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

[Kleanbore]

So far we have comments that convey a message of:
---Don't leave the building to try to get a better look at the guy to be a good witness because the BG may think you're following him and shoot you.

Leaving a building to "try to get a better look" at a robber with a so-called AK-47 would be an extremely foolish thing to do, even if it turned out thtthe guy did not have an accomplice waiting outside.

...And the cops may accuse you of initiating an armed confrontation.

It's not that the "cops may accuse you" of anything. It's just that it could utterly destroy your defense of justification, should you decide to plead self defense after shooting someone.

Don't say anything to the BG, that also may warn others, because that might upset the bad guy and he may shoot you or others.

"Upset"? Don't be silly.

But it could alert him to danger, and he might well shoot.

Remember when Dan McKown made the mistake of calling out to the shooter with the MAK-90 in the Tacoma Mall in 2005? He was shot and paralyzed.

Of course, McKown was clearly justified in shooting.

If BG starts shooting because you said anything or left the building, you may be liable because you initiated an armed confrontation.

That's ridiculous.

Don't tell anyone to do anything because the lawful authority is questionable. (I guess barricading the door is off limits too as you don't have the lawful authority to deny the BG from entering again and you likely don't have legal permission from the property owner to do it.

You are not impressing anyone with rational arguments.

So I'd like to hear from those on what they suggest to do beside sit there and do nothing after calling 911.

Yes, I would call 911, and I would tell them who I am and what I look like, but I would not "do nothing".

I should ask someone to make sure everyone else was okay.

I would strongly suggest that no one leave and walk ito harm's way.

I would get away from windows and down and out of sight if possible, and try to get everyone else to safety.

And while I would be in condition orange until the police arrived, I would make very sure that I did not have gun in hand when they came.

 

[Sam1911]

Old Dog, if you would like the law to be that a citizen can and should take lethal force action to stop crimes, perhaps you should contact your state representatives and propose that such laws be written.

You can include indemnification for citizen-policing actions, just as sworn LEOs have, and maybe even get the state to provide training and equipment to good guys who carry their guns to take back the streets and clean up the town and go above and beyond simply defending themselves and their loved ones.

Then we could discuss THOSE laws instead of the ones that operate in the world as it is today.

 

[danez71]

Hold on. So the picture is an armed criminal leaving the scene of a robbery, and someone appears in the parking lot (it seems, with his own gun drawn, though we don't know for sure) and yells "drop the gun," and you're suggesting that it is unheard of -- not even to say EXPECTED -- that he's going to respond with his own weapon? What are you watching where the bad guy usually says, "Oh, ok, sure. No problem. I'll just drop my gun now. Thanks for the suggestion?"

Way to mischaracterize what I wrote &/or the sentiment behind it!

I made no suggestion he'd comply. You alluded he'd shoot you (respond with his own weapon). I'm asking if you have anything that points to that (hed shoot you).

I've never heard of a situation where a person tells bad guy to but the gun down being the catalyst of being shot which, I believe, is what you're alluding to if not plainly saying.

What? Charged with?
You can say anything you want. You can YELL anything you want. What you cannot, generally, do is force someone to comply with your order at gunpoint.

You said:

And my lawful authority to issue that command (or enforce it with lethal force) is questionable.

You made the claim that is it is 'lawfully questionable' to 'issue that command' or 'enforce it with legal force'.

Don't ask me 'what will he be charged with'....I'm asking you, because you made the claim.

What would/could he be charged with for yelling out 'drop the gun'? What is the questionable legality of calling out 'drop the gun'?

Ok. So I guess if you felt that he didn't have enough incentive to take the money and run, and it wasn't a pure given that if he just held up a restaurant with a rifle that a half dozen calls were already made to 911 about it, I guess you could go ahead and yell that at him to make SURE he knew someone had called the cops. Seems like kind of a "well, DUH!" thing to yell, though.

Well 'duh' to me and you. Its also 'duh' to me and you to not make an armed robbery of a waffle house

I don't really see any compelling reason to call out to someone who's leaving an armed robbery, still carrying a rifle, no. Tactically horrible and legally either unnecessary or unsound.

IMO, the most likely reason to call out specifically to the BG in this scenario is to prompt the guy to get the reaction he did and shoot him. That's my opinion IF that's what happened.

But we don't know that.

But to allude, or say, to that calling out to the BG is legally questionable seem, well, questionable in itself. So that why I asked. If you don't have an answer... then so be it.

Are you reading the same account that I read? That doesn't sound anything like the scenario we're discussing.

Please go back and make sure you understand what (we know of) that happened so we're on the same page.

I did not say that it NEVER makes sense to yell something at a potential attacker in SOME situations. Just not in this actual one that we're talking about right now.


Ditto. Check the actual event and modify your line of argument so it applies to this case, please.



Only if you didn't read the account of this actual event, would that argument make sense.

Nobody in the history of ST&T has ever said, "Follow an armed robber outside after he's leaving and yell at him ... anything at all."

It seems to me, that some of the comments have a strong undertone that comes across as "You should NEVER do THAT, duuhhh" and are not being said in a way that is specific to the context of this thread.

Those comments of mine that you quoted, I said in that context.

[Robber]"WHAT? Called the cops? Ho-lee-cow! I never thought anyone would do THAT! Man, they've done called the cops on me! I'd better get my butt outta here! Huh, called the dang cops! I guess I'm in a heap o' trouble now! Man, the nerve of some people!..."[/Robber]

Are you trying to belittle my comment or make claims to know how/what criminals are thinking? It seems the former to me but I trust that you're above that.

 

[Old Dog]

Excuse me? Did I say that citizens should use lethal force to stop crimes? I believe I noted that citizens should take whatever actions within the law to stop crimes. Yes, the citizen in the case under discussion did end up using deadly force, but it also appears that he may well have simply been trying to become a better witness, or slow the egress of the criminal -- neither actions against the law. At least he possessed the stones to take action, rather than do nothing.

And it is germane to the discussion to bring up what acts the criminal may have ended up performing in his future -- it's pretty much based in evidence that criminals who start using firearms in the commission of their crimes continue to do so until they end up firing shots at some point ...

A point I was attempting to make, but clearly did not articulate well, was that social convention no longer dictates taking a stand against bad behavior. This is anything from people routinely tolerating the use of foul language in public by young people in the presence of women, elders and children to ignoring actual crimes committed in front of them ... At least the passenger of Flight 93 took risks, knowing in advance the possible outcome, whereas the passengers of the three other flights ... did nothing but submit.

One of the reasons crime goes on unchecked is because the criminals operate knowing full well that the citizenry, for the most part, is submissive and afraid to challenge them -- while the police are typically ten, twenty or thirty minutes away.

Leaving a building to "try to get a better look" at a robber with a so-called AK-47 would be an extremely foolish thing to do, even if it turned out thtthe guy did not have an accomplice waiting outside.

Haven't seen anyone arguing that. However, many times throughout history have actions, ostensibly foolish from the start, turn out to be actions that result in positive change. I get that some of y'all don't believe in ever taking risks of any sort, that's okay.

Old Dog, if you would like the law to be that a citizen can and should take lethal force action to stop crimes, perhaps you should contact your state representatives and propose that such laws be written.

Gosh, thanks for the tip. Of course, "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand your ground" laws were a good start ...

 

[Kleanbore]

I submit that every citizen has the absolute right to do everything within the law to counter the actions of those who violate the law --

Well, that sounds reasonable.

Is there something that is within the law that you feel that a citizen would not have the right to do?

Keep in mins that the law as it applies to sworn officers differs in a few respects from that for civilians, as they have a duty to enforce the law. For example, they are expected to pursue and apprehend suspects.

 

[Sam1911]

Way to mischaracterize what I wrote &/or the sentiment behind it!

I made no suggestion he'd comply. You alluded he'd shoot you (respond with his own weapon). I'm asking if you have anything that points to that (hed shoot you).

I guess this is projection on my part. I can't see too many options for Mr. Bad Guy here.

CCW guy is yelling at him, and has a gun. (We don't know exactly when CCW guy drew his weapon, but one would assume it was before the yelling because otherwise...wow.)

What does robber do?
1) Give up. Well, that is an option and I guess it must happen sometimes.
2) Ignore him. Wait, ignore the guy who has a gun and is yelling at you? That seems unlikely.
3) Fight. You have a rifle and someone is yelling at you and has a gun. I would expect that fighting back with that rifle is going to be far and away the most likely result.

And that's exactly what Mr. Robber did do!

I've never heard of a situation where a person tells bad guy to but the gun down being the catalyst of being shot which, I believe, is what you're alluding to if not plainly saying.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but are you really saying that you would not have expected him to shoot at the armed man yelling at him? Perhaps this is just some fundamental disconnect, but I have no idea why you'd think that is unlikely. Man with gun threatens other man with rifle. What happens next?

What? Charged with?
You can say anything you want. You can YELL anything you want. What you cannot, generally, do is force someone to comply with your order at gunpoint.

You said:

And my lawful authority to issue that command (or enforce it with lethal force) is questionable.

You made the claim that is it is 'lawfully questionable' to 'issue that command' or 'enforce it with legal force'.

Don't ask me 'what will he be charged with'....I'm asking you, because you made the claim.

What would/could he be charged with for yelling out 'drop the gun'? What is the questionable legality of calling out 'drop the gun'?

I did not say he could be charged with ANYTHING for yelling.

I said that enforcing your yelled command with the threat of your gun (or actually shooting your gun) would not necessarily be lawful.

You CAN yell at people. You CAN'T point your gun at them or shoot them if they don't do what you tell them.

The question in this case seems to me to be a matter of citizen's arrest law where the CCW guy maybe has some lawful right to enforce a command, but I don't know the law on that and can't comment on it if it exists.

I don't really see any compelling reason to call out to someone who's leaving an armed robbery, still carrying a rifle, no. Tactically horrible and legally either unnecessary or unsound.

IMO, the most likely reason to call out specifically to the BG in this scenario is to prompt the guy to get the reaction he did and shoot him. That's my opinion IF that's what happened.

Eeesh... yelling at someone to MAKE them point their rifle at you so you can shoot them? Oy oy oy. I hope he doesn't mention THAT to a detective, or in court.

But to allude, or say, to that calling out to the BG is legally questionable seem, well, questionable in itself. So that why I asked. If you don't have an answer... then so be it.

Dang. That is NOT what I was saying. I was saying that it is legally dark to ENFORCE your commands with the threat of your gun, or by shooting someone.

AND, as several of us have explained, if YOU initiate the hostile contact that has him bring his gun to bear on you, and you shoot him, that would indeed invalidate your own claim to self-defense. Simplified: You can't go pick a fight with someone and then kill them and claim self defense.

The robbery that happened a few moments ago has to be separated from that new interaction.

Are you reading the same account that I read? That doesn't sound anything like the scenario we're discussing.

Please go back and make sure you understand what (we know of) that happened so we're on the same page.

I did not say that it NEVER makes sense to yell something at a potential attacker in SOME situations. Just not in this actual one that we're talking about right now.


Ditto. Check the actual event and modify your line of argument so it applies to this case, please.



Only if you didn't read the account of this actual event, would that argument make sense.

Nobody in the history of ST&T has ever said, "Follow an armed robber outside after he's leaving and yell at him ... anything at all."

It seems to me, that some of the comments have a strong undertone that comes across as "You should NEVER do THAT, duuhhh" and are not being said in a way that is specific to the context of this thread.
Those comments of mine that you quoted, I said in that context.

Ok, I hope no one else took in in that context, because that is incorrect.

[Robber]"WHAT? Called the cops? Ho-lee-cow! I never thought anyone would do THAT! Man, they've done called the cops on me! I'd better get my butt outta here! Huh, called the dang cops! I guess I'm in a heap o' trouble now! Man, the nerve of some people!..."[/Robber]

Are you trying to belittle my comment or make claims to know how/what criminals are thinking? It seems the former to me but I trust that you're above that.

I'm pointing out in a funny way the seemingly quite redundant suggestion that one run out of the restaurant after the armed man who'd already left, just to make sure he knew that someone had called 911.

SURELY even the most addled robber would surmise that if he robs a restaurant with a rifle, everyone on the scene would be calling 911 before the last jingle of the little bell on the door as it closed behind him.

 

[Sam1911]

Excuse me? Did I say that citizens should use lethal force to stop crimes? I believe I noted that citizens should take whatever actions within the law to stop crimes. Yes, the citizen in the case under discussion did end up using deadly force, but it also appears that he may well have simply been trying to become a better witness, or slow the egress of the criminal -- neither actions against the law.

That might fit the facts as we know them. Other ideas might, too.

At least he possessed the stones to take action, rather than do nothing.

But not the brains to keep from nearly being shot, nor to keep from having to shoot someone.

And it is germane to the discussion to bring up what acts the criminal may have ended up performing in his future -- it's pretty much based in evidence that criminals who start using firearms in the commission of their crimes continue to do so until they end up firing shots at some point ...

I don't know why this point is so persistent. What someone may do at some other time can have NO bearing on your armed response as not a sworn law officer. As Kleanbore says, sworn officers have slightly different duties there, but they also have very different legal protections for their actions.

A point I was attempting to make, but clearly did not articulate well, was that social convention no longer dictates taking a stand against bad behavior. This is anything from people routinely tolerating the use of foul language in public by young people in the presence of women, elders and children to ignoring actual crimes committed in front of them ...

I don't have any facts to point to that say that people today are more or less likely to stand up to social "bad" behavior, but we do evolve as a society and if we respect others' rights to free speech, and act conservatively with our own weapons, that's probably a good thing.

Society choosing smarter, less destructive ways of dealing with crime than immediate confrontations and gunfights is probably wise. I'd be curious to see if rates of criminal arrests have risen or fallen, with respect to number of crimes committed. I'm guessing we get our man more often today than 50 years ago, but I really don't know and it's pretty far off topic for this thread.

Old Dog, if you would like the law to be that a citizen can and should take lethal force action to stop crimes, perhaps you should contact your state representatives and propose that such laws be written.

Gosh, thanks for the tip. Of course, "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand your ground" laws were a good start ...

Neither "Castle Doctrine" nor "Stand Your Ground" laws applied here, nor do they allow for any citizen to use lethal force to stop crime or clean up the streets.

If you're suggesting that we should -- or would, or might -- use our guns to stand up to criminals and help bring down the (already pretty historically low) rates of violent crime then we're going to need to change the laws very substantially to recognize and allow for those uses of lethal force.

 

[Kleanbore]

Let's review things a bit:

A citizen may lawfully threaten or use deadly force to defend himself if it immediately necessary against an imminent threat of deadly force, provided that he has not done anything to provoke the incident. Often, indications that the citizen failed to do everything possible to avoid the incident to can be used to negate claims of immediate necessity or to indicate that the defender was not in fact innocent.

"Imminent threat" means something that is about to happen right now. Not what might happen in the future.

Stopping an armed robbery, which is classified as a crime against persons, would be justified, but the felon is on his merry way and is no longer committing the crime, he may be justified in using deadly force to defend himself.

One may use deadly force in similar circumstances to defend a third person; in most jurisdictions, that person would have to be justified in using deadly force to defend himself, or the "defender" will become a criminal.

Except in the rarest of circumstances (discussed in a previous post), one may not threaten or use deadly force to prevent the departure of a felon.

One may tell a felon or a suspect to stay put, or even to lie on the ground, but one may not lawfully enforce such a demand.

And people--citizens and officers alike--have been shot by men they told to get on the ground.

It is also very possible to be engaged by an accomplice while one's attention is directed at a suspect or detainee.

Should a detainee somehow be injured during the time he is being detained, the detainer would be liable. The community would likely provide indemnity to a sworn officer performing his duty. But the citizen will be on his own.

A law enforcement officer who comes upon a robbery in progress may intervene if he can and if has to, but department policy and good sense dictate that reinforcements be summoned whenever possible.

Using force against some one who has committed a crime is unlawful except in the rarest of circumstances. We leave the punishment aspect to the judicial system.

Those who are not aware of these things need to remedy that.

The time to learn the fundamentals of basic use of force law is not in one's lawyer's office after the fact.

And the place to learn it is not screen fiction.

 

[Old Guy]

This is getting real good, some good comments.

What? Charged with?
You can say anything you want. You can YELL anything you want.

So, I am going to tie this thread into real, actually things that have happened.

Back in 2004, my Wife and I in an elevator, Dayton Ohio, at an IALEFI Annual Training Conference. I was 69YOA. And armed with a Glock 19, and a Benchmade access lock knife (SHARP!)

Stepping in to the elevator, just as the door was closing, a young, well dressed man, collar and tie, tasseled shoes. A white Guy.
I am a typical red faced English man, of Irish decent. Not small.

My Wife is younger than me, and still lovely, Guyanese, Indian decent.

The new arrival had a cocktail glass in his hand, a wee paper umbrella in it.

I was stood back, my Wife at the buttons. Buddy looked at me, discounted me. Stated I need a hug, lifted his left leg, to go a hugging?

Before his foot touched the floor, I stepped forward, ducked under his left arm (his drink was in his right hand) and drove him into the pole that stretched against the back of the elevator. He hit that real hard!
(Bouncers lesson, you can not step down, when you leg is in the air, when 200 plus pounds is keeping that leg up!) didn't spill his drink.

Did not shoot, or stab him, or even head butt him, tempted!
Just told him, "Keep away from my Wife" Left him there.

Nearly all participants at the Conference were Police. Singled a couple out, knew them, told them that incident.

Both said "You should have spoke in a Command Voice, "Don't MOVE" They could have called the Police, that was assault. Sure.

Brown skin, white man, glass! Not going to happen. Read that before, yes, command voice!

CCW man, in Waffle House, two men robbing it, the one with the gun, shot in the head, other ran away, Florida I think.

What I would have done? In the case of Mr. AK 47 robber? "Can I keep my Driving License Please" English you know, polite. Glock 19 instead of a wallet. And whilst he was speaking.
One handed shot him in the face, actually from sitting down, in the top lip.

 

[danez71]

That's ridiculous.

Well then, the ridiculousness started on page 2 with this comment.

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.

Similar type comments were made on other pages but apparently it doesn't become ridiculous until page 8 or 9...?

Yes, I would call 911, and I would tell them who I am and what I look like, but I would not "do nothing".

I should ask someone to make sure everyone else was okay. You'd know that answer since you were there so this amounts to 'doing nothing' so far

I would strongly suggest that no one leave and walk ito harm's way. This,, realistically, amounts to doing nothing and may even keep people inside the fish bowl waiting to be shot if he returns.

I would get away from windows and down and out of sight if possible, and try to get everyone else to safety. Ok... I'll give you this to a degree. But you said above youd suggest no one leave so it appears you're suggesting to 'get low from the windows' and maybe go hide in the back or something.

And while I would be in condition orange until the police arrived, I would make very sure that I did not have gun in hand when they came. Ohhkaaay.

And all of that reinforces the point.

You are not impressing anyone with rational arguments.

Nor are you with missing the point.

So I'd like to hear from those on what they suggest to do beside sit there and do nothing after calling 911.

 

[Kleanbore]

And all of that reinforces the point.

What point?

Nor are you with missing the point.

What point?

 

[Sam1911]

That's ridiculous.

Well then, the ridiculousness started on page 2 with this comment.

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.

Similar type comments were made on other pages but apparently it doesn't become ridiculous until page 8 or 9...?

What are you talking about? I'm having a hard time connecting the dots you're throwing out.

The CCW man CHOSE to engage. He had no pressing legally compelling/justified reason (that we have yet determined) to engage the departing robber with verbal judo or gunfire. And yet, he did so. Now there is nothing ridiculous about that statement. It is pure fact.

He had a choice as how to proceed. He was not under immediate lethal threat. He went outside (with his gun, presumably, drawn) and yelled at the man with the rifle. Gunfire ensued.


What is your point, here?

Yes, I would call 911, and I would tell them who I am and what I look like, but I would not "do nothing".

I should ask someone to make sure everyone else was okay. You'd know that answer since you were there so this amounts to 'doing nothing' so far

Technically, no. Patrons with heart conditions, etc. may need medical attention after suffering though a traumatic situation like this.

But if it is "doing nothing," so what?

I would strongly suggest that no one leave and walk ito harm's way. This,, realistically, amounts to doing nothing and may even keep people inside the fish bowl waiting to be shot if he returns.

You'd have to evaluate the likelihood of greatest danger in advising anyone what to do. Is it more dangerous to go the same way the armed man went, and possibly encounter him again, or more dangerous to assume he's taken his money and is leaving? A choice to make in the moment. I'd probably stay put, myself, with gun ready if he reappears. But the reasons he might come back and start to act violently are pretty far fetched.

But again, if this is "doing nothing," SO WHAT?

I would get away from windows and down and out of sight if possible, and try to get everyone else to safety. Ok... I'll give you this to a degree. But you said above youd suggest no one leave so it appears you're suggesting to 'get low from the windows' and maybe go hide in the back or something.

So far so good. Get out of the immediate danger zone, if one still exists.

If this is "doing nothing," SO friggin' WHAT?

And while I would be in condition orange until the police arrived, I would make very sure that I did not have gun in hand when they came. Ohhkaaay.

And all of that reinforces the point.

And we'd like to know what that point is?

That you MUST do SOMETHING and can't resist that urge, even if there's neither a point, nor a lawful cover for your actions, and if they result in likely harm to you or others?

You are not impressing anyone with rational arguments.

Nor are you with missing the point.

What is the point, then?

So I'd like to hear from those on what they suggest to do beside sit there and do nothing after calling 911.

That is THE BEST ANSWER we could give, under the circumstances we know existed.

If that's "doing nothing" -- SO WHAT? Sometimes doing "nothing" (i.e. nothing that gets you shot, nothing that gets someone else shot, nothing that puts you in a squad car, court, or jail) is EXACTLY what you should do.

 

[jmorris]

If you force a confrontation

That too is speculative. What if a lady was sitting next to the same guy earlier and she left without her purse. Noticing this the guy picks it up and goes outside calling to her, would that be a forced confrontation?

If she turned around towards him, not pointing a gun at him would that be different than if an armed robber turned around and pointed a rifle at him?

 

[danez71]

I guess this is projection on my part. I can't see too many options for Mr. Bad Guy here.

CCW guy is yelling at him, and has a gun. (We don't know exactly when CCW guy drew his weapon, but one would assume it was before the yelling because otherwise...wow.)

What does robber do?
1) Give up. Well, that is an option and I guess it must happen sometimes.
2) Ignore him. Wait, ignore the guy who has a gun and is yelling at you? That seems unlikely.
3) Fight. You have a rifle and someone is yelling at you and has a gun. I would expect that fighting back with that rifle is going to be far and away the most likely result.

And that's exactly what Mr. Robber did do!

He didn't really 'fight back'... but I'll chalk it up to semantics. What you've pointed out is that there is a 2/3rds chance of him not 'fighting back.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but are you really saying that you would not have expected him to shoot at the armed man yelling at him? Perhaps this is just some fundamental disconnect, but I have no idea why you'd think that is unlikely Man with gun threatens other man with rifle. What happens next?

By your own assessment, there was a 2/3rds chance of it not happening and considering the article didn't say the BG shot at the patron, it kind of undermines your point.

I did not say he could be charged with ANYTHING for yelling.

I said that enforcing your yelled command with the threat of your gun (or actually shooting your gun) would not necessarily be lawful.

that might be what you meant, but that isn't what you wrote.

You CAN yell at people. You CAN'T point your gun at them or shoot them if they don't do what you tell them.

I didn't say otherwise.

Eeesh... yelling at someone to MAKE them point their rifle at you so you can shoot them? Oy oy oy. I hope he doesn't mention THAT to a detective, or in court.

Yes. Right! And Ive basically said/alluded to that 3 times on 3 different pages.

Dang. That is NOT what I was saying. I was saying that it is legally dark to ENFORCE your commands with the threat of your gun, or by shooting someone.

No argument from me.

AND, as several of us have explained, if YOU initiate the hostile contact that has him bring his gun to bear on you, and you shoot him, that would indeed invalidate your own claim to self-defense. Simplified: You can't go pick a fight with someone and then kill them and claim self defense.

And as I said/alluded, again, 3 times on 3 pages and acknowledged a couple more times... Right!

The robbery that happened a few moments ago has to be separated from that new interaction.

I'm not so sure. I think the totality of the circumstances is commonly part of a trial. But 'neither here nor there' in this part of the discussion.

Ok, I hope no one else took in in that context, because that is incorrect.

That was at least part of my point.



Now back to you other reply,

If that's all you can comprehend out of all the words written here in this thread, I am very sorry. We have failed you.

If you have/had read my other posts in this thread, you'd see that wasn't the case at all.

Quote:
So I'd like to hear from those on what they suggest to do beside sit there and do nothing after calling 911.

If the bad man with the rifle has left the restaurant, why would you do ANYTHING but dial 911? You aren't facing a threat anymore. No-one else in the room is facing a lethal threat. Make sure the cops are on the way and say prayers of thanks that nobody died. That's QUITE enough.

So again, call 911 and do nothing? Just leave yourself and others open to the BG?

That's not really a sentence, but I'll try to answer.

We're trying to discuss the law and how it works. And to discuss tactical decisions made in the actual situation as it really happened (so far as we know). You're bringing up things that DIDN'T happen, and making exaggerated statement because apparently you don't like the suggestions we've made, but that doesn't really support any counterpoint at all.

Again, in my other 3 posts on 3 different pages, I was addressing the legal issue of who pointed the gun at who 1st (outside)

You have brought up things that could have happened that didn't, right? Is that something you can do but that I can not?

The tactical decision you made/suggested above was to call 911. And that's about it.
[Most people]"WHAT? Call 911? Ho-lee-cow! I never thought of THAT! Man, someone should call the cops on him! But just in case, I'd better get my butt and call too! Huh, call the dang 911! I guess that's a good idea. Man, genius of some people!..."[/Most people]

Was that a redundantly funny comment or was that belittling your comment? I think you're better than that, Sam.

 

[Sam1911]

If you force a confrontation

That too is speculative. What if a lady was sitting next to the same guy earlier and she left without her purse. Noticing this the guy picks it up and goes outside calling to her, would that be a forced confrontation?

If she turned around towards him, not pointing a gun at him would that be different than if an armed robber turned around and pointed a rifle at him?

You know, we often point out that the EXACT FACTS of what happens in a lethal force encounter are CRUCIALLY important.


If the man with the concealed pistol runs out the door and yells at the departing robber and (we're assuming, considering his shots) points his gun at him, that's a very specific set of actions.

If the man with the concealed pistol heads out carrying a lady's purse and yells to someone else, "Hey Mabel, you forgot your bag!" ... well that's a completely different set of things that would have actually happened.


You can't say "if the man DIDN'T confront the bad guy at all...wouldn't that be the same as if he did?" That makes no sense.

What you ACTUALLY DO matters.

 

[Kleanbore]

What if a lady was sitting next to the same guy earlier and she left without her purse. Noticing this the guy picks it up and goes outside calling to her, would that be a forced confrontation?

Of course not. How would that constitute a "confrontation"?

If she turned around towards him, not pointing a gun at him would that be different than if an armed robber turned around and pointed a rifle at him?

Of course!

But of course the real question in the case at hand is whether Mr. Citizen did in fact do anything to threaten or provoke the departing robber.

The fact that he was able to shoot the rifleman several times without getting shot would seem to indicate that he had gun in hand.

And yes, that and his approach would be a threatening move.

It might well negate a defense of justification. We'll see.

And the ironic thing is, it would indicate clearly that he had the ability to seriously harm the rifleman. Add to that indications of jeopardy and opportunity, and we very likely have a rifleman with the right to shoot to defend himself. But that did not happen.

 

[jmorris]

At this link.

http://www.fox4news.com/news/173255270-story

At the top of the page there is a news story on the subject that has video from outside the Waffle House. Either they stop the video before the first shot or he was shot before turning around, from what I can see, with the incomplete video.

They do quote a statement that is quite different than those from other sources, like this one.

So he called out to the suspect, and when he turned and pointed the rifle at him, the customer said he shot the suspect several times with his pistol.

 

[Kleanbore]

So again, call 911 and do nothing? Just leave yourself and others open to the BG?

"Leave ...others open to the bad guy"?

Well, unless he actually presents an imminent threat to others, there is not a lot you can do, other than summon the police and stay safe.

Going out would of course, leave yourself "open to the bad guy".

 

[Kleanbore]

It appears that the earlier report that the robber turned and pointed the gun is is in question.

 

[Sam1911]

He didn't really 'fight back'... but I'll chalk it up to semantics.

Tried to fight, then? Happy? IT IS CLAIMED THAT, he raised his rifle and pointed it at CCW guy. I guess he could have been just checking to see if his AK had canted sights, but I'm thinking he was planning to shoot the guy.

What you've pointed out is that there is a 2/3rds chance of him not 'fighting back.

No.

I said there are three possibilities. I think they have VASTLY different probabilities (chances) of happening. There's practically zero chance rifle guy is going to simply ignore CCW guy. So that's really then two possibilities, and only if CCW guy CLEARLY had the absolute drop on rifle guy would I expect rifle guy to give up.

And he didn't give up. He attempted to shoot. And thus, a gunfight.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but are you really saying that you would not have expected him to shoot at the armed man yelling at him? Perhaps this is just some fundamental disconnect, but I have no idea why you'd think that is unlikely Man with gun threatens other man with rifle. What happens next?

By your own assessment, there was a 2/3rds chance of it not happening and considering the article didn't say the BG shot at the patron, it kind of undermines your point.

Nope. Because you're confusing "probability" with "possibility".

When I go home I could eat a nice dinner with my family. Or I could sit in the dark alone all night. Or I could stand in a bucket of raw clams and yodel La Marseillaies until dawn. All are possibilities. They have vastly different probabilities (chances) of happening.

I did not say he could be charged with ANYTHING for yelling.

I said that enforcing your yelled command with the threat of your gun (or actually shooting your gun) would not necessarily be lawful.

that might be what you meant, but that isn't what you wrote.

Oh good heavens. Well, I've said it about seventeen times now, so maybe it's clear?

The robbery that happened a few moments ago has to be separated from that new interaction.

I'm not so sure. I think the totality of the circumstances is commonly part of a trial. But 'neither here nor there' in this part of the discussion.

Sure. And if it were to go to trial, I'm sure that his defense attorney would try to convince the jury that the robbery somehow made CCW guy feel as though some further lethal threat was immanent.

It's a bad bet, but might be important if he ends up at trial.

Quote:
So I'd like to hear from those on what they suggest to do beside sit there and do nothing after calling 911.

If the bad man with the rifle has left the restaurant, why would you do ANYTHING but dial 911? You aren't facing a threat anymore. No-one else in the room is facing a lethal threat. Make sure the cops are on the way and say prayers of thanks that nobody died. That's QUITE enough.

So again, call 911 and do nothing? Just leave yourself and others open to the BG?

Open to? As in, he MIGHT return and open fire? Well, that's a chance you'd have to take as you can't kill him for having robbed a place in the recent past.

As I said, if you've got a gun, be on the lookout in case he does ACTUALLY return and be prepared to resist if he becomes violent at that point.

If you can, as Kleanbore suggested before, keep an eye on him without drawing his attention, and make sure of his commitment to leaving, and that you and the other patrons are out of danger more completely, great!

That's not really a sentence, but I'll try to answer.

We're trying to discuss the law and how it works. And to discuss tactical decisions made in the actual situation as it really happened (so far as we know). You're bringing up things that DIDN'T happen, and making exaggerated statement because apparently you don't like the suggestions we've made, but that doesn't really support any counterpoint at all.

Again, in my other 3 posts on 3 different pages, I was addressing the legal issue of who pointed the gun at who 1st (outside)

Ok, we don't actually know that, though one might surmise that if CCW guy was able to shoot rifle guy when rifle guy already had the gun in his hands, CCW guy probably had his gun out and pointed before he yelled.

But we don't know.

You have brought up things that could have happened that didn't, right?

I've tried not to, and I've been cautious to point out if something is clearly not what happened or if we simply don't know whether something happened or not. And that's mostly been in cases of responding to others who are adding a lot of (pretty irrelevant) "what if/BUT if" comments or questions.

Is that something you can do but that I can not?

No, but be clear and expect the answers to redirect you back to what ACTUALLY happened because, again, what actually happened is critical.

The tactical decision you made/suggested above was to call 911. And that's about it.

Yes. That seems prudent, lawful, and effective at meeting the need.

[Most people]"WHAT? Call 911? Ho-lee-cow! I never thought of THAT! Man, someone should call the cops on him! But just in case, I'd better get my butt and call too! Huh, call the dang 911! I guess that's a good idea. Man, genius of some people!..."[/Most people]

Was that a redundantly funny comment or was that belittling your comment? I think you're better than that, Sam.

It can be whatever you wanted it to be. You made a point of asking what to do. CALL 911 is WHAT to do. Or, if you prefer, make certain that others already have. No, there's no need of making another 911 call if you can clearly see that 5 other people already are on the line with them.

You're repeatedly insinuating that that's not enough. I don't know why.

If you have other suggestions beyond checking medical status, moving yourself and others away from the most likely vectors of danger, staying ready and watchful for Mr. Bad Guy in case he changes his mode of operation completely and decides to escalate to killing, and being a good witness, I'm sure we'd all like to hear what they are.

 

[jmorris]

It appears that the earlier report that the robber turned and pointed the gun is is in question.

Yes, I just found the news clip I linked to in #192 and it tells a different story that the others I have seen or read but like I said they do not show a full and unedited video either.

It is the only one I have seen with any video much less inside and outside video.

In it they quote the arrest warrant affidavit and that seems to confirm firing from behind as well.

...he kept shooting so the suspect didn't have a chance to turn around and shoot him.

The edited video and "..." Before "he kept" might mean Mr Cooper did turn before the first shot but we just need more information. Someone has all the video and that would tell more of the story.

 

[danez71]

But if it is "doing nothing," so what?

But if it is "doing nothing," so what?

But if it is "doing nothing," so what?

But if it is "doing nothing," so what?

But if it is "doing nothing," so what?



And we'd like to know what that point is?

The point is, that for the most part, most everything that has been said is countered with 'don't do that'. Some of it is said with added speculative-ness (not the right word I'm looking for) or twisting of what the poster actually said.

Some of 'don't do that' type replies are said in a way that portrays that's its silly to even think of doing something.


So.... I said, its comes across as the only right answer is to not do anything but sit there and call 911.

And while that is a bit of an exaggeration, so far the replies have been largely just that and continues with comments like this:

If the bad man with the rifle has left the restaurant, why would you do ANYTHING but dial 911?

Well, there ARE reasons to do SOMETHING besides just calling 911.


Like maybe this one:

If I actually thought that a loved one might be arriving and I could not warn her by telephone, I might have considered leaving the facility--with great vigilance, staying out of sight as much as possible.
.

Please don't mischaracterize me by replying with something like 'kleanbore didnt say to go confront the BG'; I'm not saying he did.

 

[Old Dog]

Did anyone else watch that linked video jmorris provided?

Well, apparently a former Texas prosecuting attorney, now a criminal defense lawyer, one Mr. Toby Shook, states that the customer was justified in accordance with state law, following him out and even if he shot him in the back.

The customer was not charged. A former Dallas County prosecutor said he acted well within his rights to shoot the suspect.

“The legal term is reasonable apprehension and if someone is robbing people with a deadly weapon, with a gun making threats and he goes out in the parking lot and he still has that weapon, a citizen can shoot him,” said Toby Shook, a criminal defense attorney.

 

[danez71]

Did anyone else watch that linked video jmorris provided?

Well, apparently a former Texas prosecuting attorney, now a criminal defense lawyer, one Mr. Toby Shook, states that the customer was justified in accordance with state law, following him out and even if he shot him in the back.

His Bio is long and pretty impressive. Part of his bio

http://shookandgunter.com/attorneys/toby-shook/

With over twenty years experience with the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office, Mr. Shook rose to the rank of Chief of the Felony Trial Division and tried some of the most high-profile cases in Dallas County history, including <snip>

 

[Old Dog]

Yeah, I'd say he's qualified to comment on the lawfulness of the shooter's actions ...

But then again, let's not let expert opinion get in the way of advocating that the best action is no action.