Waffle House Shooting (Good Guy Wins)

NCIC105

New member
SPARTANBURG COUNTY, S.C. --
The Spartanburg County Sheriff's office continues to investigate an attempted armed robbery that killed one person Saturday morning.The incident happened at the Waffle House on Chesnee highway just after 1:00am Saturday.According to an incident report, two suspects armed with a handgun entered the restaurant and tried to rob the Waffle House. A customer in the business, who is a concealed weapon permit holder, was also armed with a handgun and attempted to hold the suspects at gunpoint until law enforcement could arrive, deputies said.Deputies said one of the suspects began to point his gun at the customer and that customer then shot the suspect who died on the scene.The suspect has been identified by the Spartanburg County coroner as 19-year-old Dante Lamont Williams of Roebuck, SC. An autopsy is scheduled for later today.According to officials, the other suspect is still on the loose.No arrest have been made in connection with the incident. The Spartanburg County Violent Crimes Unit is investigating.

Read more: Deputies: Waffle House Customer Shoots Armed Robber - Greenville News Story - WYFF Greenville
 

Can't wait for the 'Way to Go' from the Spartanburg County Sherrif.

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

KK
 
Can't wait for the 'Way to Go' from the Spartanburg County Sherrif.

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

KK

Hoo-ray for our side! I think.

Every time I read about a citizen defending themselves like this, I think of the gang reprisals, the law suites brought by the survivors of the "he was such a good boy" criminal and the repercussions from our own law enforcement agencies. I've read article after article about home owners that loose everything because they defended their castle. The same is said of the innocent bystander that defends against a would be robber.

This all proves to me, at least, that there needs to be as much effort to change tort as we put into changing the restrictions on gun ownership.

All this having been said.... I don't think it would change my response in a robbery situation. The article eludes to the citizen effecting a citizens arrest. A conversation I had with a neighbor got me doing some research on the Florida statutes regarding citizen arrest. Anyone else look into their states statutes? And does anyone think of the consequences before they act or do most of us act and then think?

And just in case the Sheriff doesn't step to the podium... Way to GO!!!
 
Too bad a life had to be taken...but thanks to the ccp holder, many were spared. Good for him to act and to squeeze the trigger at the moment of truth. This is why we carry...the Sheepdogs!! :)
 
Hoo-ray for our side! I think.

Every time I read about a citizen defending themselves like this, I think of the gang reprisals, the law suites brought by the survivors of the "he was such a good boy" criminal and the repercussions from our own law enforcement agencies. I've read article after article about home owners that loose everything because they defended their castle. The same is said of the innocent bystander that defends against a would be robber.

This all proves to me, at least, that there needs to be as much effort to change tort as we put into changing the restrictions on gun ownership.

All this having been said.... I don't think it would change my response in a robbery situation. The article eludes to the citizen effecting a citizens arrest. A conversation I had with a neighbor got me doing some research on the Florida statutes regarding citizen arrest. Anyone else look into their states statutes? And does anyone think of the consequences before they act or do most of us act and then think?

And just in case the Sheriff doesn't step to the podium... Way to GO!!!

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.
 
Rich_S:262927 said:
Hoo-ray for our side! I think.

Every time I read about a citizen defending themselves like this, I think of the gang reprisals, the law suites brought by the survivors of the "he was such a good boy" criminal and the repercussions from our own law enforcement agencies. I've read article after article about home owners that loose everything because they defended their castle. The same is said of the innocent bystander that defends against a would be robber.

This all proves to me, at least, that there needs to be as much effort to change tort as we put into changing the restrictions on gun ownership.

All this having been said.... I don't think it would change my response in a robbery situation. The article eludes to the citizen effecting a citizens arrest. A conversation I had with a neighbor got me doing some research on the Florida statutes regarding citizen arrest. Anyone else look into their states statutes? And does anyone think of the consequences before they act or do most of us act and then think?

And just in case the Sheriff doesn't step to the podium... Way to GO!!!

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.

We're not responsible for the bad guy, just ourselves. If he kills an innocent, that's on him not us. What if I don't do something and he shoots my wife? In my neck of the woods, this lac would get a free lunch.

I do agree you should think long and hard about scenarios, and decide who you are. Whoever you choose to be is fine, as long as you are comfortable with the decision.
 
Rich_S:262927 said:
Hoo-ray for our side! I think.

Every time I read about a citizen defending themselves like this, I think of the gang reprisals, the law suites brought by the survivors of the "he was such a good boy" criminal and the repercussions from our own law enforcement agencies. I've read article after article about home owners that loose everything because they defended their castle. The same is said of the innocent bystander that defends against a would be robber.

This all proves to me, at least, that there needs to be as much effort to change tort as we put into changing the restrictions on gun ownership.

All this having been said.... I don't think it would change my response in a robbery situation. The article eludes to the citizen effecting a citizens arrest. A conversation I had with a neighbor got me doing some research on the Florida statutes regarding citizen arrest. Anyone else look into their states statutes? And does anyone think of the consequences before they act or do most of us act and then think?

And just in case the Sheriff doesn't step to the podium... Way to GO!!!

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.

This falls directly in the "you weren't there, you have no idea, put your bias away" category.

The CCer made his choice, I think it was right, since I want there, and I would back him.
 
I am really ambivalent about this case. I am pleased to have one less bad guy out there. I look forward to the "alleged" second robber being indicted for murder. I am unsure that it was a great idea for him to insert himself into this situation.

From what information is available I am unclear that he or his family or friends were threatened. While the person at the register would have had the right to defend him/her self my guess he could legally use deadly force, depending on State law, because the person he was defending could use deadly force.

I hope this guy has a good attorney. It would be great if the employee that was threatened and the restaurant owner both put up some cash to defend this guy from both civil and criminal prosecution, but I doubt that will ever happen.
 
Rich_S, the article says a permit holder was attempting to hold the robber at gun point until LEO could arrive on scene. The article also says that the robber raised his weapon toward the permit holder, to me that is called "engaging the target". I'm glad the permit holder did'nt wait for "do not fire until fired upon", that is BS in this situation. The robber was engaging the permit holder, how different is that from LEO being on scene with sidearms drawn yelling at the robber to drop his gun, not following directions, raising his weapon at LEO, and LEO firing like the permit holder had done? I guess the permit holder could of done nothing and the robber could of fled the scene and shot any customers in the parking lot or surrounding area. Sounds to me like the permit holder evaluated the situation before taking action. Granted the incident took place at 1 a.m. and likely not many families around. Maybe if it took place at 6 p.m. with more people and families around the robber MIGHT of been able to run. I'm not saying the permit holder was correct in all his actions, but how many other lives were saved further down the road?

As far as civil lawsuits go, IMO, groups like the "ACLU" (lol), make life in general that much harder. Rights of the robber??? what about the rights of the people that were violated during the hold-up?? Rights of the rapist or murderer sitting in state prison getting 3 squares a day plus medical, gym time, library time, schooling, all on the tax payers bill??? what happened to the rights of the victim during and AFTER the assualt, having to live with the memory of the crime??? And why are there SOOO many people sitting on death row when they were all judged by a group of 12 and found guilty. Why isnt a sentence carried out in a timely fashion? because the PERP has rights??? or it wouldnt be "politically correct"??? like i said, what happened to the victims rights during the assualt?

I applaud the action of the permit holder, and the local sheriff encouraging the public to carry a firearm!! Good job sheriff.

If what you say things are like that in your neck of the woods with civil lawsuits, then sounds to me like Mass is somewhat like NYC.
 
We're not responsible for the bad guy, just ourselves. If he kills an innocent, that's on him not us. What if I don't do something and he shoots my wife? In my neck of the woods, this lac would get a free lunch.

I do agree you should think long and hard about scenarios, and decide who you are. Whoever you choose to be is fine, as long as you are comfortable with the decision.

You clearly have absolutely no understanding of how things work in a court of law- do you? I hope for your sake (and the sake of any bystanders) that you never find yourself in one of these situations.
 
I was waiting for Rich_S and his give them what they want post.

^^^^

I was waiting for troll boy to come and tell us how I'm wrong for excercising common sense. I'd like someone to cite CC training they've taken that states an armed citizen should thrust himself into an armed robbery scenario like this one and make a citizen's arrest. Please post links to their website.
 
This falls directly in the "you weren't there, you have no idea, put your bias away" category.

The CCer made his choice, I think it was right, since I want there, and I would back him.

I think it was wrong but you're entitled to your opinion,
 
From what I have read thus far, I honestly think that the concealed carrier did the right thing in this situation.
Because as the saying goes;
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".
Or something to that effect.
 
Rich_S, the article says a permit holder was attempting to hold the robber at gun point until LEO could arrive on scene. The article also says that the robber raised his weapon toward the permit holder, to me that is called "engaging the target". I'm glad the permit holder did'nt wait for "do not fire until fired upon", that is BS in this situation. The robber was engaging the permit holder, how different is that from LEO being on scene with sidearms drawn yelling at the robber to drop his gun, not following directions, raising his weapon at LEO, and LEO firing like the permit holder had done? I guess the permit holder could of done nothing and the robber could of fled the scene and shot any customers in the parking lot or surrounding area. Sounds to me like the permit holder evaluated the situation before taking action. Granted the incident took place at 1 a.m. and likely not many families around. Maybe if it took place at 6 p.m. with more people and families around the robber MIGHT of been able to run. I'm not saying the permit holder was correct in all his actions, but how many other lives were saved further down the road?

As far as civil lawsuits go, IMO, groups like the "ACLU" (lol), make life in general that much harder. Rights of the robber??? what about the rights of the people that were violated during the hold-up?? Rights of the rapist or murderer sitting in state prison getting 3 squares a day plus medical, gym time, library time, schooling, all on the tax payers bill??? what happened to the rights of the victim during and AFTER the assualt, having to live with the memory of the crime??? And why are there SOOO many people sitting on death row when they were all judged by a group of 12 and found guilty. Why isnt a sentence carried out in a timely fashion? because the PERP has rights??? or it wouldnt be "politically correct"??? like i said, what happened to the victims rights during the assualt?

I applaud the action of the permit holder, and the local sheriff encouraging the public to carry a firearm!! Good job sheriff.

If what you say things are like that in your neck of the woods with civil lawsuits, then sounds to me like Mass is somewhat like NYC.

There wouldn't be a target to engage if the citizen didn't get involved in a situation where his involvement was questionable at best. You can't compare a citizen to an LEO because it's a whole fidderent ball game. The permit holder could have caused the BG to shoot other people just as easily as people being shot later in the parking lot as you suggest. I carry a gun to protect my life and my family. I'm not going to risk getting killed or losing everything I own to play cops and robbers and try to stop a robbery and hold a BG at gun point. I'm still waiting for someone to cite training for armed citizens that instructs a CC holder to get invovlved in this type of situation. I asked the question in the Denny's thread and the wendy's thread. Nobody has been able to show any such thing. Why? Because it doesn't exist. Mass is not gun friendly but it's not nearly as bad as NYC. You can get a carry permit but if you shoot someone they can and most likely will sue you. Maybe our resident know it all keyboard commando can cite SC law regarding the ability of a perp to sue a cc holder that shoots them....
 
From what I have read thus far, I honestly think that the concealed carrier did the right thing in this situation.
Because as the saying goes;
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".
Or something to that effect.

All that is neccessary for one to get killed or lose everything they own is to pull a gun when they shouldn't....
 
I think it was wrong but you're entitled to your opinion,

My opinion is backed by Utah state law, where I live. Hopefully the laws in his state are the same.

For all you know the guy was standing at the register when they came in and had the gun pointed at him as well. You don't know, neither do I. But you are willing to throw him under the bus because you think you know best.

So again.... your bias is showing.
 
All that is neccessary for one to get killed or lose everything they own is to pull a gun when they shouldn't....

Exactly right! That's why this criminal is now dead...Because 'he' should not have pulled a gun to commit a Felony. Too bad for him! :)
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,520
Messages
610,642
Members
74,980
Latest member
Brad_R
Back
Top