by 2 people

        • stella says:

          You made me laugh out loud. First time today. Thanks!

          Liked by 1 person

        • doodahdaze says:

          They show up on the golf course every year. Lately there are a lot of Eurons too.

          Like

  7. lovemygirl says:

    I’m just guessing he wouldn’t have tackled him if he was a lot younger than 62. I’ll even go along with race being a factor. Liberal NE transplant is likely as well.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. justfactsplz says:

    There are also a lot of armed senior citizens in Florida. Tackling them could really physically hurt them. There are holsters made for your car near the floor so you can access your weapon if you need to. It wouldn’t be unusual to remove it and place it inside your coat before going into the store. This man did nothing wrong in the way he handled his weapon.

    Liked by 5 people

  9. kafir says:

    I live in a state where posted no firearms signs on private property have force of law. I will unholster and drop my magazine before leaving a gun in the glove box and locked in my car and carry the magazine only in my pocket. I always try to do this discreetly.

    Like

  10. LFoD1776 says:

    I’m glad Foster was arrested. He’s lucky Daniels didn’t shoot him. He would’ve had every right to do so.

    Liked by 1 person

    • cajunkelly says:

      I hope Daniels can file suit for more than just battery. Find a lawyer that’ll help him throw the proverbial book at him. I just saw his (Foster) mug shot. ‘nuf said

      Like

      • whodoneit says:

        So you can tell by seeing a picture of someone that he’s a “bad person”? Wish I had that ability.

        Like

        • cajunkelly says:

          Did I intimate that he’s a bad person ? If you’ve read even a few of my posts here, you know I’m quite capable of speaking for myself.
          I certainly don’t need you speaking for me, using words I did not apply to the situation. mmkay?

          Liked by 1 person

  11. The Johnny Person says:

    Really if you look, this Foster guy isn’t the only one that jumped him. I believe every single one of them that even so much as laid a hand on him in any way should have been arrested for assault. Perhaps the D.A will watch the video tape and issue additional warrants. This story is all over the net right now. And practically every news station has at least mentioned it. Some of it front page. I’m guessing this guy has and or will make bail. I hope he is so humiliated with himself that he won’t even step out on his front porch just simply out of embarrassment. I hope and pray that idiot is sent up the river for years for what he did. I probably shouldn’t have even read this story. And I definitely shouldn’t have watched the video. It put my blood pressure somewhere up on Mount McKinley. We now return you to your regularly scheduled broadcast…. 🙂

    Like

  12. zephyrbreeze says:

    It’s a very odd story because over 40 years of reading the news, I don’t remember EVER reading a story like this. This was a random person, not in his own home or on his property, who saw another random person with a firearm, and made a decision to tackle an armed person.

    There has to be more to this story. Drugs? Mental illness? Clinical paranoia? Gun derangement syndrome? Gun prude?

    Like

    • PatrickSMcNally says:

      I think the background to this reckless move by Foster is the way that clowns like Louis Farrakhan and Head have forced many people to have some suspicions of any black male seen carrying a gun. Foster should plead mitigating circumstances arising from trauma caused by Al Sharpton and sue Sharpton for reparations. It was stupid what he did, but might have been done differently before Ferguson.

      Like

  13. pattyloo says:

    i watched the video and i couldn’t believe how long it went that the assailant kept the man on the ground. I was wondering if the ccw carrier was hurt and couldn’t get up. Then, i noticed the assailant kept locking his legs around the victim’s legs, to keep him subdued. It almost looked like a sexual assault at some points. When Mr. Daniels told him he possessed a permit for the gun, the assailant, Foster was clearly in the wrong after that.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Chip Bennett says:

    And Shannon Watts approves of the assault. Literally.

    She posted her approval on Twitter.

    Like

  15. whodoneit says:

    It very well might have been a much better idea for Foster to inform the store or even call 911 if he felt strongly suspicious about a guy in the parking lot who he saw with a gun go into the store. I totally understand that. After all – that’s how nasty stuff happens And I pretty much commend Foster for ‘noticing’. It could have been a shooter looking to take people down. It happens all the time.

    But I don’t think Foster should have taken it upon himself to tackle Daniels and push it like he did. The thing is that if Foster had actually spotted and taken down a true threat – he’d be a hero right now. In his mind – he was saving the day. Even though it didn’t quite pan out well, and Foster happened to make a “mistake” – considering how the world is now – how many of us might have made the same “mistake”? After all – Daniels could have just been “claiming” he had a permit, and then went on to blow Foster’s brains out. How many of us could have known for sure? Think about it.

    Like

    • RoyBaty says:

      I thought about it and think you are wrong. Maybe Foster could have kept an eye on Daniels (like Zimmerman?), or become familiar with Florida laws before jumping on the guy.

      Like

    • kihn says:

      How about you just accept the fact that Foster is just wrong. He broke the law. He was arrested for it. None of your “what if’s” are true. You don’t “mistakenly” assault someone.

      Presumptuousness and a sense of entitlement empowered Foster to be the lug head he is.

      This is essentially the Trayvon/ Michael Brown defense. That some people are excluded from responsibility because they intensely believe something that is at odds with reality. It’s a special snowflake defense.

      Like

      • whodoneit says:

        Forgive me, I didn’t realize you had all this inside information.

        Like

        • QuadGMoto says:

          “Inside information”? What “inside information”? Everything kihn said (except maybe “sense of entitlement”) is based on publicly available information!

          Like

          • kihn says:

            I’m presuming Foster senses he has a right to attack anyone carrying a gun in a non-offensive manner as a matter of civic protest. That he will win in the court of public opinion as well as in a court of law. That attacking people with guns is morally and ethically correct.

            Like

            • QuadGMoto says:

              When I think of “sense of entitlement”, I think of someone who feels that they deserve to receive something just because they exist. I haven’t seen that (yet, it might come out if he’s ever interviewed). What you’re describing (accurately) sounds to me more like straight up presumptuousness.

              Like

              • kihn says:

                I view entitlement to include intangibles as well as tangibles. The critical theory narratives that demand participation for example. PCness. You see this with Eric Holder and his ‘Nation of Cowards’ remark. A claim of racism to justify actions and shut down discussions that harm the narratives. .

                A qualification that enshrines double standards. The ones that allow the PC to exercise the same treatment toward others that they complain about. An example would be the claim of being incapable of being a racist because you belong to a special interest group that has an inferior structural position in the institutions while at the same time spewing hate filled vitriol. Al Sharpton for example.

                Another example is the ‘Safari Rules’. A right to retribution based on historical grievances if someone transgresses some unwritten rule. .

                Or the fiction underlying the #blacklivesmatter. The one that purposefully distorts and displaces the reality of who is more likely to attack who. Or the institutional racism of police.

                Double standards. It’s about the double standards. There’s a prevalent sense of entitlement that seeks to bestow privileges on some class of people while not granting the same for other government defined groups. Or instituting responsibilities on one while waving the same responsibility on others. The disparate impact theory in education for example.

                Anything that gets away from a universalist approach to education, government and legal remedy is an entitlement.

                Like

                • kihn says:

                  ETA: when I say universalism I mean it in a philosophical sense. In the classical liberalism sense. The one of universally applicable principles. as in the law and governance.

                  Like

                • QuadGMoto says:

                  i agree that your description of that school of thought is correct. Whether he belongs to that school is not (yet) something I’ve seen.

                  My primary point still stands: All the other points you made were clearly based on publicly available facts of the case, making whodoneit’s “insider information” claim a non-starter. Can we leave it at that? 🙂

                  Like

        • kihn says:

          What inside information? The article stated what happened and who got arrested for what. You are defending the indefensible. Your “what if’s” don’t change the facts of what actually happened.

          You are saying that Foster was doing good in his mind and you can’t fault him for that.
          You are commending Foster for “noticing”. Noticing what? That a guy was going into a Walmart to buy coffee creamer?

          He wasn’t a shooter hoping to take people down. Daniels was not a true threat. And Foster was not a hero. Foster didn’t make a “mistake” assaulting Daniels. He assault Daniels taking him down to the ground and putting him in a choke hold.

          Daniels did have a permit and would have been within his rights to defend himself against an unwarranted physical assault. The law says so.

          I think I’d have no problem discerning that my legs had been swept out from under me from behind while being simultaneously slapped up side the head, then put in a choke hold while my assaulter tried to reach for my gun.

          But then again, Michael Brown could have just found Christ shortly before assaulting a store owner and a police officer. And Trayvon could have been a 12 year old offering his skittles and ice tea to a hate filled white Hispanic who tracked him down and killed him for being black.

          Like

          • whodoneit says:

            Thing is – you don’t know the “facts”. All you have is an initial “report” that you have immediately based your ” judgement on. I tend to refrain from finding fault until I actually hear both sides of the story. In this case – from both Daniels and Foster.

            It’s basically apparent that Foster misread the possibility of a threat and reacted badly. But we don’t know exactly what made Foster so suspicious. Hey – maybe Foster’s just some kind of nut job with an over reactive problem. That remains to be seen.

            I live in AZ where both open and concealed guns are the norm. So I have no problem with gun toting persons – including myself. The issue here seems to be the still undetermined “why” Foster acted as he did.

            And just to be helpful – I strongly suggest you attempt to quell your tendency toward bitterness as well as make an effort to stay on point. God bless.

            Like

    • 2+2 says:

      seriously…look at Daniels. He’s 62 years old. Does he look like a perp? Foster’s an idiot.
      Yes I know perps don’t always look like vicious criminals. Let’s say Daniels was a perp. Foster watched him conceal the gun, then followed (stalked) him and nailed him. Stalking and attacking someone with a gun? He’s an idiot 2x over.

      Liked by 1 person

  16. 2+2 says:

    Why are Sharpton, Jackson and the rest of the racists not screaming about this profiling?
    Oh..wait…/sarc….the victim is a law-abiding senior citizen with a LEGAL gun and carry permit. Not one of the dindu nuddin tribe. No wonder none of them expresses outrage at this.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s