Waffle House Shooting (Good Guy Wins)

[rrman12280]

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.

I would highly suggest you and anyone else who has not done so, to go back and read this entire thread to understand the full situation. The new posters to this thread are basing their opinions and statements from the last few pages that doesn't include the full story.

If you're going to comment on any thread, go and read all previous posts to understand the full conversation.

Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2

 

[rrman12280]

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

Ditto.......

Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2

 

[CharlesMorrison]

Get over yourself please. I made a mistake. Let me assure you that future posts will be vetted and clarified upon submission.
Thanks for making me feel so welcomed to the forums!

 

[rrman12280]

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.

We were typing at the same time. Point made and acknowledged.

Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2

 

[rrman12280]

Get over yourself please. I made a mistake. Let me assure you that future posts will be vetted and clarified upon submission.
Thanks for making me feel so welcomed to the forums!

See my previous post. Welcome to the forums. No harm, no foul.

Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Treo]

I get the feeling on this topic that there are a lot of people who are looking for someone to shoot.

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.

I'm not new here and I have been around for all 55 pages and I get the same feeling.

 

[rrman12280]

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

Fortunately, I have not had to face that. I hope I never do. Have you?

Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2

 

[rrman12280]

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.

Don't think so. But since I'm assuming you went back and caught up on the entire thread, I ask you. What would you have done in this situation with the information provided?

Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2

 

[BluesStringer]

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.

The bolded part is what I thought was the point of your question, but I didn't want to take such for granted. Thanks for clarifying it.

I think you seriously misunderstand much of what you have read though. While there are exceptions who see the general tenor of this forum much like you do, my perception is that most of us see this kind of venue as a place where people who have made the decision to arm themselves can come for support, encouragement, advice, self-edification, and to some degree, criticism, but only if it's constructive and offered without judgments that may or may not be well-based in fact or actual knowledge. That latter point should explain the tone of my previous reply to you, as well as the reason for this reply to the above bolded text.

In the specific case of the Waffle House incident, it started out with a tsunami of erroneous media reports and some posters here taking those reports and running with them without any further investigation or waiting for more facts to emerge. 300-and-some-odd posts into all the arguments over erroneous information, the shooter himself showed up and started trying to correct the wrong info. Some here immediately questioned his claimed identity, as well as continued judging his actions similarly as you did above by saying he had no authority, or he acted like a cowboy, or he was responsible for the thing having escalated yada yada yada. Most of us though, were (and remain) interested in the facts from his perspective that led to a legal use of a gun, because that's what this whole site is dedicated to learning about.

Your question, and the point it erroneously presupposes, is completely counter to what's going on here. Perhaps get the lay of the land before lumping "a lot" of us in your erroneous presuppositions, and you'd notice the things I've described here without having to ask uninformed questions. Just a thought....

Blues

 

[muccione]

A citizen defending himself? How was he defending himself? He only needed to defend himself because he decided to get involved. So many things can go wrong that sometimes it's best not to get involved. What if the BG sees your gun, opens fire in your direction, and hits innocent bystanders? What if he kills you? I would certainly be in a civill suit in my neck of the woods for shooting this guy. You need to think long and hard about these scenarios before leaving the house with a firearm.

So you would standby and watch a unarmed person get shot and wait till the BG aims at you to defend yourself. I can see how you instruct. "Wait till BG kills everyone around you before you draw, he might run out of bullets so you dont need to shoot" In my neck of the woods(NC) you can defend someone with deadly force who can't defend themselves.
Point is the BG was just that a BAD GUY with no good intentions.

 

[whitefeather]

So you would standby and watch a unarmed person get shot and wait till the BG aims at you to defend yourself. I can see how you instruct. "Wait till BG kills everyone around you before you draw, he might run out of bullets so you dont need to shoot" In my neck of the woods(NC) you can defend someone with deadly force who can't defend themselves.
Point is the BG was just that a BAD GUY with no good intentions.

You and many others on this site could stand to learn more from instructors such as Rich_S.

Due to the fact that I hold CCL's in several states, I have had the opportunity to take classes from several instructors. Scenarios of weapon use are always a large part of these classes. The response from these instructors has been the same.

No, we as licensees are not " sheep dogs". We are not enforcers of the law. We ONLY use deadly force to defend ourselves or family members. Anything else will cost you time, money and stress in defending your actions in court.

CharlesMorrison is correct when he believes many on this site are "looking for someone to shoot". If you are one of these types then get your weapon and go to any big cities, bad area, late at night. Lots of "bad guys" who will eventually give you reason to shoot.

Me, I will avoid all situations possible, that could lead to the use of my weapon and no, I will not defend you. I will make myself a good witness and notify law enforcement.

 

[SGB]

You and many others on this site could stand to learn more from instructors such as Rich_S.

Due to the fact that I hold CCL's in several states, I have had the opportunity to take classes from several instructors. Scenarios of weapon use are always a large part of these classes. The response from these instructors has been the same.

No, we as licensees are not " sheep dogs". We are not enforcers of the law. We ONLY use deadly force to defend ourselves or family members. Anything else will cost you time, money and stress in defending your actions in court.

CharlesMorrison is correct when he believes many on this site are "looking for someone to shoot". If you are one of these types then get your weapon and go to any big cities, bad area, late at night. Lots of "bad guys" who will eventually give you reason to shoot.

Me, I will avoid all situations possible, that could lead to the use of my weapon and no, I will not defend you. I will make myself a good witness and notify law enforcement.

Provided you survive your Rich_S Ostrich approach to self defense.

 

[Treo]

I think this thread needs a sound track

 

[SGB]

Don't worry Treo, no one will ever accuse you of being a Hero.

.............. after all that requires a selfless act.

 

[NavyLCDR]

You and many others on this site could stand to learn more from instructors such as Rich_S.

Due to the fact that I hold CCL's in several states, I have had the opportunity to take classes from several instructors. Scenarios of weapon use are always a large part of these classes. The response from these instructors has been the same.

No, we as licensees are not " sheep dogs". We are not enforcers of the law. We ONLY use deadly force to defend ourselves or family members. Anything else will cost you time, money and stress in defending your actions in court.

CharlesMorrison is correct when he believes many on this site are "looking for someone to shoot". If you are one of these types then get your weapon and go to any big cities, bad area, late at night. Lots of "bad guys" who will eventually give you reason to shoot.

Me, I will avoid all situations possible, that could lead to the use of my weapon and no, I will not defend you. I will make myself a good witness and notify law enforcement.

Some of us have training that teaches us that a person with a gun in their hand in the act of committing a crime is a deadly threat capable of killing anyone within range of that gun in less than one second. As the potential target of that deadly threat who could become a victim of that deadly threat in less than one second time, I will evaluate the situation and eliminate the deadly threat at the earliest opportunity when capable to do so when operational risk management (ORM) indicates that the chances of successfully eliminating the threat are acceptably greater than the chances of injuring an innocent bystander.

However, the greater number of people who do keep their guns in their holsters and accurately describe to police what happened, the greater the chances are that I won't even be charged with anything, so I do greatly appreciate all of the graduates of the Rich_S school of self defense out there. Carry on, just don't ever use your gun until bullets are actually being fired at you, like your training tells you.

 

[rrman12280]

Me, I will avoid all situations possible, that could lead to the use of my weapon and no, I will not defend you. I will make myself a good witness and notify law enforcement.

Nice to know if my wife was being raped or my kids beaten or kidnapped, you would sit down with a pen and paper.


Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2

 

[BluesStringer]

No, we as licensees are not " sheep dogs". We are not enforcers of the law. We ONLY use deadly force to defend ourselves or family members. Anything else will cost you time, money and stress in defending your actions in court.

What is it with newcomers lecturing us about who we would "do well" to listen to, and citing erroneous information as the justification for said lectures? You are wrong. The Waffle House incident happened in SC. The SC use of deadly force laws provide immunity from prosecution, both criminal and civil, if the force used met the requirements of the statute. Read it for yourself, Section 16-11-450, from the SC Legislature's own website, or take my word for it that I copied and pasted the following directly from that site:

SECTION 16-11-450. Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil actions; law enforcement officer exception; costs.

(A) A person who uses deadly force as permitted by the provisions of this article or another applicable provision of law is justified in using deadly force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of deadly force, unless the person against whom deadly force was used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his official duties and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using deadly force knows or reasonably should have known that the person is a law enforcement officer.

(B) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of deadly force as described in subsection (A), but the agency may not arrest the person for using deadly force unless probable cause exists that the deadly force used was unlawful.

(C) The court shall award reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of a civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (A).

The shooter in this case was not arrested, meaning that no probable cause for the illegal use of force was found by law enforcement or the DA, which means he is 100% immune from any costs flowing from his 100% legal actions.

All of this has been posted in this thread previously. All states' use of force laws are available online. There is simply no excuse for posting such unequivocal declarative statements when they're 100% wrong.

And your evaluation of the posters here is just as wrong. Presumptuous at best, completely biased against those who choose to help their fellow man as in the case of the Waffle House shooter at worst. He defended against customers and employees being herded into a back room at gun point, and he was eventually going to have to join them. Any instructor who tells you that being forced to the ground and forced to low-crawl to a room out of sight of other witnesses or to potential witnesses outside isn't a deadly threat, is an instructor who should have his license pulled and his overactive ovaries checked for excessive estrogen production. Link Removed

The shooter went for an early-morning breakfast, not looking to shoot anyone, and Monday-morning-quarterbacking an event that happened six months ago when all of the facts have long-since been released is more indicative of anti-legal-use-of-guns bias than it is of a thinking, concerned, fellow-gun-carrier.

CharlesMorrison is correct when he believes many on this site are "looking for someone to shoot". If you are one of these types then get your weapon and go to any big cities, bad area, late at night. Lots of "bad guys" who will eventually give you reason to shoot.

I work the graveyard shift on an armored truck getting in and out of the truck in downtown locations and the closest international airport every night that I work. Never been robbed, pray to God that I never will be, and pray even harder that I will never have to shoot anyone, on or off the job. But I'll be damned if I'll ever let scumbag predators drive me into hiding in fear in the suburbs, or afraid to walk the streets of my community because some judgmental ignoramus on the internet who can't be bothered to gather the facts beforehand might call me a "wannabe cop" or a "sheepdog" after the fact of me standing up to the scumbags.

Me, I will avoid all situations possible, that could lead to the use of my weapon and no, I will not defend you. I will make myself a good witness and notify law enforcement.

Well, that's fine. Considering that the overwhelming majority of participants here have already made the decision to arm themselves, I doubt anyone here would need to count on you in a life or death situation.

As to the bolded text, it's ironic that the only poster to have "Liked" your post as of this writing wouldn't even do that.

....if the guy looks like he’s just going to take the money and run I’m going to let him and if I can I’m going to slip out the back door after he’s gone before the cops show up.

Pfft.

Blues

 

[NavyLCDR]

Nice to know if my wife was being raped or my kids beaten or kidnapped, you would sit down with a pen and paper.

I think what whitefeather, Rich_S, Treo and the other graduates of their training are saying is that they will do nothing to PREVENT a criminal from causing grave injury or death. Whether or not they will act to stop a criminal who is in the process of an act that IS causing grave bodily injury or death remains to be seen.

My training teaches me to eliminate the threat of grave bodily injury or death while it is still in the threat stage, which also happens to be what my state law allows me to lawfully do.

 

[whitefeather]

Some of us have training that teaches us that a person with a gun in their hand in the act of committing a crime is a deadly threat capable of killing anyone within range of that gun in less than one second. As the potential target of that deadly threat who could become a victim of that deadly threat in less than one second time, I will evaluate the situation and eliminate the deadly threat at the earliest opportunity when capable to do so when operational risk management (ORM) indicates that the chances of successfully eliminating the threat are acceptably greater than the chances of injuring an innocent bystander.

However, the greater number of people who do keep their guns in their holsters and accurately describe to police what happened, the greater the chances are that I won't even be charged with anything, so I do greatly appreciate all of the graduates of the Rich_S school of self defense out there. Carry on, just don't ever use your gun until bullets are actually being fired at you, like your training tells you.

I would suggest that you read this in it's entirety...UseofForce.us: Introduction
Pay special attention to "Preclusion". Within "range of my gun" does not meet the standard of imminent danger.

If you are a Lt. Commander then you have a lot to loose in a criminal or civil indictment. There is a lot of bravado on this site. There are some reading this forum who do not fully understand the potential consequences of self defense or defending others.

If after reading about use of force you maintain the same mined set, I would suggest a set down with a good defense attorney. You might also want to delete all your posts on sites such as this. A prosecutor would have a field day!

 

[NavyLCDR]

I would suggest that you read this in it's entirety...UseofForce.us: Introduction

Maybe you should read Washington state law, where I am located.

RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.

Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished;

A person walks into Waffle House and points a gun at the cashier. The cashier is "any other person in my presence". The gun in hand of the criminal is "reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the person slain to commit a felony". The gun in hand also is "imminent danger of such design being accomplished". Therefore all the elements of RCW 9A.16.050 having been met, RCW 9A.16.110 now becomes effective:

RCW 9A.16.110
Defending against violent crime — Reimbursement.

(1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.

(2) When a person charged with a crime listed in subsection (1) of this section is found not guilty by reason of self-defense, the state of Washington shall reimburse the defendant for all reasonable costs, including loss of time, legal fees incurred, and other expenses involved in his or her defense.

Since the criminal was attempting to commit robbery via the use of a firearm, it is perfectly reasonable for the defense used for protection from the crime to also be accomplished via the use of a firearm. Then, in Washington, I even get reimbursed for ALL my expenses due to the erroneous prosecution. Because of that fact, prosecutors in Washington are very hesitant to prosecute cases where self defense is a reasonable defense that will be raised.

Thank you for playing, please try again....but I would suggest you bring something of relevance to the discussion next time.