Waffle House Shooting (Good Guy Wins)

[maybejim]

C'mon, SG.....a thug with a knife isn't in the same realm as a thug with a gun. Not even close, especially in the context of the Waffle House scenario. Not a good example. And it's not about minding your own business......it's about keeping calm, not escalating a situation where nobody has been injured, and not creating a bloodbath.

Yet most good self defense training will teach you if there is a man with a knife and a man with a gun within 20 feet threatening you, you shoot the man with the knife first. That's because the man with the knife can get to you in less than 2 seconds and is more likely to be able to cause life threatening injuries than the man with the gun.

 

[SGB]

You’re comparing apples to coconuts, most robberies end with the robber getting the money and leaving, in the incident you mention someone had already crossed the line and was attacking people.
In the Salt Lake incident I would have thought twice about trying to detain the guy (which I’m not trained to do) as opposed to just shooting him (which I am trained to do).

The man with the knife stabbing other people is no threat to you and when he's finished he'll most likely leave ............ so just mind yourself, isn't that your reasoning? Or is it you're willing to shoot a guy with a knife from a distance who's threatening others but don't want to engage a man with a gun who's threatening others?

 

[Treo]

To me... if we apply the self-defense standards that some members like to express on this forum, the thug with the knife is less worthy of my attention than the thug with the gun is. I find it entertaining how the same people who say, "Don't mess with the robber with the gun - just let him get the money and run" will then say "the thug with the knife is different! Stop him or shoot him!" Really?!?

You're focusing on tools not behaviors (kinds what the antis do) Most armed robberies (gun, knife, baseball bat, whatever) are done in less than 2 minutes. The robber walks in,makes his demand for cash, gets his cash and walks out. In a situation like that I will be a good witness.

In the specific instance SGB cited money or robbery wasn't a motive it was a nut job with a weapon(the choice of weapon being irrelevant to the behavior) trying to kill people. in that situation everyone is threatened and a response is required.

You're a smart guy, you should understand the difference

 

[SGB]

Anyone who displays a deadly weapon with the threat to use that deadly weapon poses a deadly threat, to wait until that threat is actualized and injury or death has been inflicted before taking defense action is pure

idiocy.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Anyone who displays a deadly weapon with the threat to use that deadly weapon poses a deadly threat, to wait until that threat is actualized and injury or death has been inflicted before taking defense action is pure

idiocy.

Exactly. And it isn't going to matter to me if that deadly weapon is a bazooka, a pink .380, or a knife.

 

[B2Tall]

Anyone who displays a deadly weapon with the threat to use that deadly weapon poses a deadly threat, to wait until that threat is actualized and injury or death has been inflicted before taking defense action is pure

idiocy.

Comparing a BG with a knife to a BG with a gun is pure idiocy.

Sometimes the so-called "cure" is worse than the disease.........

 

[Treo]

Anyone who displays a deadly weapon with the threat to use that deadly weapon poses a deadly threat, to wait until that threat is actualized and injury or death has been inflicted before taking defense action is pure

idiocy.

Ok, that’s your world view and you’re entitled to it.

First, I have to point out that the odds of me winning the lottery are better than the odds of me actually being in any business while it’s being robbed. So, this is all (IMO) pretty moot anyway. I'd also like to point out that bank robberies have occured w/out anyone but the robber and the teller being robbed knowing about it until the robber was gone. (you first have to know something is up before you can intervene)

I don’t know how many different ways I can say this but most of the time the robber isn’t going to shoot anyone. In the overwhelming majority of cases he is going to walk out the door with his 50 bucks w/ out firing a shot and no one is going to get hurt.

Since that is true, I believe that I am doing more to endanger the patrons of whatever business I’m at by starting a gun fight than by doing nothing.

Going back to existing statistical evidence the odds are so clearly in my favor that I’m willing to play them unless I see behaviors that have been identified as precursors to the robber killing everyone in the store.

As far as having some duty to society to intervene regardless, I don’t believe I have any such duty and I’m not going to act as if I do.

 

[Treo]

Comparing a BG with a knife to a BG with a gun is pure idiocy.

Sometimes the so-called "cure" is worse than the disease.........

You forgot the little censored smiley

 

[Keykutter]

Ok, that’s your world view and you’re entitled to it.

First, I have to point out that the odds of me winning the lottery are better than the odds of me actually being in any business while it’s being robbed. So, this is all (IMO) pretty moot anyway. I'd also like to point out that bank robberies have occured w/out anyone but the robber and the teller being robbed knowing about it until the robber was gone. (you first have to know something is up before you can intervene)

I don’t know how many different ways I can say this but most of the time the robber isn’t going to shoot anyone. In the overwhelming majority of cases he is going to walk out the door with his 50 bucks w/ out firing a shot and no one is going to get hurt.

Since that is true, I believe that I am doing more to endanger the patrons of whatever business I’m at by starting a gun fight than by doing nothing.

Going back to existing statistical evidence the odds are so clearly in my favor that I’m willing to play them unless I see behaviors that have been identified as precursors to the robber killing everyone in the store.

As far as having some duty to society to intervene regardless, I don’t believe I have any such duty and I’m not going to act as if I do.

In some locales your point may be correct. If you lived in SC and saw and experienced what takes place in this state, and witnessed the amount of the godless predatory practice's of the indiginous population, you may have a different point of view. You might not try to second guess them.

KK

 

[jhodge83]

In some locales your point may be correct. If you lived in SC and saw and experienced what takes place in this state, and witnessed the amount of the godless predatory practice's of the indiginous population, you may have a different point of view. You might not try to second guess them.

KK

indiginous population??

 

[Treo]

In some locales your point may be correct. If you lived in SC and saw and experienced what takes place in this state, and witnessed the amount of the godless predatory practice's of the indiginous population, you may have a different point of view. You might not try to second guess them.

KK

Do something for me, for one week take note of the robberies that you hear about on your local news, count the number of cases in which the robber so much as fires a shot. I think you'll find the second number is very close to zero.

 

[SGB]

Comparing a BG with a knife to a BG with a gun is pure idiocy.

Sometimes the so-called "cure" is worse than the disease.........

That you would feel this way is an indication of insufficient training. While the weapons are different the threat is equally imminent & lethal.

First, I have to point out that the odds of me winning the lottery are better than the odds of me actually being in any business while it’s being robbed. So, this is all (IMO) pretty moot anyway.

I'd also like to point out that bank robberies have occured w/out anyone but the robber and the teller being robbed knowing about it until the robber was gone. (you first have to know something is up before you can intervene)

I don’t know how many different ways I can say this but most of the time the robber isn’t going to shoot anyone. In the overwhelming majority of cases he is going to walk out the door with his 50 bucks w/ out firing a shot and no one is going to get hurt.

Since that is true, I believe that I am doing more to endanger the patrons of whatever business I’m at by starting a gun fight than by doing nothing.

Going back to existing statistical evidence the odds are so clearly in my favor that I’m willing to play them unless I see behaviors that have been identified as precursors to the robber killing everyone in the store.

As far as having some duty to society to intervene regardless, I don’t believe I have any such duty and I’m not going to act as if I do.

So you're agreeing with Rich_S in his quote below? Then why bother being armed? Ok, that’s your world view and you’re entitled to it.

 

[Treo]

So you're agreeing with Rich_S in his quote below? Then why bother being armed? Ok, that’s your world view and you’re entitled to it.

Nope, I never said that. I have been personally attacked and I did use a gun to defend myself. That is why I carry a gun for personal self defense. Not to play hero, not to play sheepdog, not to play crimestopper. I have no legal or moral "duty to respond" especially since I believe that most of the time my responding would only make things worse.

I don't know if you're a member over at THR but there was a thread over there a year or so back about some guy that tried to intervene in a robbery at a Burger King in Miami. According to the news reports he attempted to detain the robber and got shot to pieces. You should read the thread, it's very educational.

Apparently you don't agree with yourself in this post.

"It's easier to avoid conflict than it is to survive it" - SGB

 

[SGB]

Apparently you don't agree with yourself in this post.

"It's easier to avoid conflict than it is to survive it" - SGB

Apparently you don't understand what my sig line means.

 

[BluesStringer]

Nope, I never said that. I have been personally attacked and I did use a gun to defend myself. That is why I carry a gun for personal self defense. Not to play hero, not to play sheepdog, not to play crimestopper. I have no legal or moral "duty to respond" especially since I believe that most of the time my responding would only make things worse.

All well and good. So explain again why, if the law in the jurisdiction of a given criminal incident requires that witnesses provide statements, you would "slide out the back door before the cops got there" after it was over. You may (or may not) recall this exchange:

....and if I can I’m going to slip out the back door after he’s gone before the cops show up....

I get what you're saying about everything else, but you wouldn't feel a civic duty to be a witness after the robber was long gone?

Not even a little bit. I'm sure the other patron's statements would be more than sufficent

OK, no sense of civic duty....What if there was a legal duty to give a witness report? Would you break a law and still slip out the back door before the cops got there?

If I thought I could get a way w/it? Gone like yesterday's news

I see no evidence of you believing you have any duty to anything or anyone, up to and including the law itself. Has anything changed in your thinking since that exchange?

Blues

 

[Treo]

All well and good. So explain again why, if the law in the jurisdiction of a given criminal incident requires that witnesses provide statements, you would "slide out the back door before the cops got there" after it was over. You may (or may not) recall this exchange:

Given this poster has made it abundantly clear that he has me on ignore I’m not sure there’s a point to responding. I guess it may be beneficial to other readers though so here goes.

I did state that I wouldn’t stick around for the cops to show up if at all possible and I wouldn’t. I don’t see any point and I don’t recognize any moral obligation to do so. As for any legal obligation, I’ve broken bigger laws than that. FWIW Still no sense of civic duty either.

If the cops already have 5 or 6 or 2 or 3 witnesses as well a surveillance video of the event what in the Hell good is my two cents going to do?

Let me tell you exactly how that’s going to play out (assuming it was a walk in / walk out robbery) I’m going to waste 2 or three hours waiting for the cops to clear the scene and take my statement , then I may or may not be asked to waste more time looking through mug shots, then (assuming the ever actually catch the guy) I’m going to have to take unpaid time off work to go downtown for the trial, only to get there the day of and find out, after waiting three hours, that the case has been vacated (I.E. Junior plead out) and no one from the D.A’s office bothered to tell the witnesses. (Guess how I know this)

Yes, if there is any way I can avoid that load of bull**** and the attending hassle, I’m out of there like yesterday’s news.

And I will sleep like a baby.

I see no evidence of you believing you have any duty to anything or anyone, up to and including the law itself.

I must admit you are a very perceptive man.

Has anything changed in your thinking since that exchange?

Blues

Not a lick

I will add this though, my response assumes the robber walked in , robbed the place and walked out w/ no shots fired and no injuries to any one but the insurance agency.

If the robbery had escalated in any sense I'd be borrowing trouble to do anything other than play good, little prole and give a statement. (still no sense of civic duty though).

 

[Treo]

My biggest issue with this thread is that it appears that many respondents are assuming that because I’ve stated that I wouldn’t intervene in most cases that I wouldn’t intervene any case even though I’ve clearly stated the contrary several times.

Take any given 1000 robberies in 998 of them no shots are going to be fired, in the other 2 there are precursors to the robber opening fire. If the odds are that much in my favor that the guy's going going to take the money and run I'd be an idiot not to let him.

Just because I’m not going to start a gunfight to save the Waffle House’s insured money doesn’t mean I’m going to sit there ( as some have posted ) and watch the robber kill your wife and kids while I eat my waffles.

 

[NavyLCDR]

My biggest issue with this thread is that it appears that many respondents are assuming that because I’ve stated that I wouldn’t intervene in most cases that I wouldn’t intervene any case even though I’ve clearly stated the contrary several times.

Take any given 1000 robberies in 998 of them no shots are going to be fired, in the other 2 there are precursors to the robber opening fire. If the odds are that much in my favor that the guy's going going to take the money and run I'd be an idiot not to let him.

Just because I’m not going to start a gunfight to save the Waffle House’s insured money doesn’t mean I’m going to sit there ( as some have posted ) and watch the robber kill your wife and kids while I eat my waffles.

The thing is Treo - you, and several others, have said that you would do nothing to PREVENT the robber from killing my wife and kids while you eat your waffles. You have said that you will, in 99.8% of circumstances, not do anything until the criminal has actually physically ATTACKED (past tense) my wife and kids. Then, all of a sudden, after the attack has happened and people have already been wounded, it's more probable that you will act. Why the change of heart? Why not just let the robber escape? What difference does it make to you if the robber escapes with Waffle House money or Waffle House employee blood on their hands? You are willing to eat your waffles until you hear the bang of the gun going off, why not just continue to eat your waffles as the criminal runs out the door and maybe, if it isn't too much bother, render first aid to the injured victims after they have left.

 

[Treo]

The thing is Treo - you, and several others, have said that you would do nothing to PREVENT the robber from killing my wife and kids while you eat your waffles. You have said that you will, in 99.8% of circumstances, not do anything until the criminal has actually physically ATTACKED (past tense) my wife and kids. Then, all of a sudden, after the attack has happened and people have already been wounded, it's more probable that you will act. Why the change of heart? Why not just let the robber escape? What difference does it make to you if the robber escapes with Waffle House money or Waffle House employee blood on their hands? You are willing to eat your waffles until you hear the bang of the gun going off, why not just continue to eat your waffles as the criminal runs out the door and maybe, if it isn't too much bother, render first aid to the injured victims after they have left.

Please show me a post where I said that. The number of cases in which the robber just starts shooting people is vanishing small. From what I’ve read it appears to me that in the instances where the robber does start shooting it’s a planned event and there are definite precursors that I believe you have noted yourself.

As I have stated numerous times I am absolutely convinced that in 998 out of 1000 (not the same as 98 out of 100) I would put your wife and kids at more risk of harm by starting a gun fight than by doing nothing. Why would you want me to do something that I think is going to endanger your family?

 

[Treo]

This isn't posted to any one

You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts. It is a statistical fact that in most robberies no shots are fired and no one is harmed. How many different ways can I say that? You are more likely to win the lottery than you are to even be in the restaurant (or whatever business) when a robbery occurs. (FWIW Dave Ramsey stated on his radio show that you are more likely to be hit by lightning 17 times than you are to win the lottery)

The reason I carry a gun is for personal self defense the odds that someone would threaten me personally sufficient to justify deadly force are higher than that I would be in position to intervene in a robbery that is why I carry a gun not to play security guard for Waffle House why is that so hard to understand.

I’m curious to those that somehow feel I’m not doing my duty to mankind by not intervening (in a situation that I’ve never been in anyway) when you go into a restaurant do you position yourself to guard the cash register? How about a 711? If you go shopping do you post by the door while your family shops? Or do your actions reflect the odds of you actually needing to do any of those things?