home

Judge Pulls Out a Handgun in Court

By Jeralyn, Section Law Related
Posted on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 08:49:46 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Should judges be armed in the courtroom? This reminds me of a scene out of one of my favorite law movies, And Justice for All, starring Al Pacino and Jack Warden.

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.

The public defender is complaining and wants to talk to the Chief Judge about whether judges should be armed in court.

More...

"It's very disconcerting for a lawyer to be in the line of fire," White told the Times-Union.

I really don't see a big difference between the judge being armed and police who bring the defendant to court being armed. Either way there's guns in the courtroom, and as lawyers, we're in the cross-hairs. What happens, as has occurred in the past, when someone overtakes the armed sheriff in the courtroom?

I am glad though to see the father who attacked the defendant got charged with felony aggravated assault and misdemeanor battery. Vigilante justice is no justice at all.

< Pat Tillman Family Respond to the Report on His Death | Alberto Gonzales Makes Hasty Exit From News Conference >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Judge Pulls Out a Handgun in Court | 74 comments (74 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Phew (none / 0) (#1)
    by Arlen on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 09:34:21 PM EST
    I don't tend to buy into the logic that more guns make people safer... People can make up a bunch of hypothetical situations about what might have happened or what could conceivably happen in the future, but I think that at the end of the day, more dangerous weapons make things more dangerous for everybody.

    After reading this post, I immediately thought of the debate over allowing pilots of commercial planes to carry handguns on board. And thinking about that made me think of that ridiculous Harrison Ford movie Air Force One, where the plane gets hijacked using weapons that belong to the Secret Service. It was an absurd movie but there's some truth there: more weapons do not make everybody safer.

    My dad has a bunch of stories (none / 0) (#2)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 10:57:12 PM EST
    about Judge Oliver Schulingkamp, who not only carried a revolver but had a steel plate installed at his podium so that he could duck behind it if somebody tried to shoot him.

    SCOTUS has an armored bench (none / 0) (#3)
    by Arlen on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 11:31:31 PM EST
    The Supreme Court has a bulletproof bench they are supposed to duck under/behind if anything happens.

    Parent
    crazy (none / 0) (#4)
    by kjensen on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 01:19:43 AM EST
    I think this is really wrong-headed.  As a lawyer, the idea that we are more likely to be shot than others in the courtroom (which currently denies guns to everyone, save the cops) is arrogant and an extremely unproductive point of view.  Witnesses, family members of victims, friens, etc. are all more likley to be targeted.

    The idea that a judge will save the day once a guard has been over-powered by a defendant (handcuffed in this example) is, well, hard to take seriously.  A judge is going to make things OK after the law-enforcement contingent has failed?  Whatever.

    The idea that judges or lawyers should be armed is specious.  Why them and not the rest of the people in the courtroom?  See first point.  If someone gets a gun in a courtroom, everyone is at risk.  If self-defense is the idea, everyone should have a gun.

    Better to have security measures in place that only allow law-enforcement to have guns.  The fact that the judge was armed in this case is interesting...but didn't mean squat in terms of the outcome, as the offender was cuffed, and order was restored.

    This post really annoyed me.  The idea that someone could go nuts in a court of law is something that lawyers think about.  The idea that more firearms in the courtroom makes this less likely, or that bad situations will turn out less bad strikes me as very mistaken.

    As a defense attorney, to you want to be armed next to your client?  If not, do you want the prosecutor to be armed?  Do you want members of the gallery to be armed?  Do you want some hair-trigger judge to be armed?  This is nuts.  Courts are where proper security measures should be taken to ensure a safe trial.

    That appears to have happened here, and would have regardless of the judge packing heat.

    I really think your attitude on this is indefensible and irresponsible.  Having anyone in the courtroom with a firearm other than the cops is a recipe for disaster.  Doomsday scenario all you want, the fact of the matter is that in the drama, tension, and emotion of a courtroom, deadly weapons should not be allowed.

    Finally, to reiterate, it is incredibly irresponsible to pretend that as lawyers we are at greatest risk in the courtroom.  We are not.  Everyone else present is at least as likely to be a target as we are, and unless you are willing to have them carrying weapons, this post makes no sense.

    The risk is (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 01:36:48 AM EST
    The risk is that as lawyers, we would be caught in the crosshairs, not that we would be targets.  

    I'm not afraid of guns.  I'm afraid of the rage that causes people to use them.

    Parent

    um, I think you mean "crossfire" (none / 0) (#7)
    by jr on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 04:07:11 AM EST
    The person caught in the crosshairs is usually the target.  The people caught in the crossfire are usually the innocent bystanders.

    Parent
    More (none / 0) (#5)
    by 1980Ford on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 01:24:41 AM EST
    details.

    Ms. TL (none / 0) (#8)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 05:45:40 AM EST
    I am glad though to see the father who attacked the defendant got charged with felony aggravated assault and misdemeanor battery. Vigilante justice is no justice at all.

    If the dad gets convicted and sent to jail, will we see a posting on how the family was torn apart by the system, ala your postings on illegals lately?

    I favor.... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 07:29:04 AM EST
     ...no one other than the bailiff (including other cops who may be present) being armed in the courtroom. I particularly don't want judges or lawyers, who may not be well trained in the defensive use of firearms, packing.

      There is going to be a certain amount of disorder and even violence  in court simply because so many cases (including some civil matters) center on highly emotionally charged matters, but I don't think arming judges is an answer.

      BTW, I'd bge stunned if the father got convicted and fairly surprised if he even gets indicted. At most,I  could see a plea agreement where he pleads to a disorderly conduct type offense and receives a slap on the wrist.

     

    Agreed about the father (none / 0) (#27)
    by glanton on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 03:44:56 PM EST
    And that's the way it should be.  This guy lost his cool and everyone on all sides of political spectrum ought to be able to see why, even if they don't have kids of their own, and even as they know that he shouldn't have done it.

    But locking him up would be ludicrous.  He poses no threat whatever to society.

    Parent

    Right on...... (none / 0) (#60)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 09:25:01 AM EST
    And even if some knuckle-headed prosecutor tried to try the father....I don't think you'd find a jury to convict in a million years.  

    Parent
    I'm neutral on whether the judge should, (none / 0) (#10)
    by scribe on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 09:41:54 AM EST
    or should not, have a gun behind the bench.  TL's comment on the rage, rather than the gun, is particularly on point.

    There are a lot of good arguments (a) for and (b) against the judge being armed.

    To name a few:
    For:

    • last ditch defense
    • defense of others if the court officer is overpowered or taken hostage

    Against:
    • bad aim
    • never takes it out to the range and gets used to it, so all sorts of bad-events-through-unfamiliarity can happen

    On a couple occasions, I've had clients ask me whether the judge keeps a gun behind his/her bench.  I recall at least one instance when the tone indicated some inclination toward mischief.  My answer is always that:

    I don't know, nor do I want to find out.  And my client should feel likewise.  But that we should all (and I do) assume the answer is "yes" and that he/she aced the best training in firearms that there is, is a national-champion level shot, and has killed before.  So sit down, shut up,  behave, and let me do the talking.

    One of my regular restaurants is a family-run neighborhood place that's been open well over 50 years.  I've been going in there over 15, seen the original owner pass it on to the grandkids, grandkids' own kids go from babies to junior high, etc.  I don't recall there ever being any incident - even voices raised in anger at another patron (at the losing sports team's another matter) - in there.  I struggle to recall anyone ever being asked to leave for any reason.  Still, they keep a baseball bat behind the bar.  They don't have to use it, but they still keep it.

    No objection (none / 0) (#11)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 12:40:56 PM EST

    So you have no objection if the judge has good aim and practices regularly?

    Parent
    Judges with guns (none / 0) (#12)
    by glanton on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 01:12:27 PM EST
    More American mythology b.s.  Oh, he's a real maverick, he don't put up with that kind of stuff he'll put a hole in ye.  Whatever.  Sort of like Bush in the flight suit it's just an image thing and an incredibyl stupid one at that.  In short, it is to laugh.

    Only one poster on this thread has had the sense to treat this incident with the contempt it deserves, and that's kjensen.

    On a side note, obviously what the father did was wrong and obvsiously I am no advocate of vigilante justice.  As a new father (baby 8 months old) it is hard not to sympathize with him a little, however.  Confronted with something of that magnitude, felony charges might seem, to say the least, pretty inconsequential in the heat of the moment.

    If he has a concealed weapon permit (none / 0) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 01:31:11 PM EST
    he has a concealed weapon permit.

    so to reference (none / 0) (#14)
    by glanton on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 01:52:34 PM EST
    kjensen,

    what about the gallery, the jury, the lawyers, the reporters?  Are you willing to be just as flippant about their permits?

    Hell, let's just do it like our ever-romanticized Wild West® and have everybody carry guns everywhere --why even bother with concealment?--and let's settle disputes over honor in the streets.

    Sarcasmo, There are and should be limits to Gun Rahts® just as there are to those involving Speech (i.e. yelling "Bomb" in an airport).  Saying he has a permit and let's be done with it is to act as though the courtroom setting is not special.  Which is to risk obtuseness.    

    Parent

    g-man (none / 0) (#15)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 02:15:09 PM EST
    Of all the "settings" in our daily life, what %, iyo, would not be "special" and would thus not be subject to a limit on a concealed weapon permit?

    Parent
    There are vast differences (none / 0) (#16)
    by glanton on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 02:26:22 PM EST
    Ever gone into a courtroom?  You go through a detector, just like at the airport or at your local federal building.

    Why don't they have those at grocery stores, or simply at red lights scanning people in their cars?

    You're surely not suggesting that a courtroom full of people packing guns is okay, that they should do away with the detectors and just check for permits instead?  Christ on a crumb heap.

    Then again, maybe that's exactly what you're suggesting.  I note that you didn't answer whether it's okay for the gallery, etc. to have guns as well.        

    Jeralyn wrote:

    I really don't see a big difference between the judge being armed and police who bring the defendant to court being armed. Either way there's guns in the courtroom,

    This is an excellent blog and her posts are consistently top notch.  But then, the above quote falls way, way short of that quality.  Don't tell me you cannot see the difference either.  Your average ninth grader would see the big freaking difference, most people would unless they felt strapped to distort their thinking by some sort of NRA faithfulness.  

    Parent

    p.s. (none / 0) (#17)
    by glanton on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 02:27:50 PM EST
    The judge's action adds to the infinite pieces of evidence that you can have a high degree, and be a respected pillar of the community, and still be quite

    Dumb as a Rock

    Parent

    The (none / 0) (#18)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 02:29:55 PM EST
    court I served jury duty at does not allow anyone through that is armed, except police, and perhaps judges.  

    what about the gallery, the jury, the lawyers, the reporters?  Are you willing to be just as flippant about their permits?

    Please link to a court in the country that allows the people you mention to be armed in court.  If not then you have proposed a strawman argument.

    Parent

    g-man (none / 0) (#19)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 02:36:20 PM EST
    It is difficult, for me anyway, to have substantive conversations with you because you always seem to twist my words into things I didn't say, take my comments to ridiculous and illogical extremes, and throw in unwarranted  insults.

    You'd think I'd have learned by now...I blame myself for even trying.

    sarcasmo (none / 0) (#22)
    by glanton on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 02:40:46 PM EST
    I am surprised by your comment.  I recollect several productive conversations in the past, concessions made both ways.  Has it gotten at times a little heated and out of control?  yes, but compared to most sparring partners on this board I always thought we did pretty well.

    If I twisted your words, then tell me how.  I mean, I asekd you if it was okay for everyone to pack in the courtroom and you followed by asking why a courtroom is special.  Seems to me that what follows from this is the claim that it isn't special.  

    Parent

    g-man (none / 0) (#25)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 03:18:46 PM EST
    This is exactly what I mean:
    I mean, I asekd you if it was okay for everyone to pack in the courtroom and you followed by asking why a courtroom is special.
    This statement of yours completely twists what was actually said.

    A) that was not my question, and, B) your answer was a (non)answer to my (actual) question, and not the other way around. For Christ on a crumbheap's sake.

    This was my question:

    Of all the "settings" in our daily life, what %, iyo, would not be "special" and would thus not be subject to a limit on [our right of] a concealed weapon permit?
    []'s added for clarification.

    Parent
    All right, my bad (none / 0) (#26)
    by glanton on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 03:33:16 PM EST
    I clearly misinterpreted your question, sarcasmo.

    I saw the use of scare quotes on the words "setting" and "special" and somehow, I immediately lept to the conclusion you were, in the very structure of your question, ridiculing the idea that the courtroom setting is special. Since you didn't say that, I apologize and take back the assumption.

    So how about we start over, try to have a discussion about this and see where it goes.

    I'll start by answering your question:

    Of all the "settings" in our daily life, what %, iyo, would not be "special" and would thus not be subject to a limit on [our right of] a concealed weapon permit?

    I would say a very, very high percentage would not be special settings along the order of a federal building, a courthouse, an airport.  A gave a couple of examples, grocery stores and urban traffic.  But the number is very high.

    Now.  I would like to ask you some things. You wrote, at the beginning of this:

    If he has a concelaed weapon permit he has a concealed weapon permit.

    But as we know, everyone else but the judge who has a permit still has to go through the detector and give up their weapon, in courtrooms across the country.  Except police officers, baliffs, etc.  People whose actual function ultimately comes down to force.

    So, after a very long setup: Why did you make that comment?  Is it because you think the judge is special?   Does the use of force compute into your rubric for what a judge's official capacity is?  

    Parent

    g-man (none / 0) (#28)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 03:49:28 PM EST
    If I understand you correctly, you hold federal building, courthouses, airports, grocery stores and urban traffic to be places our concealed weapon permit rights should be restricted, iow, no CWP rights in those places. Did I understnad you correctly?

    If so, how do you feel about restaurants, schools, hospitals, Home Depot, etc.?

    So, after a very long setup: Why did you make that comment?  Is it because you think the judge is special?
    Yes. And as such, if he feels the need to protect himself and/or the others in the court, by exercising his right to obtain a CWP and carry a gun, I think he should be able to exercise that right.

    How do you support stripping a judge of his rights?

    Parent

    One at a time (none / 0) (#32)
    by glanton on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 04:07:05 PM EST
    First of all, I said grocery stores and urban traffic in contrast to special settings like Federal Buildings, Courtrooms, and Airports. I thought that was clear if one was reading all the way through, but if not, there it is again.

    Second. I knew you were going there, what about schools, restaurants, etc.  And not that it isn't entirely worthy to discuss such things, for it is, and it's very difficult to be consistent on such things.  But in the end that's a related, but different issue, threatening to turn our conversation into a question of lists and letting Judge Merrett's actions go comparatively uninspected.

    Now, please consider:

    Second and a half:

    In my view, what is ultimately at stake here, on this particular thread, is the question of whether a judge is special re concealed weapons.  You said "Yes," in response to the question, is a judge special.  Just now. And you go on to ask:

    How do you support stripping a judge of his rights?

    And I answer, I see it no more a strippage of his rights to deny him a firearm in a courtroom than it is a strippage of the stenographer's rights, or of the jury members' rights, or the court reporters' rights, or of my own rights, or of the lawyers on down the line.  

    You say he must protect himself.  Well, everyone in the courtroom needs to be protected, it is often a very high stakes scenario.  And that, unless I'm mistaken, is what the detectors and security cameras are for.  And what the trained police officers are for. And what the trained  baliffs are for.  These are all security related nouns that I have listed.  

    Is the judge a security officer?  No, he's a legal arbiter/interpreter.  What he is supposed to enforce has to do not with physical altercation but with legalese.  That's all he's there for.  Nobody ever had to fire a gun to pass a bar exam.  Nobody would ever argue that a judge is an enforcement officer.

    Third.  Now.  I flatter myself with having made some valid points in this last section (section two and a half), after having responded to you as honestly as I can.  I hope that you will do me the courtesy of considering what I have said and responding in kind.  

    I remember in the Obama thread you and I went around and around before you finally acknolwegded that you hadn't been reading my posts all the way through and that as a result, you didn't even know that the topic under consideration was the Senator's actual name.  Remember that?  I'm not the only person of the two of us, therefore, who has done rhetorical injustice to the other.

     

    Parent

    g-man (none / 0) (#40)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 04:32:49 PM EST
    You are good, I'll give you that. One of my, er, "special characteristics," is that I have little patience with reading long posts and/or dense paragraphs. So I skim. Skimming your last comment made me stop and go back to reread. It's not easy for me...

    Just to clarify, I did not say, as you said

    You say he must protect himself.
    I said
    if he feels the need to protect himself and/or the others in the court, by exercising his right to obtain a CWP and carry a gun, I think he should be able to exercise that right.
    small quibble, but clarity is important I think.

    Anyway, I do think the judge is special, he an officer of the court. Since you are making me think about it, I don't support stripping any  officer of the court of their rights.

    I guess that includes the steno and all other officers of the courts.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#44)
    by glanton on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 04:40:54 PM EST
    That's a very liberal interpretation of the word "Officer."  It feels to me like you're conflating it with Police Officer.

    Lawyers and judges and stenographers (oh my!) are indeed officers of the court, but in a different way.

    I'm glad, too, that you brought me back to your original quote.  Cheerfully I provide it again:

    if he feels the need to protect himself and/or the others in the court, by exercising his right to obtain a CWP and carry a gun, I think he should be able to exercise that right.

    I embolden "feels" because of the fact that I don't give a rat's patooty how he "feels."  If he's (or she's) afraid to go in there and do his job then he (or she) needs to take it up with the security people.  Or go into another line of work.  Become an editor of a literary journal.  Not a day of my life do I enter my office afraid someone's going to shoot me, even if they were counting on my acceptance for tenure.

    :-)

    Parent

    Oy vey (none / 0) (#47)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 04:56:48 PM EST
    Lawyers and judges and stenographers (oh my!) are indeed officers of the court, but in a different way.
    and therefore, logically, the judge is special. C'mon.

    Are you so sure he doesn't carry a gun outside the courtroom as well?

    He has a right to carry no matter how he "feels" - and whether or not you care how he feels, or think how he feels is valid or reasonable, and whether you "feel" he's ignorant, or a wild west yahoo, or anything else.

    In fact, if I may, your entire argument is that you "feel" he shouldn't carry in a courtroom.

    Anyway, enough of that, I think we've reached the point where we should agree to disagree.

    My question is - tenure? g-man, you're an academician? What do you teach?

    Parent

    Interjection: (none / 0) (#29)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 04:00:52 PM EST
    I don't mean to break in here, but it is not strictly true that only police officers and bailiffs and the like can carry firearms into a courthouse. Most courthouses that I've been in do not require employees to pass through the metal detectors. They get to go around in the "fast lane," if you will.

    Conceivably, courthouse employees with concealed carry permits can bring their guns with them to work. I don't know if that is contrary to law or not. I'm just saying that it can be done--and I have no doubt--is done regularly in those courthouses that only require metal detectors for "visitors."

    Parent

    THis is true, (none / 0) (#31)
    by Peaches on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 04:06:14 PM EST
    I can attest as someone who works in a county courthouse/City Hall building and regularly passes through the fast line with my id card. Although, I don't have a CWP, if I did I could conceivably bring a CW into a courtroom without being checked.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#33)
    by glanton on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 04:11:55 PM EST
    I'm not surprised by this revelation and I'm pretty disgusted by it, too.

    Parent
    But dang, (none / 0) (#37)
    by Peaches on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 04:20:37 PM EST
    Glanton, my life would be hell without the fast lane. Really.

    I suppose some day, some where, some tragedy will happen and we will all wonder who is to blame. Then every courthouse everywhere will search everyone every minute of the day coming in and out and all of us municipal workers will have just suffer the inconvencience from living in a fearful society. I am not looking forward to that day.

    Parent

    It's not a "fearful" society (none / 0) (#38)
    by glanton on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 04:29:27 PM EST
    But a reasonable one that has people going through detectors at airports and in courtrooms.  

    Look, we have a case here of some A$$HOLE judge thinking he's a gunslinger: gonna take matters into his own hands, and all such nonsense. Why in God's name are the cops and baliffs and detectors even there?  

    And in rightfully scoffing at this ignoramus judge what I am getting is a lot of quibbling about gun rahts and now---unbelievably-- convenience.

    Parent

    I avoid airports, too (none / 0) (#42)
    by Peaches on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 04:35:56 PM EST
    since 9/11.

    I don't think I'd work at one if I was subjected to that everyday. I have a thing about convenience and a fear of lines that is almost as large as my fear of flying. ;)

    The point of my fear statement is that this happened  somewhere nowhere near my town and somebody is now going to make the reasonable requirement to have all employees walk through the metal detector every day and get wanned down while lines back up in every county accross the country to prevent vigilanti judges from doing stupid acts. Seems like an overreaction to me, but, perhaps, I'm biased.

    Parent

    Indeed. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 04:13:10 PM EST
    Right. Now that you mention it, the federal building that I'm in regularly has a fast lane, too.

    I didn't make it clear in my comment, but the point of my bringing it up is that some of the comments here have tended to imply that we shouldn't be giving judges special treatment when it comes to carrying firearms in a court.

    In fact, the belief that the judge is getting special treatment (as apart from the lawyers, reporters, etc.) led in part to glanton's original Wild West® comment that sparked a bit of disgust from SUO. Maybe you guys should back up a minute and realize that the discussion of whether a court is a "special setting" is moot.

    Parent

    Clearly (none / 0) (#36)
    by glanton on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 04:17:51 PM EST
    The judge was in his legal rights to weild a gun.  And as I said I'm not surprised, and I am disgusted, that there's this "fast track" for employees of all kinds.

    None of this changes what an ignorant thing it was that Judge Merrett did.  If we're really at the point where we can't secure these places with our resources, that we need a bunch of wannabe Doc Hollidas running around Government Buildings and sitting on Benches proclaiming "not in my courtroom dammit" (cue dramatic music), then we have very significant problems.

    Parent

    I agree with you, Glanton (none / 0) (#39)
    by Peaches on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 04:30:50 PM EST
    That it was a foolish for the judge to wield his weapon. I also agree the judge is probably as dumb as a rock. I just don't know how we prevent dumb people from doing dumb things.

    Parent
    Well, in this case (none / 0) (#41)
    by glanton on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 04:35:23 PM EST
    We can prevent non security people, including self-aggrandizing judges, from bringing deadly weapons into the emotionally charged and high stakes environment that is a courthouse.  

    And we can say, "if it's inconvenient for you, then Tough Titties."  So too are many things in life inconvenient but nevertheless thoroughly reasonable.

    Parent

    lots of business (none / 0) (#45)
    by Peaches on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 04:41:52 PM EST
    goes on in a courthouse besides high stakes emotionally charged trials.

    Just hold on Glanton, don't get in a huff. I think that reasonable precautions could be made for those cases where potentially emotionally charged courtcases are occurring where participants and observers of a trial would be required to be checked for concealed weapons at the door to the courtroom without making every employee get checked each time they walk through the courthouse door. that seems reasonable.

    Parent

    I disagree (none / 0) (#43)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 04:39:05 PM EST
    The judge said that he wasn't sure who the father was going after. Are you saying he didn't have a right to defend himself until he ascertained that the father was coming after him? What about defense of other?

    At the point it became clear the problem was over, he had the gun locked away so no one could get to it.

    Going for the gun seems completely justified to me. A threat presented itself. The judge acted. When the threat was over, the gun was put away. It's not like he just left it on the bench as a "reminder" that he think's he's a badass or something.

    Parent

    Try this (none / 0) (#50)
    by glanton on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 06:22:56 PM EST
    The defendant's mother said that he wasn't sure who the father was going after. Are you saying she didn't have a right to defend herself until she ascertained that the father was coming after her? What about defense of other?

    At the point it became clear the problem was over, she had the gun locked away so no one could get to it.

    Going for the gun seems completely justified to me. A threat presented itself. The defendant's mother acted. When the threat was over, the gun was put away. It's not like she just left it on the bench as a "reminder" that she think's she a badass or something.

    Hopefully you see that this is a scenario that only the most radical political ideologue would see as acceptable in a Court of Law.

    So pray tell.  What makes the judge better qualified to "ascertain" the nature of a threat than the parent of a defendant?  Of anyone else?  A judge's expertise is not in this area.  In this area he's just a guy, that's all.  To ensure that there is ordered liberty in the Courtroom setting, judgments like that ought to be the sole province of people who know what the hell they are doing.

    Parent

    How about this: (none / 0) (#51)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 06:35:03 PM EST
    First, I didn't say that the judge was "better qualified to 'ascertain' the nature of a threat" than anyone else. You're still stuck on the "special treatment for judges" idea--something I've been trying to convince you is most certainly not the case since my first comment upthread.

    Second, how about this for gun rights: Anyone has a right to defend themself. Such right should be exercised in a reasonable fashion. I deem a "reasonable fashion" to include incidents involving actual violence (as here). Where violence is threatened, I deem it reasonable to use the threat of defense--even a threat of defense with a (gasp!) firearm--to deter the threat.

    So, the answer to your question is "no." I don't have a problem with the defendant's mother trying to protect him in court, especially where actual violence is being done.

    As for "radical" political belief, I'm astounded that you actually believe that self-defense or defense of other is simply not allowed inside a courtroom. I honestly don't know what to say about that except, REALLY?

    Parent

    Addendum: (none / 0) (#52)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 06:40:13 PM EST
    I should note for the sake of completeness that while I fully believe that the privileges to self-defense and defense of other still exist in courtrooms, I also support the policy of requiring security screening and prohibiting the carrying of firearms in court buildings. There are good reasons for preventing "visitors" in court buildings from carrying weapons. That does not mean that they are stripped of the privilege of self-defense, should they be confronted with violence in the courthouse hallways.

    Parent
    Is self defense (none / 0) (#53)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 08:55:20 PM EST
    a privilege or a right?

    Parent
    Well you can't (none / 0) (#55)
    by glanton on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 09:51:19 PM EST
    Have it both ways, Gabe.  Either you believe this
    prohibiting the carrying of firearms in court buildings

    or not.  

    The only way the hypothetical mother is going to have a firearm in the courtroon is if there are not screenings and if there is no prohibition.  In a sane world, she won't have the option.  
    And yes, only an extremist would argue that it would be all right for her to carry a gun into the courtroom.  Has nothing to do with defending herself.  

    Has to do with the fact that the Building is supposed to be secure. That's what we pay for.  Once again, with feeling, what are all those cops and all that security setup doing ther, anyway?

    BTW: They were able to restrain the angry father.  Who restrained him?  People whose jobs it is to do such things.  And thank God, they didn't need to use their guns to do it, either.

    What did the Judge do?  Make an A$$ out of himself.

    Parent

    Heh. (none / 0) (#56)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 10:12:34 PM EST
    I see now why SUO found you so irritating earlier.

    As I said, it is perfectly reasonable to support the rights to defense and still support policies of disarming the general public in courthouses and federal buildings. Use your common sense.

    Parent

    No, you don't see, and are refusing to see (none / 0) (#58)
    by glanton on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 10:21:57 PM EST
    Because I posed a hypothetical in which a defendant's mother was carrying a gun in the Courtroom and pulled it out, and said only a political radical would support such behavior.  

    Anyone who goes back and re-reads this will see that you challenged this claim, no?

    Gasp!  It's radical to defend yourself?  To defend others?  Oh my God what about our rahts? The point is, Dear Gabe, there never was a question of self-defense here!  It was always about non-enforcement officers carrying firearms in the Courthouse.  

    That's at the very heart of this thread.  Go back and read it if you don't believe me, Gabe.

    Like sarcasmo, and like a lot of other people on this board from all sides of political persuasion, it wouldn't hurt you to read the initial post, and to read other people's posts all the way through, before you hold forth about them.

     

    Parent

    And then (none / 0) (#59)
    by glanton on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 10:33:56 PM EST
    You speak of "common sense."  ROTFLMFAO.

    Common sense would dictate that only enforcement officers have guns in Courtrooms, just as only Air Marshalls and Police Officers would have guns in Airports.  That's common sense. Get to know it.

    Parent

    Gabe (and Glanton) (none / 0) (#61)
    by Peaches on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:20:00 AM EST
    I got myself into this because I happen to work in a courthouse, now I find myself trying to take a position on this when I really don't have one. Here's my common sense take.

    1.) I don't carry a weapon nor do I have a permit to carry one. I prefer to be in public ignorantly believing that the majority of other citizens sharing the public space with me also are not carrying concealed weapons.

    2.) I support the second amendment, but with restrictions that go further than the NRA.

    3.) On occupation that I can think of (and there are probably more that I am not thinking of) where I can see the necessity of carrying of concealed weapon for self-defense is a judge.

    4.) I think the judge is dumb for carrying a weapon into the courtroom and also for revealing it in an apparent scuffle. I think in a court room only the bailiff should be carrying a weapon or security guards at most. I also think it is reasonable to search those who are going into and out of the courtroom for concealed weapons.

    For Glanton -- when I said that there is other business going on in courthouses, I was not refering to other courtcases. I was refering to routine and mundane county business that has nothing to do with the the court system, but more to do with county and record keeping, licensing, property taxes, etc. The majority of business in a county court house in the state of Minnesota, has nothing to do with judges and courts.

    Finally, the reason I don't worry about this and whether or not people are carrying guns is because   it seems fairly insignificant, even in the case referenced - a judge pulling a concealed weapon during a scuffle in one court house in a big nation and no one got hurt (sounds like a slow news day). Meanwhile, we are still in Iraq, suicide bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan killing citizens and soldiers, sectarian violence involving Iraqi police force, Iran holding British offciers, Palestine/Israeli conflict, and I got vegetables to attend to.  

    Parent

    I see (none / 0) (#63)
    by glanton on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 11:33:19 AM EST
    Where you're coming from, especially with respect to that last paragraph. But here on this board, and the reason I have contributed so passionately to it, we see the consequences of the same strain of political extremism that has given rise to the significant issues you name, and a host of others as well.  

    The kind of extremism where someone cannot say without any qualifiers, 'gee, glanton, that's a pretty ridiculous scenario, a defendant's mother in a courtroom with a gun'--parsing instead with broad terms like 'self-defense'--this mentality is the kind of narrow mindedness and unwillingness to consider context that got us into so many of the messes we're currently in.

    We all have our 'hotbutton' issues and this is one of mine, people who are so ideologically married to the subject of guns that

    A)they think them absolutely interchangable with "self-defense', as if without one there cannot ever under any circumstances be the other (thus Gabe's stubborn parsing with respect to the hypothetical mother);

    and B)they therefore remain willfully blind to context.

    The you have as a corollary C)they do everything they can with language to make it appear reasonable for a Judge to be packing heat in a Courtroom.  Note sarcasmo's insistence that the term "Officer of the Court" somehow matters in this context.  As if being an "Officer of the Court" has a freaking thing to do with the physical use of force.  Talk about tortured language, it would make Gonzales proud.  Same with people citing all of Merrett's handgun training.  As if that matters.  Anybody can take handgun training, learn to hit the minutest target from the absurdist angle imaginable, and it doesn't matter in this context.  In this context, trained with a gun or not, Judge Merrett was just an A$$hole with a gun.  

    Anyway, if a person cannot see something as simple as the import of keeping guns in the Courtroom to an absolute bare minimum (only law enforcement officers), then they're going to have an even harder time grappling with more complicated issues, and in the end they really need to shed the ideological baggage and smell the common sense.

    Parent

    My Sentiments (none / 0) (#64)
    by Peaches on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 12:08:17 PM EST
    are generally in line with yours, but I'm not nearly as passionate about this issue. I think you probably realize who your interlocutors are and their tendencies in Gabe and Sarc. They are reasonable people, but that does not mean they will be persuaded by your or my arguments. Like all good interlocutors they shift the debate in their favor and draw the line where they are comfortable and that is why it is an issue of law and order and self-defense for them. We are no different and will attempt to shift the debate in our favor and draw the line at where we believe the debate should reside and that is reasonable expectation of behavior in the courtroom. The fact that compromise is hard to reach is simply a matter of being stubborn on both ends and refusing to accept the terms of the debate our opponents are offering. It is not that unusual and I don't think you should take offense. As you commented earlier, you have had good discussions with Sarc and that is all we can really expect when we come here. We shouldn't expect to persuade our opponents to change their opinions and views of the world - it happens, but it is rare. A more reasonable expectation is that our interlocutors expand our own horizens as we attempt to understand the debate in their terms. The fact that we make this attempt should not mean that we have the expectation that our opponent does the same, though. But, I think that is where the frustration comes in. At least that is when I get frustrated and realize the need to step back and take a deep breath.

    That's what I think anyway.

    Parent

    That is well said (none / 0) (#65)
    by glanton on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 12:24:07 PM EST


    Parent
    I agree. (none / 0) (#66)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 12:28:11 PM EST


    Parent
    Just to be clear (none / 0) (#67)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 12:43:38 PM EST
    since I have a feeling some people might be ascribing a position to me that I did not claim and do not hold.

    I don't like the idea that a judge - or anybody - in a courtroom has a hidden weapon.

    I don't like the idea that someone standing beside me in a grocery store, a Home Depot or my sons' schools might have a hidden weapon.

    However, I don't expect that just because I don't like something, that that thing is, therefor, by definition, wrong, that it should be made illegal, and that the people that do like it are "A$$holes," or whatever.

    The judge has the right to carry a concealed weapon in the courtroom.

    Should we support all our rights? Or just the ones we "feel" are the correct ones?

    Parent

    That is fair (none / 0) (#68)
    by glanton on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 12:56:20 PM EST
    Obviously we strongly disagree on this, but throughout this thread you have given me a lot to chew on, and no doubt I will still be doing so long after this thread is buried.

    For the record, for all the combativeness with which I have written about this, I never said you or Gabe were  A$$holes, and don't hold your breath on me ever saying something like that to you.  I have done my best with everyone since I've been on here, though occasionally falling short with Jim, to limit the combat to arguments made, not people making them.  

    I did of course say the person, Judge Merrett was an A$$hole, for bringing his gun into the Courtroom and then for pulling it out.  And then for being so cavalier about it in interview.    

    Parent

    All good, g-man (none / 0) (#70)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 12:58:43 PM EST
    Thanks.

    Parent
    Oh man (none / 0) (#69)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 12:56:34 PM EST
    You've all had a kumbaya moment while I was writing my piece.

    Well written Peaches.

    Parent

    Wouldn't it be great (none / 0) (#71)
    by Peaches on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:12:36 PM EST
    If we could all give each other big hugs?

    Parent
    Hah. (none / 0) (#72)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:30:37 PM EST
    Dirty hippy. Or, in the alternative, gay.  ;)

    Parent
    Also (none / 0) (#23)
    by glanton on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 02:42:29 PM EST
    How did I insult you?  By saying your position risked obtuseness?  Well, if that's it then that's a pretty milquetoas insult, and one that was aimed not at you but at your position.

    Parent
    You make my point (none / 0) (#20)
    by glanton on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 02:37:49 PM EST
    I am aware, and indeed delighted, that these people don't get to carry guns into the coutrtoom.  What I am asking is why is a judge special?  Surely you can answer this.

    Contrary to TL's comment, however, there are many things that distinguish a police officer in terms of carrying a gun into the courtroom.  Things like training with the weapon, knowing when to actually whip one out, and painstakingly being accountable for each and every bullet that they let fly.

    This is common sense, people.  The function of a judge in a courtroom setting has nothing whaveter to do with weilding guns.

    Again, Christ on a crumb heap.  

    This comment (none / 0) (#24)
    by glanton on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 02:43:31 PM EST
    Was for Wile.  Don't know why it didn't connect to his comment.

    Parent
    If (none / 0) (#30)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 04:05:16 PM EST
    the judge went through handgun training, I have no problem with him carrying in court.  There has been instances of judges being attacked in the past few years and in that vein, consider them to merit the carrying of weapons.  

    Parent
    Handgun training (none / 0) (#35)
    by glanton on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 04:14:17 PM EST
    Might teach you how to shoot straight, but not about when to shoot, where to shoot, and all the other things that (theoretically) come with being a police officer.  

    If there's a problem with judges being attacked, then the Courtroom security isn't very good, and that's the real problem.  Arming judges is a ludicrous solution.  

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#48)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 06:08:56 PM EST
    And I bet allowing people to defend themselves is ludicrous also.  

    And there is plenty of self defense handgun courses around for people to take if they desire.  

    Parent

    The problem with so many on here (none / 0) (#49)
    by glanton on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 06:17:57 PM EST
    Is there seems to be a part of your brain that at the slightest notion of gun rahts, that part goes off and drowns out all others.  Context shmontext, everybody has a raght to carry a gun whatever the setting.

    Again.  What in blazes do we even have security measures for?  If we're all, with just a little training how to shoot straight, just as qualified as a cop to carry guns in Court, then aren't we wasting tax dollars paying for all these cops and baliffs and cameras and detectors?

    Parent

    the only person in a courtroom (none / 0) (#21)
    by cpinva on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 02:39:52 PM EST
    who should have a gun, if anyone, is the bailif. certainly, not a judge, who is supposed to be a completely objective 3rd party, a trier of fact & law. that he/she has a permit is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.

    if our courts have gotten so dangerous that a judge feels the need to have a gun behind the bench, than it's time to re-think court security, not make it less secure, by adding more guns to the environment.

    Still, they keep a baseball bat behind the bar.

    the odds of an innocent bystander being hit by an errant swing are nil, compared to the odds of one being shot by a person with poor aim, in the heat of the moment.

    SUO (none / 0) (#54)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 09:19:29 PM EST
    Now that you mention it, I'm not really sure. It's actually an affirmative defense for things like battery and murder. To the extent that one has the "right" to assert it in your own defense, I suppose it's a right.

    Priveledge or right..... (none / 0) (#73)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:38:14 PM EST
    Sarc's question got me thinking too....I'd say the right to defend yourself is a god-given, inalienable right.  It has to be.  However, the right to defend yourself with a gun must be considered a priveledge, as not everyone has the right to own a gun (ex-cons, minors, etc).  

    So I guess the only right to self-defense that is available to all of us is self defense using our bare-hands, or maybe a Louisville Slugger.

    Parent

    yeah (none / 0) (#74)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:51:06 PM EST
    That's why I asked, I'm not sure either. I just googled "self defense right."

    Looks to me like that's one big issue and probably deserving of it's own thread...

    scribe?

    Parent

    Just because they are so true (none / 0) (#57)
    by glanton on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 10:12:41 PM EST
    So commonsensical.  Just because of the unbelievability that so many on this board, including the original poster, either sympathize with or fully support what the ignoramus Judge did.  

    I give thee, some kjensen quotes:

    The idea that a judge will save the day once a guard has been over-powered by a defendant (handcuffed in this example) is, well, hard to take seriously.  A judge is going to make things OK after the law-enforcement contingent has failed?  Whatever.

    The idea that judges or lawyers should be armed is specious.  Why them and not the rest of the people in the courtroom?  See first point.  If someone gets a gun in a courtroom, everyone is at risk.  If self-defense is the idea, everyone should have a gun.

    It is incredibly irresponsible to pretend that as lawyers we are at greatest risk in the courtroom.  We are not.  Everyone else present is at least as likely to be a target as we are, and unless you are willing to have them carrying weapons, this post makes no sense.

    More info (none / 0) (#62)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 11:05:25 AM EST
    Merrett said Monday he would do the same thing again if a similar situation arose in his courtroom. He said he never put his finger on the trigger or pointed the gun at anyone.

    [snip]

    Most judges in Duval County have concealed weapons permits and have gone through firearms training even if they don't carry a gun. Merrett, a former assistant state attorney, said he has had extensive firearms training.

    State Attorney Harry Shorstein said the judge committed no crime.

    [snip]

    Merrett said because of the way his courtroom is configured, he couldn't see the scuffle below his bench, so he drew his gun as a precaution.

    "I didn't know if he was going after me or the bailiffs or the defendant," the judge said.

    Merrett said he held the gun at his side while he peered over the bench. Once he saw that the man was subdued, he said he handed the gun to his courtroom clerk and asked her to lock it in a drawer.

    Doesn't sound irresponsible to me.

    Parent

    I'd just like for you all to watch this (none / 0) (#75)
    by chickenman7 on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 03:02:39 AM EST
    and tell me if this lawyer, John Merrett, is as "dumb as a rock."

    http://xenutv.wordpress.com/2007/03/28/here-come-da-judge/

    Go to the second video, and the third if you're intrigued (the first is local news coverage of the event), and let me know how you feel. I know Judge Merrett quite well, and he assures me that he merely pulled out his gun, held it at his side, checked to make sure no one was coming at him, and got rid of it (by handing it to the Clerk). His idea was not to gallantly "save the day" as a "gunslinger," but more practically, as a natural response after many years as a criminal prosecutor and investigator in high-risk cases (participating in drug raids, murder investigations, mafia investigations), to protect his own skin, and more importantly, as anyone with even the most minuscule training training in self defense knows is important, to ensure a secure perimeter (around himself).

    The victim's father was released, and Judge Merrett ordered that he be brought back into HIS courtroom if any charges were brought against him.

    His Honor indeed has extensive firearms training, as I have accompanied him on many of his trips to the range (weekly, if not daily). He indeed carries his sidearm everywhere that it is lawful, not just in his courtroom, and, probably not surprisingly, has had to pull it on an attacker.

    Given his background, upbringing, and general life history, it is unlikely that any of you would have acted any differently.

    Judge Pulls Out a Handgun in Court | 74 comments (74 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment