TexasCHLforum.com

JKTex wrote:Keep in mind, that "article" is just some guys blog. He makes it look good, but that's all it is. Not even the worst of media writers would have written that "story" like he did. I don't even think he looked at the video before writing his blog. That shirt wasn't hung up on anything but his shoulders. :)

On the upside, for him anyway, the guy is getting massive attention for his blog....

I would like to [hear more of] what actually happened during the trial, but this is the only source I have found.

Maxwell wrote:Accidents happen but concealed means concealed. I agree that it looks like he was obviously not dressed to conceal his holster and therefore open carrying. Now before anyone repeats that an empty holster is not illegal ask yourself if you risk the harrasement of pushing that line knowing that to almost anyone out there holster=gun.

From the video, it is very difficult to see what a witness or LEO could actually see. Personally, I can't tell whether or not the gun was visible. Viewing only the evidence of the video I can't determine whether or not it was accidental, careless or intended.

I would like to point out that if a person is wearing an exposed holster and the "shape" of a gun handle is discernable through a tight or thin shirt, a reasonable person could assume that they were carrying a gun. In a court room it could go either way. That is why, IMO, dressing on the side of caution is the best course of action.

It will be interesting to see the outcome of this case. Almost certainly, there will be an appeal if the conviction stands.

WildBill wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

WildBill wrote:I found this on another forum. It was posted yesterday:

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.

I don't think that makes any sense at all. If the jury found he was guilty, there would be no reason to move for dismissal, as the trial would be over. Sounds like nonsense to me.

One of the posts on this thread said that the procedures for Florida County Courts were not normal.

It is rare, but a judge can overturn a jury's guilty verdict.

sjfcontrol wrote:

WildBill wrote:I found this on another forum. It was posted yesterday:

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.

I don't think that makes any sense at all. If the jury found he was guilty, there would be no reason to move for dismissal, as the trial would be over. Sounds like nonsense to me.

One of the posts on this thread said that the procedures for Florida County Courts were not normal.

I found this on another forum. It was posted yesterday:

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.

flb_78 wrote:It seems the biggest argument is if the holster is considered to be part of the firearm? There are many saying that in Florida, it is not illegal to have the holster exposed, only the firearm itself, sort of like a fanny pack or one of those square holsters for a pocket gun that hangs on your belt.

It's not illegal to wear an empty holster.

I think this may be a precedent setting case for Florida.

You raise an interesting point.

From the resolution of a dash cam, it's difficult to see what the LEOs at the scene or actual person reporting the alledged crime witnessed.

Obvious a holster is not part of the firearm, but when lacking all of the information the human mind tends to "fill in the blanks". By definition, a "reasonable person" might associate a "normal looking holster" with a gun. If there was a call to the police "man with a gun" then the responding officers would be predispositioned to see a gun, even if only the holster was visible.

If the bottom of the holster looked like a tool belt, then a "reasonable person" might think the person is a carpenter carrying the tools of his trade.

If it does end up as a precedent setting case, the results could be far reaching. 8000

ScooterSissy wrote:Am I the only one that thinks he didn't appear to be too awfully surprised that he was being stopped and arrested? That, along with the number of police called to the scene makes me think that there is more to this story than what we're seeing at first glance. Maybe there's more to the story, and this is all they're charging him with for now, with more to come later.

I thought that same thing. Five officers responding to an "accidental exposure"? Maybe it was a slow day for the local PD.

I hope this guy doesn't think he's going to be a "test case" or another "Trayvon Martin" and win a large settlement from a lawsuit against the police. If he thinks that, he's in for a big surprise.

Here are some thoughtful comments from various concealed carry websites:

"if you are legaly carrying concealed and your clothing accidentaly exposes your weopon, and you are in a non open state, are you in trouble from a leagle stand point? "

"Apparently in Florida a law has been passed whereby accidental exposure is not illegal. This law apparently covers you in case of many common accidental breif exposure situations."

speedsix wrote:...he had a "Toyota moment"...he asked for it...he got it...in no way was he concealing that gun...

The title and content of the article seem to support the theory that Dale accidently exposed his handgun.

I looked at the video again to see if it may have been accidental due to his pants being too low rather than his shirt being too high. That doesn't seem to be the case. It appears that he should have paid more attention in his CWP class.

Here's the Florida 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.
(2) A person may openly carry, for purposes of lawful self-defense:
(a) A self-defense chemical spray.
(b) A nonlethal stun gun or dart-firing stun gun or other nonlethal electric weapon or device that is designed solely for defensive purposes.
(3) Any person violating this section commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.