Here's a perfect storm for a CCW type

[GarandTd]

I also envisioned a child with a toy badge.
In PA, my carry permit is a photo-ID of sorts with much of the same info as my driver's liscense. I don't flash it around. As far as Im concerned, it is there for LEOs.

[Sharkbite]

it's in the report that he had an on the belt holster. If it's in an official document it was on the belt. Guy's in church, how well can you conceal anything on your belt? He may have been wearing a suit or jacket, but nobody could wear on otb holster for an hour or two every week and not give away that secret.

Ohh no....

I carried OTW on the point of the firing side hip for almost 20 years. My duty gun rode there, so my concealed pistol did as well. A 1911 for about 10 of those years, then a Glock of one flavor or another. That INCLUDED at Church. No one ever saw my pistol, and i assure you i didnt make any kind of statement

Your statement is just ridiculous.

[briandg]

I believe that those things can be dangerous, this proves in a very limited way. The way I interpret the documents, the shooter flashed his badge intending to exercise authority. Come with me, I'm the boss. Dead guy recognized the absolute foolishness. Maybe even thought about the kid with the plastic badge and cap gun.

I believe that anything that can be used to falsely identify a person is a dangerous thing that can be misused. Before we get into any arguments, keep in mind that impersonating a police officer is illegal in many jurisdictions. wearing a harness over a shirt that says SWAT is in principle a crime. If that badge said 'police officer' when he flashed it, there would have been charges. I wish that they weren't available to the public but that's a ridiculous thought. But you can equip yourself at army surplus to the level that just a few words can result in a stolen valor charge.

[briandg]

Sharkbite, so you say. How did you manage to carry something as big as a bible on your belt, completely concealed for years, and have nobody see it? Can you explain how you did it, what sort of clothing did you use to keep that covered in all times you were in public, year round?

If you don't think that it applies to you it probably doesn't, but you know very well that it applies to many people. I don't believe that I said that it was about everyone. It's about many people, and I believe that he was doing it. I've seen plenty of people who want to have their carry weapon seen and they make effort to do that.

Would you say that wearing a t shirt that has 'i carry concealed season's to hide a concealed weapon is incongruous? People do. I've seen a guy wearing the shirt.

https://www.spreadshirt.com/i+carry+...1190a80b8ae7ff

[Double Naught Spy]

it's in the report that he had an on the belt holster. If it's in an official document it was on the belt. Guy's in church, how well can you conceal anything on your belt? He may have been wearing a suit or jacket, but nobody could wear on otb holster for an hour or two every week and not give away that secret.

I carry my pistol (1911, usually Officer's model for church, but sometimes full size) in a belt holster and have never had an issue with it at church. Concealment really isn't a big deal.

[Sharkbite]

Sharkbite, so you say. How did you manage to carry something as big as a bible on your belt, completely concealed for years, and have nobody see it?

I’ll go one better....today i carried my usual CCW pistol. A S&W M&P 2.0 compact. The same size gun as a Glock 19. OWB Blade-tech holster, spare mag on the support side, Sure-fire flashlight and a RATS tourniquet. ALL carried in Church, TOTALLY concealed, under a sport coat. I even stood chatting with the paster before service and he asked if i was carrying today (he knows i normally do). So im pretty sure nobody else noticed.

Now, i normally carry Appendix theses days, so the open front coat threw him off. Thats the same way i dressed for Church all those years ago. Not hard to conceal lots of stuff with the right gear

[johnwilliamson062]

That was an impressive read. So very much done wrong. I am thinking one of those guys many around had thought should not be carrying or should be reported to some authority for one reason or another and no one acted. In fairness, knowing you should do something is often far shot of knowing what that something should be which is short of actually doing it.

a sit on your butt, stay calm and quiet, don't even make eye contact situation.

Although I absolutely agree appellant acted improperly, I wouldn't agree dong nothing is absolutely the answer. A lot of unknown details to this specific circumstance, but I don't think it would be unreasonable to put oneself in a position to support the ushers/staff that are controlling the situation if the person were to become violent. The ushers at my church are all quite nice and probably far better prepared to calm an unstable person than myself, but they likely average 40 years older than myself. I would hate to see them rolling around on the floor with an unstable person half their age. Tough on the hips.


A buddy attends a church where the ushers all CCW. Quite odd IMO.

[In The Ten Ring]

I suspect the "never get involved ever" attitude on this forum is something of a sham, meant to fool lurkers. I think quite a few forum members would step up to help with whatever it was and often do so. That's just my thoughts on it, I apologize if I am overestimating any member's grit.

I have concealed carried in church for some time and no one knew. I didn't carry on the hip but if I wore a suit coat I wouldn't worry about it being spotted. A person might look a bit odd with a coat on during summer but hey, if they always wore that coat, no one would wonder.

[briandg]

John, you've misread that a bit. I did not say that no intervention should take place. If the church had chairs, it was likely pretty small. In any case, an armed man who sees a disturbance shouldn't leap into action unless there is an obvious danger. When there is any sort of altercation that appears to be 'harmless' that armed man needs to stand down and wait until he is needed. This requires that certain things may be done, such as seeking a more advantageous spot in cover or in closer range.

Wait and see. The guy wasn't escalating, he was calming down, give the guy room to breathe and feel safe while you discreetly watch for signs of trouble. If the guy drew a weapon you will have the absolute element of surprise as the congregation distracts him. Every situation is different at every tiny detail.

Careful, deliberate actions may fail to save lives. That's terrible. Rash, poorly considered actions may lead to many deaths. I prefer unfortunate to tragic.

Don't make a target of yourself. Stay low profile. If you are spotted and singled out you may die without even getting a clear window to the target, leaving the group alone. That's tragic.

Think of it as a standoff, in a way.

[hdwhit]

Glenn E. Meyer wrote:
A perfect storm for a CCW type gone wrong.

No.

A perfect example of what the opponents of CCW would happen if CCWs were widely permitted.

As Double Naught Spy ably summarized in Post #2, the guy's actions were nothing short of criminal. He deserves to spend a long time in jail to reflect on his attitude towards guns. He also deserves to have his defense attorney take most of his life's savings away in legal fees. He deserves (although his family does not) to have his family left financially ruined because of his failure to abide by either the law or his CCW training.

Bottom line: If you're looking for an excuse to use your weapon, you're a criminal. No two ways about it. Responsible gun owners use deadly force only when there is no other alternative.

[Lohman446]

I'm sure there is a counter argument somewhere. In my opinion if I am on a jury and one of those "fake badges" comes into play its going to work against the person "flashing" it. Again, subject to counter arguments that are going to have to be good, I see it as an attempt to impersonate an officer (perhaps not legally).

Originally Posted by the linked summary

[the court] was troubled by Appellant’s tendency to insert himself into circumstances that could cause his death and portray him
as a hero.

If you want to be an officer of the law by all means apply to be so. Otherwise leave the badges at home.

It's important to understand that at this juncture, the facts as you have read them are the facts, for all legal purposes. At the trial level, the court or the jury "finds the facts," and decides what the facts were.

See how clear you made that and how muddled I managed to . But you have hit on the import, at least to me, of appellate decisions. They are broader in impact AND they don't get boggled down in question of fact only on how those facts and the law interact.

[briandg]

An interesting thing that I was once told by a coach. You can't make yourself into a hero. That's decided by everyone else. Don't do something stupid thinking that it will make you a hero, because all its going do do is ruin your life if you blow it by missing that half court shot instead of passing the ball.

Wanna be a hero? Better be Han solo, because if you're jabba, you could save an entire bus load of expecting mothers and go to jail because you accidentally tore off a blouse.

He thinks that he was heroic, right? He wasn't. Heroism is decided mostly by the press. The press disagreed.

[Lohman446]

On the topic of tactics: My take away is the guy is an idiot tactically. He revealed the presence of a gun with his nifty little tin star and then brandished the weapon prior to having any justification to even consider the use of lethal force. One could accept that he intervened and asked the supposed "attacker" to leave but in this case he intervened alone, despite the presence of plenty of others around him, and then escalated the situation. A situation that could have easily waited for police intervention.

Simply put there was no good outcome for him in this scenario. Let's say he had flashed his badge AND gun and the individual had left and called the police rather than punching him. The trial records we would be considering would almost certain involve brandishing (if not assault with a deadly weapon) and possibly impersonating a police officer.

Because of the severity of the outcome it is easy to overlook the legal and tactical errors the individual made leading up to that outcome.

[TailGator]

Reading between the lines a bit, it seems to be that some people are assuming that a belt holster or a gun "on the hip" is OWB, while others are including IWB in the phrase. Personally, I think of IWB as being on the belt or on the hip just as much as OWB. Perhaps I read it to fast, but I didn't see anything in the court record specifying IWB or OWB, nor anything to indicate that concealment was compromised until the charged man chose to display his pistol.

I agree with the opinions that the badges come perilously close to impersonating the officer, and I find myself thinking that those who purchase them are wannabes.

[briandg]

Yes.

His entirely unsmart decision to confront an unknown opponent in an environment that he cannot possibly control with certainty was An enormous risk.

Imagine one thing. His interaction with the guy, who was stable at the time, provoked him and that provocation ended in the death of a half dozen babies that were there for baptism. The possible damages are beyond comprehension.

He got lucky. He's only been sentenced for homicide. He could be the guy who triggered a truly catastrophic event.

[briandg]

Gator, maybe you're right, but we are reading precise legal briefs. On the hip is general, but if it was a well hidden iwb holster or just jammed into his pants, a judge should have considered the possible value of that information and provided it. This could have affected the outcome.

Something shown later in the document was that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that a killer used poor judgment or even deliberately violated the laws governing deadly force self defense.

The prosecution provided much evidence that he acted stupidly and that he had in the past, and that it was in his nature to do so. There was also evidence that he may have lied to build a case for justified homicide.

It just gets worse.

[Lohman446]

When [Decedent] refused, [Appellant] flashed his unofficial concealed weapon permit badge. [Decedent] recognized it as a fake, telling [Appellant] as much in colorful language. [Appellant] then revealed his 9-millimeter
pistol.

On the hip is general, but if it was a well hidden iwb holster or just jammed into his pants, a judge should have considered the possible value of that information and provided it. This could have affected the outcome.

As Spats explained, much more effectively than I tried to touch on, there are no questions of fact in an appeal absent new evidence that may result in a new trial. The facts are already established and are not, with minimal exception, part of the appeal process. We are not discussing some accidental exposure. When the appellant failed to accomplish his stated goal of removing the individual from the church with his tin shield he escalated the situation by brandishing the firearm. There is no consideration that this may have been accidental or incidental exposure. He was clearly using the gun as a threat.

One other thing should be noted:

He admittedly approached [Decedent] not with the intent to calm him down but to get him out of the church.

and

[fn3] [Appellant] had no position of authority with the church at the time and was not a law enforcement officer.

and

An associate pastor, seeing that the ushers’ efforts only exacerbated
[Decedent]’s agitation, had them back away and directed someone to call the police.

His defense

[fn2] [Appellant] told investigators he saw [Decedent] pushing the parishioner, but the parishioner testified at trial that [Decedent] never touched him nor got close to him

He intervened in a situation he should not have. When he failed to get his way he flashed some meaningless badge. When that badge was recognized as such and he was told that in colorful language he drew his gun and fired despite having the ability to safely retreat.

I'm sorry I simply do not see any option but to convict him.

[GarandTd]

He could be the guy who triggered a truly catastrophic event.

I understand what you are saying, but the shooter literally triggered a catastrophic event by shooting an unarmed man at church in front of the congregation. I don't know much more about the victim other than the fact that he was agitated when he entered the church. He was someone's son, possibly brother, husband, and/or father.

I like the dog analogy posted earlier. [All] People are animals. If you encounter an agitated animal, you steer clear and call the authorities. Provoking an animal, especially an agitated one is asking for trouble.

[Lohman446]

I understand what you are saying, but the shooter literally triggered a catastrophic event by shooting an unarmed man at church in front of the congregation.

You are correct but I get Brian's point. There had been instructions in place to call the police. Even had there been a little pushing involved there is no indication that it was ongoing. I cannot use lethal force because someone pushed someone a few minutes ago - the threat has to be ongoing and the threat of severe bodily harm or death imminent. We can argue if an ongoing shove represents that but it is not the point of argument.

The police were, presumably, responding. If the individual did constitute a threat it was not imminent and ongoing. Engaging him only raised the chance that he did pose an imminent threat. In fact prior to engaging him the worst that had been uttered was some colorful language and a command to be left alone. After engaging him, and brandishing a weapon, it became a physical threat.

[manta49]

He showed one of the problems with carrying firearms for self defence, a incident that probably would of ended with a few black eyes ended up with one deservedly going to jail and one dead. Some people that normally would not intervene suddenly become braver with a firearm, and can escalate instead of calming the situation.

[Lohman446]

He showed one of the problems with carrying firearms for self defence

His blandishment of the firearm was not done in self defense nor was his "use" of the tin shield. At very best it was done in an attempt to defend someone else (when no threat was actually present).

I keep noting this part of the court findings

[the court] was troubled by Appellant’s tendency to insert himself into circumstances that could cause his death and portray him as a hero.

The problem was not the gun. The problem was the individual and a sense of bravado that may have been bolstered by the carrying of a firearm.

[manta49]

The problem was not the gun. The problem was the The problem was not the gun. The problem was the individual and a sense of bravado that may have been bolstered by the carrying of a firearm..

I am sure he is not the only individual who has a sense of bravado that may have been bolstered by the carrying of a firearm. You just have read some posts on this and other forums regarding self defence and what they would do to see that. Some good advice in the post bellow. PS i have to laugh at the badge, maybe he could not find his supper man badge.

I find it interesting that the defendant's self-reported history of acting the hero worked so strongly against him, as indicating that he would continue to be a danger to the community. That alone should give pause to a lot of internet warriors...

[stephen426]

Definitely made a lot of mistakes and I can't disagree with charging the defendant. I hate those stupid CCW badges as they scream "cop wannabe".

Our church started hiring an off duty police officer after a new-comer started taking picture of some of the kids. He stopped coming after a few weeks, but he weirded out enough people that the church decided it would be better to have an officer there.

[Lohman446]

I am sure he is not the only individual who has a sense of bravado that may have been bolstered by the carrying of a firearm. You just have read some posts on this and other forums regarding self defence and what they would do to see that.

True. It does not change my statement. The problem is not the gun

[fastbolt]

A cautionary tale that probably won't stop any dismaying number of other similarly-minded people from using similarly poor judgment, and also displaying an inability to understand and apply common sense and make good decisions.

Carrying a firearm doesn't inherently imbue anyone with either common sense, let alone the "right" to impose their skewed sense of purpose, destiny or personal idea of "justice" on the world around them.

Adding a "CCW badge" to the mix? No more empowering than concealing a superhero outfit underneath your daily clothes. Just about as silly, too.

A sad, tragic story. A man has needlessly lost his life, and a family has needlessly been shattered.