Waffle House Shooting (Good Guy Wins)

[whitefeather]

I know this is an old thread but I am new to this forum. Having read all of the responses to this thread, it is apparent that sides are drawn on how to respond given this scenario.

I tend to be one that would only involve myself if a perp entered the restaurant with shots fired or pointed a gun at me or my family. I am not a LEO nor do I want to be one.

As soon as this CC holder involved himself, he potentially made the situation worse and will have to pay a price. The monetary and emotional cost will last for years.

 

[snipingshadow]

so as long as he never points a gun at you... you allow him to approach you with gun in hand and search you for articles and when he does somehow he sees your gun and shoots not only you but your whole family or he decides he is going to kill somebody as he runs out the door just to prove a point its going to be you because you are the last one he sees. Once shots have been fired its too late to act. You are reacting and have no control over the situation and somebody has already died and YOU failed them. Great logic.

 

[Treo]

so as long as he never points a gun at you... you allow him to approach you with gun in hand and search you for articles and when he does somehow he sees your gun and shoots not only you but your whole family or he decides he is going to kill somebody as he runs out the door just to prove a point its going to be you because you are the last one he sees. Once shots have been fired its too late to act. You are reacting and have no control over the situation and somebody has already died and YOU failed them. Great logic.

Because this happens in so many cases right?

 

[maybejim]

Because this happens in so many cases right?

If you are willing to play the odds, you don't carry a gun because the odds are you'll never need it. On the other hand, it only has to happen once to you and/or your family.

 

[snipingshadow]

Because this happens in so many cases right?

Your logic that it only happens .02 percent is a fail. Im not risking my life. You gamble your life like dante if you want. Ill make it 100% certain he'll never fire a shot. Given the two stances ill survive and you wont if shtf and bullets start flying. You react while I act. Your ass not mine.

 

[Treo]

If you are willing to play the odds, you don't carry a gun because the odds are you'll never need it. On the other hand, it only has to happen once to you and/or your family.

I’ve made my position on this pretty clear I carry a gun because the odds of a personal attack going bad are higher than the odds of a robbery going bad. Conflating two totally different situations is like comparing apples to Chinese babies.

Your logic that it only happens .02 percent is a fail.

Not my logic, FBI/DoJ statisics. You can argue against them all you want but it doesn't change them

 

[Firefighterchen]

I tend to be one that would only involve myself if a perp entered the restaurant with shots fired or pointed a gun at me or my family. I am not a LEO nor do I want to be one.

What do you think bad guys do with their handguns when they rob a place? They point it at people! So what your saying is, you would have also gotten involved if you were in ss shoes during the robbery.

Not sure what being an LEO has to do with you protecting yourself...as they have no duty to protect you so you wouldn't be an LEO in that instance anyways.

 

[whitefeather]

"Not sure what being an LEO has to do with you protecting yourself...as they have no duty to protect you so you wouldn't be an LEO in that instance anyways."

Law enforcement officers do exactly that, "Enforce the Law". It is there duty to enforce those laws being violated, not "my duty".

Sure, I can protect myself from harm but not to interject myself into an area of law enforcement. I stand behind my original comments to this thread. If I am in a place of business being robbed, I will not enforce the law but will protect myself if directly involved by the perp.

 

[whitefeather]

so as long as he never points a gun at you... you allow him to approach you with gun in hand and search you for articles and when he does somehow he sees your gun and shoots not only you but your whole family or he decides he is going to kill somebody as he runs out the door just to prove a point its going to be you because you are the last one he sees. Once shots have been fired its too late to act. You are reacting and have no control over the situation and somebody has already died and YOU failed them. Great logic.

Wow! you have interjected a lot of what if's to my comments in relation to the original subject. I could do the same and give you a scenario of, what if you enter a place of business and see a gun being held on an employee by someone you do not know. Given your comments and signature; "Sometimes the best defense is to go on the offensive and strike first." you would shoot the person holding the weapon. What if it turns out that the holder of the weapon is a plain clothes officer in the performance of his duty?

 

[Firefighterchen]

"Not sure what being an LEO has to do with you protecting yourself...as they have no duty to protect you so you wouldn't be an LEO in that instance anyways."

Law enforcement officers do exactly that, "Enforce the Law". It is there duty to enforce those laws being violated, not "my duty".

Maybe I misread your post. When you speak of protecting yourself from a bad guy pointing a firearm at you, and then follow up with "I am not an LEO nor do I want to be one," I presumed that LEO statement was in relation to protecting yourself statement that preceded it. I didn't see anywhere in your post indicating law enforcement of breaking laws. I apologize if I misread it, but that is how I read it.

Sure, I can protect myself from harm but not to interject myself into an area of law enforcement. I stand behind my original comments to this thread. If I am in a place of business being robbed, I will not enforce the law but will protect myself if directly involved by the perp.

Again, if it's stemmed from a misread, then it's just a misunderstanding. I have no problem with protecting yourself, there was just no indication that you changed from self defense to law enforcement.

 

[Treo]

No only the last one was a what if. **edited for brevity** Using fear to get what they want.

I'm just going to throw this out one time, it appears from some of your recent posts that this may sitll end up in court. If that is not true then please disregard the following.

If this is true I would suggest you shut up about thie incident until such time as you have been 100% exonerated

 

[Scouse]

I'm just going to throw this out one time, it appears from some of your recent posts that this may still end up in court. If that is not true then please disregard the following.

If this is true I would suggest you shut up about the incident until such time as you have been 100% exonerated

As SS has stated, this was a Robbery, not an undercover officer, short on coffee money.

With my Glock 19 I can hit an eye socket at 5 yds, it was less than that.


I would have taken the same shot, I have the skill, the robber showed threat.

You can not give the advantage to an armed robber in this instance, front sight, press, you have to take the initiative, no choice.

In my case to protect my Wife, and I. We would have waited for a booth. We always do.

The good news, we would never have gone in to a Smoking allowed Waffle House!

 

[rrman12280]

I'm just going to throw this out one time, it appears from some of your recent posts that this may sitll end up in court. If that is not true then please disregard the following.

If this is true I would suggest you shut up about thie incident until such time as you have been 100% exonerated

I feel for what you had to endure SS, but this is probably good advice. For your benefit.

Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2

 

[CharlesMorrison]

Awesome use of deadly force. I just hope the other guy keeps running and doesn't come gunning.
KK

That's not the right kind of comment. The use of deadly force should never be considered "awesome". Taking a human life, justified or not, is a very serious matter.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

How many of you have had to kill a person in self defense?

 

[CharlesMorrison]

I feel great sadness for you. I don't carry a gun to "protect the sheep". That is the LEO's job. You don't get to just shoot someone because you have a gun. I protect me and my own, not every person
on the street.
I don't know about you but the man in the Waffle House took it upon himself to do the job of the cop. He had no authority to draw down and issue verbal commands. He is a private citizen, not a cop. He escalated the situation, not diffused it.
You sound like a very dangerous gun owner to me. Like you just can't wait to shoot someone yourself. If you are that fun ho, I'll visit you in jail to laugh at you.

 

[BluesStringer]

How many of you have had to kill a person in self defense?

Thank the Good Lord above, I have not. I am, however, curious as to the point of the question. Please don't base your answer on the tone of one or two posters whom you may perceive as enthusiastic or desirous to shoot someone. You addressed the question to us all. Please keep your answer broad enough to include us all. Thanks.

Blues

 

[BluesStringer]

I don't know about you but the man in the Waffle House took it upon himself to do the job of the cop. He had no authority to draw down and issue verbal commands. He is a private citizen, not a cop. He escalated the situation, not diffused it.

First, please learn how to use the quote function. It is not clear who you are addressing. Are you aware that the shooter at the Waffle House is actively participating in this thread? If so, are you addressing him directly, or only Keykutter, or both?

Second, you are absolutely wrong on the facts. The shooter at the Waffle House had every authority to do what he did, and the code that gives him that authority has been posted in this thread.

In part, the facts he dealt effectively with before Monday-morning-quarterbacks even had the chance to juxtapose his actions against the law are that the robbers were forcing people face down on the floor and making them low-crawl to a back room. That is clearly a deadly threat to everyone either in, or on their way crawling on their bellies, to the back room. I know of very few jurisdictions where a person legally carrying a weapon has no authority to deploy that weapon in defense of him/herself or others, but I know for a fact from the code itself that in his jurisdiction, this shooter not only had that authority, but he knew the law before ever strapping up. You might try the same before typing up a post that exposes that you don't know what you're talking about.

Blues

 

[CharlesMorrison]

True, I jumped in to comment before I realized the thread was 50 pages long! The only thing I don't know was the law in his jurisdiction. I don't live there so I guess I should have looked it up before I posted.I know that in some locations, there are different laws and codes. I am very new to this site and I don't know how everything functions but I will learn.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

The question was laid out pretty simply and addressed to "all".
As I am new here, I get the feeling on this topic that there are a lot of people who are looking for someone to shoot.
So the question stands.