Another Arrested for Accidental Exposure in Florida - With VIDEO

[rscottie]

You call this hands raised high in the air?

Attachment 8574

The gun is clearly visible there and I don't see how that shirt could possibly be seen by a reasonable person as adequate to conceal it. (Click on the picture above to get a bigger image.)

Actually, the gun is not visible. A black leather case of some kind is visible.

It could be a cell phone pouch.

When the cops pulled up, they could not see any firearm either as it was on the side away from them.

Of course someone had called in a MWAG on him which could be anything. It could be an extreme Hoplophobe. It could be someone that had a vendetta against this man. It could have been for any number of reasons.

But, for the cops to automatically assume someone walking down the street with a black case visible under their shirt is a criminal and should be proned out is wrong.

[NavyLCDR]

you must have GREAT eyesight. because all i can see is a black spot on his right hip. i have no idea what it is from the picture. best i can tell is maybe a pouch. but if you were to randomly show me or anyone else this picture, no chance they'd say it's a gun.

sorry bout it.

Couple the object pictured in the low resulation dash camera video capture from several yards away with several persons' testimony, "How did you know the subject was carrying a gun?" "Because we could see it on his hip!" Can you point to the gun in this photo? "Sure, it's right there!"

It may look like just a black spot in the dash cam video - that doesn't mean it looked like just a black spot to observers. The entire stop was predicated by a 911 call from someone who saw the gun and the dash cam video clearly shows an object that could have reasonably been discernible as a gun to actual witnesses at the scene. It would be an entirely different scenario if there was no object visible on the dash cam video.

Personally, I think some pro-2A people will defend anybody that is arrested if it happens to be a gun charge.

[rscottie]

I only have one question.

Why the heavy handed approach by law enforcement against people that inadvertently flash their weapon or choose their method of concealment poorly?

You cannot say that it is because the police know they have a firearm as this would be illogical. When criminals have a firearm and the officer does not know, he is not at any more risk because officers are trained to always be aware of what is going on and what the person they are speaking to is doing.

The officers in the video just immediately take the man to the ground. No questions asked.

If cops were truly here to "Serve and Protect", the conversation should have went like this:

Officer: "Sir, we need to talk. Someone called in and said they had seen a firearm on you. Are you carrying and do you have a CDW Permit?"

Non Criminal: "Yes Sir, I do have a permit and I am concealing it right here on my waist."

Officer: "But we can see your firearm and that is not allowed."

Non Criminal: "What you are seeing is a leather case. It covers my firearm completely. Someone must have seen me bend over."

Officer: "Sir, your permit is to carry concealed and although we knew you had a firearm from a caller, concealing it in the manner you are doing is asking for trouble. Now I suggest you either get a longer shirt or get an IWB Holster. We can agree to disagree on whether the case is sufficient to conceal but I am trying to save you some trouble and do not want to have to ticket you."

Non Criminal: "I will take that under advisement. Thank you for letting me know that my concealment method was not perfect. It can be hard to conceal with the clothes I like to wear and this weather."

Officer: "You are welcome. Have a nice day."

Non Criminal: "You too sir!"

Now wouldn't that be better than what was in the video?

[rscottie]

Couple the object pictured in the low resulation dash camera video capture from several yards away with several persons' testimony, "How did you know the subject was carrying a gun?" "Because we could see it on his hip!" Can you point to the gun in this photo? "Sure, it's right there!"

It may look like just a black spot in the dash cam video - that doesn't mean it looked like just a black spot to observers. The entire stop was predicated by a 911 call from someone who saw the gun and the dash cam video clearly shows an object that could have reasonably been discernible as a gun to actual witnesses at the scene. It would be an entirely different scenario if there was no object visible on the dash cam video.

Personally, I think some pro-2A people will defend anybody that is arrested if it happens to be a gun charge.

I think you are missing the point.

The gentleman in the picture was not doing anything suspicious or acting like a criminal. His actions did not warrant being put to the ground.

He should not be treated like a criminal for making what some consider a poor choice of concealment.

[NavyLCDR]

I think you are missing the point.

The gentleman in the picture was not doing anything suspicious or acting like a criminal. His actions did not warrant being put to the ground.

He should not be treated like a criminal for making what some consider a poor choice of concealment.

I do agree with that, I do think that excessive force was used by the officers. They should have just verified his carry permit, written him a citation and moved on.

[hammer6]

Couple the object pictured in the low resulation dash camera video capture from several yards away with several persons' testimony, "How did you know the subject was carrying a gun?" "Because we could see it on his hip!" Can you point to the gun in this photo? "Sure, it's right there!"

It may look like just a black spot in the dash cam video - that doesn't mean it looked like just a black spot to observers. The entire stop was predicated by a 911 call from someone who saw the gun and the dash cam video clearly shows an object that could have reasonably been discernible as a gun to actual witnesses at the scene. It would be an entirely different scenario if there was no object visible on the dash cam video.

Personally, I think some pro-2A people will defend anybody that is arrested if it happens to be a gun charge.

i disagree. if you take that video and show it to people who have no knowledge of the case, no CHANCE anyone will say he is being detained for OC. they didn't even make CONTACT with him.

[NavyLCDR]

i disagree. if you take that video and show it to people who have no knowledge of the case, no CHANCE anyone will say he is being detained for OC. they didn't even make CONTACT with him.

What I am saying is that the video evidence will support sworn testimony that a number of different people saw the subject carrying the gun and recognized it as a gun. The video evidence may not be enough to stand on it's own, but it will support and corroborate the testimony of the witnesses.

Now, if the dash cam did not show the black object in question, but instead showed police stopping the subject and frisking him for the gun - that would be entirely different.

[twoskinsonemanns]

I only have one question.

Why the heavy handed approach by law enforcement against people that inadvertently flash their weapon or choose their method of concealment poorly?

You cannot say that it is because the police know they have a firearm as this would be illogical. When criminals have a firearm and the officer does not know, he is not at any more risk because officers are trained to always be aware of what is going on and what the person they are speaking to is doing.

The officers in the video just immediately take the man to the ground. No questions asked.

If cops were truly here to "Serve and Protect", the conversation should have went like this:

Officer: "Sir, we need to talk. Someone called in and said they had seen a firearm on you. Are you carrying and do you have a CDW Permit?"

Non Criminal: "Yes Sir, I do have a permit and I am concealing it right here on my waist."

Officer: "But we can see your firearm and that is not allowed."

Non Criminal: "What you are seeing is a leather case. It covers my firearm completely. Someone must have seen me bend over."

Officer: "Sir, your permit is to carry concealed and although we knew you had a firearm from a caller, concealing it in the manner you are doing is asking for trouble. Now I suggest you either get a longer shirt or get an IWB Holster. We can agree to disagree on whether the case is sufficient to conceal but I am trying to save you some trouble and do not want to have to ticket you."

Non Criminal: "I will take that under advisement. Thank you for letting me know that my concealment method was not perfect. It can be hard to conceal with the clothes I like to wear and this weather."

Officer: "You are welcome. Have a nice day."

Non Criminal: "You too sir!"

Now wouldn't that be better than what was in the video?

+1 for this. Great post.

[hammer6]

What I am saying is that the video evidence will support sworn testimony that a number of different people saw the subject carrying the gun and recognized it as a gun. The video evidence may not be enough to stand on it's own, but it will support and corroborate the testimony of the witnesses.

Now, if the dash cam did not show the black object in question, but instead showed police stopping the subject and frisking him for the gun - that would be entirely different.

you're wrong again. the dash cam footage shows them stopping a guy walking down the street. it's not until he turns around that you can see something on his right hip. you can not say without a shadow of a doubt, that the thing on his hip was a gun. even in real life. driving by. neither one of those cops made contact. they were thousands of feet away in their cars and then drove up on him with guns drawn before they even thought about seeing if it was a gun. they were looking for a "black guy with a wife-beater on". that's it. how did they even know that was the right guy? and how do we even know what kind of holster that was? i mean, my holster only shows the butt of my gun. and i can wear a short shirt that shows the bottom of the holster, but you have no idea that it's a holster. does that mean i'm OCing? no.

[NavyLCDR]

you're wrong again. the dash cam footage shows them stopping a guy walking down the street. it's not until he turns around that you can see something on his right hip. you can not say without a shadow of a doubt, that the thing on his hip was a gun. even in real life. driving by. neither one of those cops made contact. they were thousands of feet away in their cars and then drove up on him with guns drawn before they even thought about seeing if it was a gun. they were looking for a "black guy with a wife-beater on". that's it. how did they even know that was the right guy? and how do we even know what kind of holster that was? i mean, my holster only shows the butt of my gun. and i can wear a short shirt that shows the bottom of the holster, but you have no idea that it's a holster. does that mean i'm OCing? no.

I am not saying the police approached the situation correctly. What I am saying is that the evidence of the dash cam video, +the person who called 911 saying they saw a gun, +the police officers' testimony that his gun was plainly visible, +the shirt not being long enough to cover the gun = very strong indication the guy took very little effort to conceal his gun resulting in more exposure than merely "briefly and by accident". I would not contribute to his defense fund.

[hammer6]

I am not saying the police approached the situation correctly. What I am saying is that the evidence of the dash cam video, +the person who called 911 saying they saw a gun, +the police officers' testimony that his gun was plainly visible, +the shirt not being long enough to cover the gun = very strong indication the guy took very little effort to conceal his gun resulting in more exposure than merely "briefly and by accident". I would not contribute to his defense fund.

okay that's fine. but you are wrong once again- "briefly and by accident" is, i believe, you quoting the new statute allowing brief open carry, correct? well, there is no "and by accident" in that statute. PLUS, with case law from the man down south where he was in a restaurant and someone saw him lift up his shirt and show his friend a gun...that person called 911, and a cop approached the man. the cop didn't see the gun, so technically, he didn't have RAS to approach him and ask about it. now, if those 2 cops TRULY saw the gun, i'd have a hard time as a jurist believing them, because according to the dash cam footage, which started about a block down the road, the cop didn't "see the gun and then approach the subject" like his report said.

soooo- just because the person called 911 about a man with a gun, the cop would have to actually SEE it openly carried first before he could legally make contact. and based upon the video we have all seen, there's no way for the cop with the dash cam footage to see the gun. the gun was at 4 o'clock, and he was walking towards the cop, who was on his left, across the street, inside a car, about 1,000 feet away. the second cop didn't pull up till after the first cop, and it was actually the second cop making contact. MAYBE that cop could see it, but he was the second one to pull up, so obviously they were just stopping him to stop him.

[hammer6]

I am not saying the police approached the situation correctly. What I am saying is that the evidence of the dash cam video, +the person who called 911 saying they saw a gun, +the police officers' testimony that his gun was plainly visible, +the shirt not being long enough to cover the gun = very strong indication the guy took very little effort to conceal his gun resulting in more exposure than merely "briefly and by accident". I would not contribute to his defense fund.

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.


so i guess the real case to be made here is the final part of the law- "unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense." if he wasn't doing this, then he technically wasn't breaking the law. what if he was walking down the street, and his shirt rode up, and the gun became "open", but he didn't notice it. even if "briefly" is 5 seconds, if he didn't notice the gun became open, then he is not at fault, because the law clearly leaves room for it. the only restriction for open carry is "unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense." and that's it. it doesn't add, "or the firearm is unknowingly or intentionally left in the open". it uses the word intentional with "angry or threatening manner".

he's being charged with a crime he didn't commit. yes, i said this. why? because there is no definition of briefly. what if i want to briefly display it to another person, and then another, and then another? the law says i can.


as i reread this post, i see here that the law disallows open carry, and then allows it. why do they "ban" open carry, but then allow for it "briefly" by licensed CCers? seems as though if they erase "and briefly" from the law, then there wouldn't be a problem.

[NavyLCDR]

Whatever.

[hammer6]

Whatever.

lol

[Mas49.56]

The way the goofballs wrote the law, it looks like you can walk up to a cop on the street and pull up your shirt for a bit showing him your gun. This appears legal as long as your smiling and waving nicely to the officer. Politicians should be drug tested every week.

[hammer6]

The way the goofballs wrote the law, it looks like you can walk up to a cop on the street and pull up your shirt for a bit showing him your gun. This appears legal as long as your smiling and waving nicely to the officer. Politicians should be drug tested every week.

exactly.

[ADulay]

Politicians should be drug tested every week.

Or at least before they draw their first paycheck.

Can't believe this isn't done like pretty much every other job.

AD

[Schlitz]

I think a better defensive angle to look at this is like this (if he was indeed open carrying):

How did the cops know he wasn't going to or returning from a fishing, camping, or lawful hunting expedition?

How did the cops know he wasn't going to or from a place where he was firing weapons for testing or target practice under safe conditions and in a safe place not prohibited by law?


Here is your answer; they didn't. They pushed him to the ground and arrested him. God bless those men in blue, for they are all heroes.

[77zach]

Here is your answer; they didn't. They pushed him to the ground and arrested him. God bless those men in blue, for they are all heroes.

It's the American way. I for one feel much safer that this villain was arrested. We should be like Singapore where he would be jailed for 10 years and caned. Gotta get tough on "crime".

[hammer6]

It's the American way. I for one feel much safer that this villain was arrested. We should be like Singapore where he would be jailed for 10 years and caned. Gotta get tough on "crime".

i couldn't agree more

[Schlitz]

THE FLAG STILL STANDS FOR FREEDOM, AND THEY CAN'T TAKE THAT AWAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY



LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLFREEDOMTAKEN.JPG

[10x]

Chalk one up for the blue gang

[StogieC]

The jury has been picked. Trial today starting at 9am. I'll send an update when I know more.

[77zach]

The jury has been picked. Trial today starting at 9am. I'll send an update when I know more.

The primary and historical (and now forgotten) function of the jury is to judge the law, not the facts. Now the judges lie and say the opposite. Juries do nullify from time to time though, even recently in NYC where a Fl man was acquitted of a felony for having his gun in his glovebox.

This is in south Fl right? I guess the jury will be a few retirees from Newark?

Is someone from Fl carry there? Or can we get a transcript? This would be great testimony for the legislature next session!

[StogieC]

The jury found that Norman did in fact openly carry in violation of the law. Then the jury undertook the extraordinary act of directly addressing Mr. Norman and the court. The foreperson made a statement in open court that went something to the effect that the law itself is without merit. I'll have the audio some time next week. Too bad they didn't know about jury nullification...

But it's not over yet! The Judge will be hearing arguments on the defense's motions to dismiss on July 31st.

One of the motions to dismiss makes the argument that Open Carry bans are unconstitutional. Say tuned!
I am not at liberty to say more on this topic at this time.