• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Judge pulls gun in Florida court

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

JACKSONVILLE, Fla., March 27 (UPI) -- A Jacksonville, Fla., judge drew his handgun when an accused child molester was attacked by an alleged victim's father in court.
I didn't know if he was going after me or the bailiffs or the defendant," Circuit Judge John Merrett told The (Jacksonville, Fla.) Times-Union.

The father, who had not seen the defendant before the court appearance, hurdled a railing and landed several punches on the handcuffed and shackled man before bailiffs restored order.

Merrett said that once he saw the situation was under control, he handed his gun to the court clerk and asked her to lock it in a drawer. Merrett has a concealed weapon permit and said he'd do the same thing again, the newspaper reported.

But Duval County Public Defender Bill White said the incident was frightening. He plans to talk to the chief judge about whether judges should be armed in court.
"It's very disconcerting for a lawyer to be in the line of fire," White told the Times-Union.

The father was charged with felony aggravated assault and misdemeanor battery.
Copyright 2007 by United Press International. All Rights Reserved.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

I'd say that public defender needs a dose of courage--perhaps he can borrow some from Oz's lion. I hope the Chief Judge tells him the correct solution for being in the line of fire is to get out of the line of fire rather than disarm the judges.
 

j2l3

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
871
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

As interesting and funny as this was to read, I find it interesting that the judge felt the need to actually pull his gun out when the bailiffs obviously did not. Sounds like lack of training and common sense on the judges part to me.

I agree that there isn't a reason to not let judges carry in the courtrooms.

However, you or I would probably have been charged with "brandishing a firearm" or something jsut as silly for pulling it out.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

j2l3 wrote:
As interesting and funny as this was to read, I find it interesting that the judge felt the need to actually pull his gun out when the bailiffs obviously did not. Sounds like lack of training and common sense on the judges part to me.

I agree that there isn't a reason to not let judges carry in the courtrooms.

However, you or I would probably have been charged with "brandishing a firearm" or something jsut as silly for pulling it out.

I agree that in the courtroom the judge is the bossman. He can do just about anything. It suresounds like he pulled his piece prematurely. And such premature action does often indicate lak of training. Plus, it's dangerous. Once the gun comes out, the situation always escalates.

In general, I don't mind that judges are armed in the courtroom. It's kind of an exception to the ordinary system of constraints.

The last time I was on jury duty, I has hanging out on a break in the corridor between courtrooms and it struck me suddenly--that there were sheriff's deputies all over the place--all armed with GLOCKs, Tasers and batons. All with radios, and everybody had to be checked at the main entrance and have their belongings poked through.

And this was solely a place where disputes between individuals would be resolved according to the legal process and it would be done in a totally peaceful manner. Why, I thought would there be a need for so many well-armed peace-keepers?

I asked a fellow juror to tell me why he thought there was a need for so many armed guards/peace-keepers. He didn't know and didn't want to think about the question. I think I know why.

Judges, usually have special consideration in CC laws. Basically, they can do anything they want.
 
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
2,269
Location
baton rouge, Louisiana, USA
imported post

The founders of this once-great nation went to great lengths to prevent the formation of a special ruling class of person. These alleged privileged class were known back then as persons having titles of nobility. It was the founders' intent to not have classes of citizens, as was common in Europe. Seems we still have persons with titles of nobility, anyway. Worse yet, we have citizens who consider a so-called "public servant" as a superior. THAT is the real problem. I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how someone can think that way.
 

GIdeon_70

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
121
Location
, ,
imported post

Sir: I am interested in inviting you to visit my Yahoo group USRepublic.



The united states was never intended to be a democracy, or a monarchy. Sadly, we have embraced, my popular media, the term Democracy, and applied it to this great republic!

The group I have started is still int he settling stage, but soon I intend to point it at newspapers, to correct them when they use the term "democracy" and hopfully change public opinion.

What you were talking about is an example of how, by screwing with the foundation, the US is being changed before our eyes and soon, I cna see a president saying, "I'm good at this, no one would be better, let me stay." then we will have a dictatorship.

Don't misunderstand, Iam not, per se, anti-Bush. I took an oath to support the constitution and the president is the leader of our country. That does not prevent me from saying that he has taken too many libberties, too much power, and is doing damage to our country.

We lost more freedoms the day that the patriot act was signed into law than we lost when the towers were hit. Funny thing is that we did it to ourselves. Terrorists in the past would not attack up for the most part becuase we were armed, in control, and would not tolerate their garbage. Now, with the laws so restrictive, police harassing people that carry, and laws that were put into plce that would cause the person that is defending themsevles or someone else to do jail time for doing so... It was only a matter of time before they realized we were a sweet target.

When the Habeus corpus was overturned, and the police, if you are a person of interest, can arrest you, hold you for the rest of your life, and deny you the right toeven let your loved ones know what happened to you, I saw too many freedoms go down the tube. It is time for change. We are a free country, not a police state.

Then, when I saw the chicken wire enclosures with signs that said "Free speech zones" at bush campaign points, I knew that we were in deep trouble. Deep trouble indeed when the freedom of speech is so restricted and no one seems to raise the cry of foul. I was angry, shocked, and called the local newspaper. First they said it didn;t happen, then they told me that it did happen, but the AP didn't cover it, then they told me it wasn't news worthy enough to put a reporter on the scene. Sadly, our newspapers are controlled by the businesses, and they rely on advertising dollars to run the paper, so the paper has become a tool for business instead of the rally when our freedoms are threatened.

I bought the website USRepublic.org and am looking for someone to help put up a webpage. Anyone else interested in restring our country to it's republic haritage?
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
imported post

Is this is probably one of the "Free Speech Zones" you're referring to?
First_amendment_zone2.jpg


That's from the 2004 National Democratic Convention. Oh, wait..it can't be, that's from the Democrat party, they wouldn't erect such things only the evil Bush Regime(tm).
 

dng

State Researcher
Joined
May 25, 2007
Messages
1,290
Location
, , USA
imported post

Why would a judge need to be armed; he has a big desk that will stop any bullets, and if an attacker comes at him, the judge can always use that wanna be hammer to stop him...right? (sarcasm)
 

openryan

State Researcher
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
1,602
Location
, Indiana, USA
imported post

HankT wrote:
j2l3 wrote:
As interesting and funny as this was to read, I find it interesting that the judge felt the need to actually pull his gun out when the bailiffs obviously did not. Sounds like lack of training and common sense on the judges part to me.

I agree that there isn't a reason to not let judges carry in the courtrooms.

However, you or I would probably have been charged with "brandishing a firearm" or something jsut as silly for pulling it out.

I agree that in the courtroom the judge is the bossman. He can do just about anything. It suresounds like he pulled his piece prematurely. And such premature action does often indicate lak of training. Plus, it's dangerous. Once the gun comes out, the situation always escalates.

In general, I don't mind that judges are armed in the courtroom. It's kind of an exception to the ordinary system of constraints.

The last time I was on jury duty, I has hanging out on a break in the corridor between courtrooms and it struck me suddenly--that there were sheriff's deputies all over the place--all armed with GLOCKs, Tasers and batons. All with radios, and everybody had to be checked at the main entrance and have their belongings poked through.

And this was solely a place where disputes between individuals would be resolved according to the legal process and it would be done in a totally peaceful manner. Why, I thought would there be a need for so many well-armed peace-keepers?

I asked a fellow juror to tell me why he thought there was a need for so many armed guards/peace-keepers. He didn't know and didn't want to think about the question. I think I know why.

Judges, usually have special consideration in CC laws. Basically, they can do anything they want.
I agree, at least from what I have read, it does sound like he pulled this gun almost automatically as soon as this started.

The bailiffs are there for this reason... if things continued to escalate, he could have drawn the weapon, he definately had a few more seconds to think about it.
 

luckydog

New member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
2
Location
, Florida, USA
imported post

j2l3 wrote:
As interesting and funny as this was to read, I find it interesting that the judge felt the need to actually pull his gun out when the bailiffs obviously did not. Sounds like lack of training and common sense on the judges part to me.

I agree that there isn't a reason to not let judges carry in the courtrooms.

However, you or I would probably have been charged with "brandishing a firearm" or something jsut as silly for pulling it out.

If you somehow got a weapon into the courtroom and pulled it out, you wouldprobably be promptly shot and then charged with many other offenses, if you lived.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:
The founders of this once-great nation went to great lengths to prevent the formation of a special ruling class of person. These alleged privileged class were known back then as persons having titles of nobility. It was the founders' intent to not have classes of citizens, as was common in Europe. Seems we still have persons with titles of nobility, anyway. Worse yet, we have citizens who consider a so-called "public servant" as a superior. THAT is the real problem. I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how someone can think that way.

They don't 'think', 'least not as you and I do. Re 'titles of nobility'....

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$
 

Decoligny

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Rosamond, California, USA
imported post

HankT wrote:
SNIP...Once the gun comes out, the situation always escalates.
I know you can't REALLY mean that. Always is such an all encompassing word.

Every single time throughout history and till the end of time that a gun comes out the situationescalates? :what:

WOW.

Better let everyone know not to ever take thier gun out!!!

What about all the times when the situation is effectively de-escalated by an otherwise defensless victim letting "the gun out" and the BG needs new shorts and is running to the next county?
 

GatorGSXR

New member
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
4
Location
, ,
imported post

How come the judge didn't get charged with showing his firearm. My understanding of the concealed permit is that you have to pull it to use it not to show it. If you show it thats a chargable offense.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

GatorGSXR wrote:
How come the judge didn't get charged with showing his firearm. My understanding of the concealed permit is that you have to pull it to use it not to show it. If you show it thats a chargable offense.
I dare you to find a Magistrate that would issue the warrant, an officer that would actually issue the ticket, or another judge that would find him guilty. :D

If the judge was in fear for his life he can pull and prepare to fire. He does not need to keep it under hisdesk until he can see the whites of the the man's eyes. :p
 
Top