Judge, jury, and potential executioner?

This is the exact kind of person I want to have a gun. Educated and hesitant to use it.

The NRA wins this round.

Yeah, it's admirable that in a room with police present an educated man feels the need to draw his pistol because of a fistfight.

In a world where we've seen deadly violence in the courthouse, a judge is wise in using all available protective measures at his disposal. A judge is often the primary target of violence in a courtroom, so if he feels threatened he should be allowed self defense.

And he was smart enough to hand off his weapon to an officer before going down into the court to access the situation.

Do you really not get how stupid that sounds?

Isn't that supposed to be the bailiff and security officers jobs? Maybe instead of a giving guns judges we could just put them in bullet proof glass cages?

Judge Dredd!

Maybe he wanted to make sure the DA wasn't getting acid thrown in his face. It happens you know...

Everyone has a right to defend themselves, so long as that right doesn't infinge upon other people's rights to defend themselves.

The judge got scared, pulled his gun, and then removed its presence from the brouhaha as soon as possible. That's a responsible gun owner, and I have no problem with people like that.

People who hate guns need to accept that we live in a violent world, and even the most gentle soul has an obligation to his family to defend himself. Several judges were recently threatened in their courtrooms, and given the historical context, this judge acted appropriately.

I'm coming around on guns. The Founding Fathers weren't gun nuts, but they understood the need to have a force representing the people distinct from the elected government. In a similar way, we in Canada have the Queen. Just don't count on her to have your back after her fifth beer, because by then she's obsessed with pussy and won't even notice a male voice.

Concealed gun laws are idiotic. And dangerous. If a freaking judge pulls out his piece when he doesn't have to, what do you think all the other idiots (which since we're talking about Florida might be high number) out there are going to do?

Isn't that what we do by paying our taxes (which pay the salaries of the people who defend us) and living within the law? When did that obligation extend to having to arm ourselves as well?

Don't get me wrong, the judge acted reasonably in my book, I just think you're reaching a bit here with the 'we must arm ourselves' bit.

he didn't say we must arm ourselves.

he said that a man has an obligation to his family to protect himself.

it's all well and good to think that we pay people (police in this case) to protect us, but doesn't that only work if they're there on the scene instantly? Up here in Vancouver they recently released the arrival times for police to the most urgent of 911 calls. 12 minutes. Now tell me, if you're being attacked or threatened to the point where some feel it necessary to produce a weapon, what good does it do you to have the paid help 12 minutes out? By then all they'll usually find is a crime scene.

You're more likely to shoot yourself or a family member than an armed intruder. Fact.

Look at the context. We're not talking about baseball bats or harsh language.

Why even bother having a police force, why even bother paying our taxes if we're all going to arm ourselves? Surely the police would just get in the way?

I would never own a gun, and I think the original intent of weapons in the constitution is outdated in the age of nuclear weapons and robot airplanes.

In this case the judge acted responsibly, and I think you can only take the argument of "that's the job of the police", so far.

Forget about guns, if you have the opportunity to save somebody's life, are you going to not act because that is the job of a fireman, policeman or paramedic?

Judges are targeted, unless you provide them with 24/7 armed guards, I find the argument of "it's the job of the police" a bit desperate.

Don't courtrooms have metal detectors? And if not they should.

OH, I agree he was stupid to go down there in the first place. That is what the bailiffs are supposed to do....

Speaking of things sounding stupid, so is the implied sarcasm in that statement. Judges face criminal threats frequently, and those threats are acted upon from time to time. As far as a classification of citizen that should be authorized a CCW permit, a top officer of the court ranks pretty highly.

And regarding "a fistfight", this wasn't an incident of two drunks slugging it out over a broad in a bar. This was a distraught father actively looking to kill the person accused of sexually assaulting his son. It's also not inconceivable that the father could also have been going after the judge for the ruling, or the melee itself generated the rare situation where the defendant could have used that opportunity to grab one of the officers preventing the attacks gun at the same time. And regardless of those hypotheticals, anyone trained properly is quite capable of killing someone without a gun, as many a "fisfight" has resulted in one of the combatants deaths. Any and all of those situations imply lives are at risk, and a responsible court official assessing the situation properly could have made the difference between one of the bailiffs going home in a body bag or not.

The whole "no one should have a gun permit but police" is a naive and myopic perspective. Should everyone be carrying a gun? Certainly not, but this case is certainly not an example of why CCWs are a problem.

Don't give me this bullshit about 'lives in danger'. Don't be such a pussy. Guns don't need to be drawn every time blood starts to boil. In fact, that usually only makes the problem worse! Or are you someone who's a proponent of pulling out a gun in a strip club parking lot when two people start jawing at each other? You never know...one of them might know the Five-Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique! Pulling a gun will probably calm the situation, right?

However, if things do get to the point where a trained professional with a weapon is needed...guess what? There's a few of those in the fucking room! It's a courthouse and the judge had a cop right fucking next to him at the time.

Judges judge, police police. Cops don't sentence people, and judges don't police.

A courthouse is hardly your average place where "blood starts to boil" (i.e. a strip club parking lot is an ignorant comparison). The lack of served alcohol tends to make altercations there a considerably different nature, as does the fact that in almost all cases, one of the parties involved is facing extended periods of incarceration.

I'd also say a judge who's legally obtained a CCW permit,which normally tends to involve some training and testing, albeit not 6 weeks of police academy, is also not a fair comparison to your local good Samaritan pulling a 9mm in the aforementioned parking lot. Being extremely familiar with the law, court houses, criminal elements, and the types of altercations that can occur at those premises puts him in a pretty fair position to act a bit more responsibly.

Also court bailiffs aren't exactly the "creme de le creme" with regards to law enforcement. It a job for older, off the beat police looking to take it easy. I'm not sure If I'd be willing to rely on old Rusty from "The Peoples Court" to be the only person protecting me if I were a judge either.

So, you don't trust a cop, but you're more than willing to take the chance with a civilian just because it "normally tends to involve some training". That doesn't make any logical sense.

I was speaking from the Judges perspective with regards to the bailiffs (hence the statement, "...If I were a Judge either").

From a citizen perspective, I don't have an issue with a judge carrying a side arm, and from the story this thread is based on, haven't been given a reason to change that opinion.

Yes, in this case I would trust the Judgment of a highly educated Judge over that of a bailiff.

Great, then you'd advocate doing away with bailiffs and just arming all the judges, right?

It's not either or, and not what I'm trying to say at all, which of course you already know.

Under your awful logic, Captain, you'd rather have a highly educated Judge build your house than you would a carpenter.

Being the grandson of a carpenter, I think it's a much complex and hard to learn skill than being a bailiff, specially if the judge is trained on how to use the weapon.

I guess I don't see judges, which leave and breathe in the world of law and interact with criminals all the time, as average Joe citizens acting as vigilantes.

Apparently, part of getting a law degree now requires weapons and situation training.

Look, I know a lot of lawyers and they deal with criminals and police all of the time. At no point have any of them gained a better understanding of how to deal with a fistfight because they're been surrounded by people who have partaken in them. Also, none of them have thought it was necessary to bring a gun to court. Of course, they're not cowboys, either.

I think it was clearly established that the judge in this instance has all the necessary training to qualify carrying this weapon into court, so again, nobody (specially not me) is saying that judges have an inherent proficiency for handling weapons.

My point is that I would think a judge is even better qualified in many instances to know when a weapon is necessary or not, depending on the situation in his courtroom. If you want to argue that the average plaintiff is better because of their specialized training, then sure go ahead, but I would tend to think a judge is even less inclined to use force than a policeman.