Robber w/ AK47 shot by Waffle House customer....

[danez71]

There's a grey area there but there is some defining lines.

He was an armed robber and that could be enough to have shot him during the act.

After he left, there was no crime being committed in order to justify shooting him then.


Had he left and was observed committing more crimes with his rifle... then you may be justified in shooting him in order to stop the armed/potentially deadly crime. Such an example would/could be when he pointed the rifle at the patron who followed, and called out to, him.


LEO may (do) have different thresholds to legally allow shooting him than us citizens.

 

[Old Dog]

If the guy is leaving, and there isn't anyone he's pointing that gun at, then there isn't much call to shoot him. No immediate need. What he MIGHT do to someone else, later, isn't a valid reason for using deadly force.

Yes, God forbid that a lawfully armed citizen should ever attempt to do anything to take an armed criminal dirtbag off the streets ...

As in the Wal-Mart parking lot shooting thread, it appears Sam1911 is once again making the case for his opinion that the armed citizen should always be fleeing the scene of any potential lethal force incident rather than attempting to intervene.

Sorry Sam, but at some point, perhaps the citizenry does need to try to take back its communities. After all, we have long established in this forum that our law enforcement agencies are not here to protect and serve while the criminals continue to do what criminals do, knowing that the good citizens will do naught to stop them ...

 

[TwoFirstNames]

We can all be glad there are those who are willing to intervene when something bad happens.
We can all hope that we would be able to take the (correct) decisive action if we ever need to.
But it would be irresponsible to not also point out that this man put himself BACK in harm's way. In other words, he CHOSE to engage. If he had lost that shootout, or if an innocent had been hurt, he would share some of that blame.
Luckily, it seems to have turned out OK this time, but he also hasn't been sued by the family yet...
Again, I am glad this seems to have turned out so well, and we should praise him for his good qualities (courage, marksmanship, etc.), but we all know that the road to you know where is paved with good intentions.

 

[lemaymiami]

Y'all got my attention... Now I'd like to know the "rest of the story" as that radio guy used to say. Dangerous business, being an armed robber...

 

[Coop45]

2:30am at a Waffle House?

No thanks.

Running outside to confront a man with an AK?

No thanks.

Sure, we all can say what'd we do and not do after the fact but there is a lot wrong with this situation, and you don't need to be a genius to figure that out.

Hey, he's a Texan! Or as he would be known outside the state, Super Hero! I'm glad he is still alive and doesn't get into too much trouble with the authorities.

Heck, the Waffle House food will kill him if he's not careful.

 

[Sam1911]

No immediate need. What he MIGHT do to someone else, later, isn't a valid reason for using deadly force.

Huh ? The guy just robbed people at gunpoint with an AK47 !! There is "valid reason" for shooting this idiot right in the face that very instant.

As he's pointing a gun at people? Sure! You're absolutely right! As he's moving to take violent action? Yes.

As he's LEAVING a scene? No, not at all! The situation IS de-escalating, naturally. The chances of ANYONE being shot are dropping precipitously the farther the guy gets from the scene.

Stopping him and convincing or forcing him to "duke it out" (ah hem...with a RIFLE) right there is simply a recipe likely to cause catastrophe.

And, the rational assumption here is not that he's a reasonable guy that just wants some beer money, and he'll peacfully go home. The factual assumption is that the guy is a dangerous,armed felon that is a fraction of a second from killing half a dozen people!!

But that is NOT a logical and supportable assumption nor does it pass a "reasonable man" test. First off, it is obviously quite universally understood that the VAST majority of robbers who manage to exit a scene of a crime depart with the intention of getting away. They DON'T tend to go on a murderous rampage after the fact. That would be a bizarre contention to make as there's just no common historical trend for that kind of thing. (Occasional "executing the witnesses?" Sure. Turning around after leaving? No.) The fact that he MIGHT go off and decide that a successful robbery wasn't good enough and now he's going to go on a mass killing spree is simply too far-fetched to be believable.

Further, that is not any justification under the law, to use lethal force. You can't kill someone for what they MIGHT do next. Only to stop something happening right now.

The saving grace -- if you can make your mind contort far enough to call it that -- is that the guy did point his rifle at the "good guy" who called out, giving him sufficient legal justification for using lethal force.

.....Watching, from a safe distance, to see where he goes and possibly aid police in apprehending him -- and possibly being close enough to save someone else's life if he goes completely nuts -- would be a very "good samaritan/good citizen" thing to do.

As you mentioned, we don't have all the facts. The guy with the pistol could've easily been doing just that, and the AK guy was the one that escalated the situation, by going after more innocent people, or turning on the pistol guy......or even by just doing the 'funky chicken' !!

Sure. We don't actually know. All we know from the report is that the CCW fellow "called out" to him, which induced him to turn and point his rifle at someone. If that's ALL that happened -- oh crap! If there's more to the story... well we just don't know.

 

[alsaqr]

The perp has been identified.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crim...y-waffle-house-customer-desoto-police-say.ece

Good on the concealed carrier.

 

[Sam1911]

es, God forbid that a lawfully armed citizen should ever attempt to do anything to take an armed criminal dirtbag off the streets ...

Indeed, we are not "Judge, Judy, and executioner." We live by the rule of law, and the bigger victory is not killing someone we see doing wrong, but seeing them brought to justice.

As in the Wal-Mart parking lot shooting thread, it appears Sam1911 is once again making the case for his opinion that the armed citizen should always be fleeing the scene of any potential lethal force incident rather than attempting to intervene.

That somewhat mis-states my opinion, but not completely. There are times when we can and should intervene.

Unfortunately, the seeming majority of cases folks bring here and laud as "gee, cool!" are fraught with problems -- often both legal and tactical mistakes.

How anyone could look at this situation and say that calling out the bad guy -- who was leaving without one shot having been fired -- to have a gunfight in the parking lot was the RIGHT choice, I just can't fathom.

(Of course, again, we're making gross assumptions that that's what happened. The guy may not have been so careless.)

Sorry Sam, but at some point, perhaps the citizenry does need to try to take back its communities. After all, we have long established in this forum that our law enforcement agencies are not here to protect and serve while the criminals continue to do what criminals do, knowing that the good citizens will do naught to stop them ...

That sounds like a call to vigilantism and that won't fly. Things get awful enough, sometimes, when a good person is FORCED to use a gun to defend their life or that of another. Pushing the issue and instigating gunfire in public is not a choice I'd want anyone to make -- even if they think they're out there "cleaning up the streets."

 

[X-Rap]

It's clear to me that he saw his wife pulling into the parking lot and yelled to distract the robber.
Props to the good guy for retaining his gun during the robbery and holding back from shooting in the confines of a waffle house.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Sam1911]

It's clear to me that he saw his wife pulling into the parking lot and yelled to distract the robber.

Ah HA! That was a scenario I'd entertained but didn't want to speculate on.

Where did you see that fact?

 

[Old Dog]

I can, and most certainly will, applaud a good outcome even when an irrational decision was made on the part of a participant ... I don't see anyone as saying "gee, cool" with respect to the citizen's actions, nor do I believe the citizen made a conscious decision to engage in a gunfight in a Waffle House parking lot.

Vigilantism? No. Responsible citizenship, yes.

 

[Sam1911]

nor do I believe the citizen made a conscious decision to engage in a gunfight in a Waffle House parking lot.

Ok. That really a big question in the "we don't have enough information" column.

We have a news report. It says he "called out" to the robber who'd left the building. Speculating about what he thought would happen next is probably not wise, but "he's going to turn and (try to?) shoot me" would be high on my list of probables. So my options there would seem to be 1) let him shoot me; 2) turn and run while simultaneously kicking myself in the arse for having been so dumb as to draw his attention; or 3) have a gunfight in the waffle house parking lot.

 

[Hanzo581]

It's clear to me that he saw his wife pulling into the parking lot and yelled to distract the robber.

That is clear.

Clear[ly] speculation.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Didn't the Waffle House chain come out with a statement from corporate not long ago saying their restaurants are gun-free zones?

 

[MIL-DOT]

Didn't the Waffle House chain come out with a statement from corporate not long ago saying their restaurants are gun-free zones?

Yeah, but the AK47 isn't a ''gun'', it's an ''assault weapon'' !!

 

[Red Wind]

Didn't the Waffle House chain come out with a statement from corporate not long ago saying their restaurants are gun-free zones?

True, but considering their 24/7 hours and in many areas, dicey locations, quite often the old WH becomes a free fire zone instead.

I've been a loyal fan since 1962, but am always strapped when walking into their tight little confines.

The "hero" of this tale did his deeds on instinct, IMO, came out intact, and I applaud his effort. However, it could have come out with a dismal film noir ending.

We would have to be in his exact position to know what our moves would have been. Hopefully, we don't ever have that moment during our lifetimes.

 

[redneck]

Doesn't Texas allow deadly force to be used for protection of property after dark?
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm Section 9.42 part 2A.

By my understanding, anyone in the restaurant could have legally shot the robber, at any time whether he was coming or going, as he was committing robbery and leaving the building was escaping with said property. Calling out to the robber from behind him could have been a means of getting him to stand still for a better shot. You would also risk drawing fire yourself and I'm not sure I would do that, but its possible he was getting him to stop, and its possible he was trying to draw his attention from other innocents.

Regardless of that, the requirement to let the guy go, and just be a good witness doesn't seem to hold with Texas law.

 

[Sam1911]

Here's a thread that covers a lot about Texas law regarding using lethal force to save property. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=9075239

Long and short of it is, it SURE isn't that simple and you really wouldn't want to have to use that as your defense. Certainly not to save the cash drawer of a low-end chain restaurant.

 

[PowerG]

If the customer actually witnessed the robbery and the robber still had stolen property on his person then it would appear the customer was within his rights to make a citizens arrest even if the crime was over and the robber retreating. His "calling out" to the robber may have been notification of his intent to do that.

http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.sanantoniobar.org/resource/resmgr/imported/CitizensArrest.pdf

 

[redneck]

Maybe not saving the cash drawer, but maybe the guy took your car keys when he took your wallet? Now he's heading to the parking lot with said keys. A car definitely qualifies as tangible movable property.
He was definitely committing robbery, he was definitely escaping with the property, and as he was armed and had previously threatened people with a rifle, you definitely could assume that using anything other than deadly force to recover your property would result in you facing grave bodily harm or death.

With the info we have available its easy to speculate either way. I think the guy took some risks, but I think it was a good shoot. Most states have laws that prevent us from getting involved but in this case I think the law was on his side, and that there are times when we should do something more than try to be a good witness.

 

[Deaf Smith]

So that brings a dilemma....

You have a very dangerous person with a battle carbine who, if challenged, might very well turn and start firing.

Do you a) let him go and risk him endangering others, b) call out of him to stop and risk them doing a fast turn and opening fire or c) immediately neutralizing them by shooting them in the back.

I vote 'c'.

Deaf

 

[Warp]

So that brings a dilemma....

You have a very dangerous person with a battle carbine who, if challenged, might very well turn and start firing.

Do you a) let him go and risk him endangering others, b) call out of him to stop and risk them doing a fast turn and opening fire or c) immediately neutralizing them by shooting them in the back.

I vote 'c'.

Deaf

I think I would have a lot easier time with C if the person had already fired shots, shot somebody, or killed somebody.

I would also think that an armed robber who is legitimately leaving the scene without having fired any shots probably doesn't want to have to do that and probably does just want to get away. Granted, they might go ahead and shoot somebody/multiple somebodies, and maybe next time their robbery doesn't go quite so smoothly or quietly and they choose to shoot people, and maybe that can be prevented by C, or maybe option C just turns into option B when the first shot doesn't drop him.

And of course the whole wife thing adds a twist to it, even though all of the other people out there might be somebody else's wife or husband and are probably soembody's son or daughter and maybe somebody's mother or father...but we don't have any "duty" to them...

It's all very complicated.

 

[Bobson]

You have a very dangerous person with a battle carbine who, if challenged, might very well turn and start firing.

Do you a) let him go and risk him endangering others, b) call out of him to stop and risk them doing a fast turn and opening fire or c) immediately neutralizing them by shooting them in the back.

I vote 'c'.

It's certainly safer to shoot a man in the back than to confront him first, the same way it's safer to go to the zoo and shoot the lions while they're still in their cages instead of letting them out first. On the other hand, you could just choose to not interact with the lions at all.

You're talking about pursuing a perp out of a situation and shooting him in the back because of what he might do to someone else at a later time. Your heart might be in the right place (wanting to protect someone innocent down the road), but that's questionable judgment. You can't just shoot everyone you think is prone to committing crimes in the future. For all we know the AK wasn't even loaded. Coulda been a desperate guy with a family at home, not expecting conflict in a gun free zone. That certainly isn't justification for armed robbery; I'm just saying I think there's a lot more to this than trying to paint a picture that justifies taking the law into your own hands.

 

[lemaymiami]

One last thought from me... On the street, in my experience, the results of any armed encounter (justified, unjustified, whatever...) are so random that predicting in advance how it will actually turn out is just a roll of the dice.... Ordinary folks do extraordinary things, bad guys are as likely to shoot themselves as the victim, or a single stray shot might take down someone a block away, minding their own business...

On the occasions when I've asked participants in one bloody event or other to explain what happened they're usually at a loss.. My overall impressions were usually that folks react in different ways under stress than they might act if they had a moment to think about what was going to go down... That's why training is a good idea - but don't kid yourself that it guarantees a good outcome in a critical moment (it might and that's what we all hope for - but nothing in an armed encounter is certain, except that it's very hazardous to all concerned). None of this will ever appear in any popular entertainment since reality has teeth -for all concerned...

 

[Sam1911]

If the customer actually witnessed the robbery and the robber still had stolen property on his person then it would appear the customer was within his rights to make a citizens arrest even if the crime was over and the robber retreating. His "calling out" to the robber may have been notification of his intent to do that.

Citizens' Arrest laws are even more dangerous ground than self defense laws, and we rarely entertain discussions of them here. Just too much risk on a bad bet.

However, the man in this situation may indeed have felt that he could, and should, effect a citizen's arrest.

Why he felt that way, when the assailant had him so heavily outgunned, I'm not sure, but it did work out for him and that's just INCREDIBLY fortunate.