Gunman dead after opening fire at Florida school meeting

[RPB]

just a thought, sorta might be an important point


The "security guard, who was armed"
was actually "on vacation"

Anyone wondering about Florida Armed Security Guard laws?
I'm wondering and just gleaning some possibly old data/facts but ...


The G license (Armed Security Guard license) only specifies that you can carry a handgun on duty.
Off duty you can carry any weapon on a CCW.

This was a School Board Meeting.

Florida Law states that a concealed firearm may not be carried in any meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special district; etc.


What I'm wondering is since he was off duty, carrying under his CCW instead of his Guard License, perhaps was gun being illegally carried into the school board meeting by the guy who stopped the shooter?

Of course he's retired LEO, and that may figure in probably .... but an interesting thought for a Florida CCW, if carrying illegally, to be the hero. I doubt they'll arrest him.


Just a thought, probably not worth looking into, but I wonder lots of stuff like .... If God made flies without Wings, would Adam have named them Walks? .....

[A-R]

I would think LEOSA would cover him to carry in the meeting regardless, but I don't know that for certain.

[RPB]

I would think LEOSA would cover him to carry in the meeting regardless, but I don't know that for certain.

Dunno, I know my buddy who retired from Tomball Police Dept got his CHL in 2008, he collects 1911s, .... dunno Florida laws though, nor much about LEOSA (2004?), though I should look it up. Dunno how long ago he retired.


Never thought I'd cite wikipedia, but in the interest of tiredness:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforc ... Safety_Act" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
However, there are two types of state laws that are not overridden by the federal law, these being "the laws of any State that (1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or (2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park. his does not mean that LEOSA-qualified persons are prohibited from carrying concealed firearms in such areas, but only that they must obey whatever state laws apply on those two points. "

So .... <shrug> .... dunno

[quantum]

Regarding the lady who tried to disrupt the shooter with her purse. I've read a lot of comments on other gun boards (and a few here) that it would have been better had she had a gun and used it. While I don't disagree with that sentiment, I'm curious from a legal perspective (assuming this had happened in TX) if she would have been justified in shooting the man at that point? He was waving a gun around and I can't recall if he had threatened to shoot anyone yet. Even if he had verbally threatened, is that enough? Would her justification have been preventing attempted murder?

Obviously, once he fired a shot, it's game time and you do what the security guard did. But at any point earlier, would a preemptive use of deadly force by a CHL holder put him/her in legal jeopardy for this situation?

I went back and reread the TX CHL laws and haven't been able to fully convince myself that it would be defensible. Am I missing something?

[Scott in Houston]

Regarding the lady who tried to disrupt the shooter with her purse. I've read a lot of comments on other gun boards (and a few here) that it would have been better had she had a gun and used it. While I don't disagree with that sentiment, I'm curious from a legal perspective (assuming this had happened in TX) if she would have been justified in shooting the man at that point? He was waving a gun around and I can't recall if he had threatened to shoot anyone yet. Even if he had verbally threatened, is that enough? Would her justification have been preventing attempted murder?

Obviously, once he fired a shot, it's game time and you do what the security guard did. But at any point earlier, would a preemptive use of deadly force by a CHL holder put him/her in legal jeopardy for this situation?

I went back and reread the TX CHL laws and haven't been able to fully convince myself that it would be defensible. Am I missing something?

Casting aside the issue of having her weapon at a school or government meeting...

No question it would have been legal. There isn't any way in the world she could have not proven it was to protect the lives of those in the room. The bad guy doesn't have to pull the trigger first. He has to threaten your life first, and by 'waving his gun around' and dismissing everyone but a few, it's unquestionable what his intentions could be.

IANAL

But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express.

Seriously, it wouldn't even be close to an issue in Texas except for the fact that she shouldn't have a gun at this meeting in the first place because it would be illegal for her to do so. No way to say for sure, but my guess would be that even if she had done it with a weapon that she shouldn't have at this location, she'd be 'ok'. That depends on the DA and/or the jury though.

[quantum]

No question it would have been legal. There isn't any way in the world she could have not proven it was to protect the lives of those in the room. The bad guy doesn't have to pull the trigger first. He has to threaten your life first, and by 'waving his gun around' and dismissing everyone but a few, it's unquestionable what his intentions could be...

That was also my initial gut reaction to the situation. Glad someone else agrees (lawyer or not).

[Scott in Houston]

No question it would have been legal. There isn't any way in the world she could have not proven it was to protect the lives of those in the room. The bad guy doesn't have to pull the trigger first. He has to threaten your life first, and by 'waving his gun around' and dismissing everyone but a few, it's unquestionable what his intentions could be...

That was also my initial gut reaction to the situation. Glad someone else agrees (lawyer or not).

Follow your gut!

And welcome to the forum! This is a great place.

[A-R]

I think G192627 nailed it, but I thought it would be interesting to walk through the statutes to find the multiple points of justification.

Of course, when in the life-death situation, you're not going to be thinking about these nitty gritty details. More likely you'll be thinking "If I don't stop this, he's going to kill 'my guys' " as the lady calls them in interviews.

And of course, as always, must be stated again that I AM NOT A LAWYER. My thought process below may well be legally naive. But this is how I justify such actions to myself, if God-forbid, I'm ever put into such a scenario and must take such drastic action.

If you want a much better answer, I strongly encourage you to take the Deadly Force Seminar taught by our own Charles Cotton.

As far as justification, the first place I'd look is:

Sec. 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if: (1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;

Realize I left off (2) and (3) because those conditions are clearly met. But for (1) I think most people REASONABLY believe it is IMMEDIATELY NECESSARY to stop someone waving a gun toward you or others in order to avoid IMMINENT HARM.

In this case, shooting the gunman (even in the back) is a clear way to STOP him from committing IMMINENT HARM on the other people.

That is really the crux of any self-defense or defense of others scenario. Was it NECESSARY to take the action you did (shooting someone else) to stop them from committing imminent harm on you or others?

The key words to remember in any justification to use deadly force are:

Reasonable
Immediate
Necessary
Imminent

The next place I'd look for legal justification is

Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:

(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and

(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

(1) we'll get to below, but (2) ... I think again, as I discussed in NECESSITY above, that it is REASONABLE to believe that shooting the gunman is IMMEDIATELY NECESSARY to protect the other people from IMMINENT HARM.

Certainly an argument could be made that the gunman could have been "reasoned with" "talked down" etc. But in my mind, and I think the minds of most honest, hard-working people you'll find in a Texas jury, attempting to reason with a man pointing a gun is too risky if there is an available method to STOP the gunman instead. Obviously, like we saw with the school board chairman, if you have no means of self-defense to STOP the threat, then you must resort to attempting to negotiate with the gunman to spare your life. Negotiating for your life. Think about that for a minute. If given a choice, is it reasonable to expect someone to NEGOTIATE for THEIR OWN LIFE instead of STOPPING the threat to their life? Obviously, some liberals think it is reasonable. But I'd say the majority of a jury in Texas or Florida will think it more reasonable to STOP THE THREAT.

9.33 (1) basically lays out same justification as found in 9.31 and 9.32.

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

To me, the justification in this case can be boiled down simply to STOPPING the gunman from committing one of the "five crimes" specifically listed which give a 9.31 (b)(1)(C) or 9.32 (a)(2)(B). The important element of these five crimes, as Charles pointed out in his seminar, is that they give you a PRESUMED REASONABLENESS if you use force/deadly force to stop them. Basically you don't even have to prove reasonableness because the law says the reasonableness of your action is presumed to stop one of these "five crimes".

I think a case could be made that you were preventing the gunman from committing murder. But I can also see a very good argument that you were preventing the gunman from comitting aggravated kidnapping, see especially PC 20.04 (a)(5) and (a)(6) below.

Sec. 20.04. AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly abducts another person with the intent to:

(1) hold him for ransom or reward;

(2) use him as a shield or hostage;

(3) facilitate the commission of a felony or the flight after the attempt or commission of a felony;

(4) inflict bodily injury on him or violate or abuse him sexually;

(5) terrorize him or a third person; or

(6) interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function.

(b) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly abducts another person and uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense.

[Greybeard]

Question: "What I'm wondering is since he was off duty, carrying under his CCW instead of his Guard License, perhaps was gun being illegally carried into the school board meeting by the guy who stopped the shooter?"

Even if he went out to his car to get his gun, I suspect he would have a legitimate defense to prosecution via "Law of Competing Harms", which in simple terms, Uncle Mas states something to the effect of "It is OK to break the law if following the law would cause more human injury than breaking it." Again, not a lawyer, just a lowly 15-year CHL instructor here, but Texas' version is in 9.22, "necessity". Line item (2) below is important.

Sec. 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;

(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and

(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

[KD5NRH]

Sec. 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;

(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and

(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

Think we can get a modification passed? Something along the lines of "(4) regardless of the above, if any person with more sense than a stewed carrot can tell it's the right thing to do."

[quantum]

Austinrealtor, thank you for your excellent and through reply. You outlined what I did last night (reread through all the statues to find the justification). While I did not consider the aggravated kidnapping application, the only thing I could see applying was attempted murder. I guess what concerned me was the definition of attempted murder. Does he have to take some very aggressive action like firing the gun or hitting someone before it's considered "attempted" or is pointing the gun and his displayed behavior enough? Again, upon viewing the video, my intuition said yes, his actions prior to actually firing were enough to justify intervention but I questioned the precise legal definition of attempted murder.

For some reason, I didn't even apply 9.22 thinking that was related to the Public Duty section only. Needless to say, I'm looking forward to my CHL renewal class coming up to reaffirm my understandings (or misunderstandings ) and align my "gut" with the law.

Cheers!

[RPB]

Oh I totally understand under TEXAS law it would be justifiable/justified looking back at the threat.

What I was curious about, but didn't research, was legality, of the security guard carrying under the applicable Florida laws, prior to any gunman producing a gun.

-------------
My frame of thought is

Contrast/comparison to a theoretical incident where a CHL, God forbid, forgetfully carries his weapon into a Court/School/sporting event and remembers he is armed while terrorists are attacking and he's "justified" in stopping the attack; but was illegally carrying.

Not that I'd carry anywhere illegally, but was just pensive about that compared to the FLA situation.

Guess I could research if FLA had "necessity" but that's still only showing that it's justified, and I was curious as to whether he was legally carrying prior to any reasonable belief being formed ... however, sorta a moot point, as now the story is "he requested vacation, but agreed to work, at the request of the school district" so thankfully, he's "officially legal" (on duty as Security) whether he was or not prior to a 24 hour rest and speaking to the lawyer and school district

[Excaliber]

Oh I totally understand under TEXAS law it would be justifiable/justified looking back at the threat.

What I was curious about, but didn't research, was legality, of the security guard carrying under the applicable Florida laws, prior to any gunman producing a gun.

-------------
My frame of thought is

Contrast/comparison to a theoretical incident where a CHL, God forbid, forgetfully carries his weapon into a Court/School/sporting event and remembers he is armed while terrorists are attacking and he's "justified" in stopping the attack; but was illegally carrying.

Not that I'd carry anywhere illegally, but was just pensive about that compared to the FLA situation.

Guess I could research if FLA had "necessity" but that's still only showing that it's justified, and I was curious as to whether he was legally carrying prior to any reasonable belief being formed ... however, sorta a moot point, as now the story is "he requested vacation, but agreed to work, at the request of the school district" so thankfully, he's "officially legal" (on duty as Security) whether he was or not prior to a 24 hour rest and speaking to the lawyer and school district

All's well that ends well - and another good reminder of the wisdom of getting that 24 hour rest and legal counsel before making statements.

[tfrazier]

For those who feel the men in the room were cowards when they didn't "take advantage" of the opportunity the gal with the purse gave them, consider how big the bad guy was and the way he simply brushed her off like a fly.

Having had to wrestle men that size to the ground before (with the help of a half-dozen or so fellow LEOs), I can tell you that even had all six of the men in the room piled on immediately there still was a good chance the nut-case would have retained his gun and likely injured or killed one or more of them. It would have been like six ticks on a water buffalo.

At the end the big guy didn't go down until several rounds had been pumped into him and even then he managed to spray the place with numerous shots.

I think those guys were wise to stay in their seats under the circumstances. Had they jumped him when the little lady attacked they may well have gotten her killed as well as themselves. The bad guy was obviously pumped on adrenaline if nothing else.

[KD5NRH]

Having had to wrestle men that size to the ground before (with the help of a half-dozen or so fellow LEOs), I can tell you that even had all six of the men in the room piled on immediately there still was a good chance the nut-case would have retained his gun and likely injured or killed one or more of them. It would have been like six ticks on a water buffalo.

Key point; you were making an arrest, not stopping a psychopath by any means possible. If you'd bashed the suspect over the head with a metal chair while the others were driving pencils into his groin and kidneys, there would have been some issues down at the station later. These guys were under no such obligation to "bring him in alive."