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

[jmorris]

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

His opinion also won't be the last word on the subject either, even though arguably more valid that most of us I would assume, as he was a prosecutor in the County where this took place.

He also didn't state that the action taken was the "best" choice rather simply "justified".

 

[Sam1911]

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.

For every scenario there are lots of possible reactions. In many cases, especially where lethal force is involved, there are a LOT of very bad possible reactions, some of which may seem like a good idea at first blush.

Thinking of "doing something" is fine, but we're here to discuss WHAT to do, and what NOT to do, and evaluate choices which fall in between.

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:

Quote:
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:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kleanbore View Post

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.

Which I agreed with, and made a point of repeating several times.

 

[Sam1911]

His opinion also won't be the last word on the subject either, even though arguably more valid that most of us I would assume, as he was a prosecutor in the County where this took place.

Indeed. It does bode well for the CCW fellow, and certainly we can hope he doesn't face charges.

Of course, former prosecutors (i.e. defense attorneys) and current prosecutors do square off every day on opposing sides of issues just like this. If they all agreed, nobody'd have to have a day in court.

 

[Old Dog]

jmorris noted:

He also didn't state that the action taken was the "best" choice rather simply "justified".

You think you're going to get much more than that out of a lawyer? I didn't see anyone in this entire thread saying that the actions of the armed citizen were "the best choice." But, he did make a choice, and is apparently willing to leave with the consequences of his choice.

Interesting -- I just noted member Warp's signature line in one of his posts in another thread:

"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
― Edmund Burke

“In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing."
― Theodore Roosevelt

That is all for now. Old Dog out.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

There's a whole lotta apples and oranges going on!

On top of piles of assumptions and suppositions!

 

[agtman]

I will speculate that calling to the robber causes him to rotate into a center mass opportunity.

No doubt.

Just say loudly, "Dudenal, drop that f-ing gun!"

And when he turns toward you, weapon pointed - because, after all, he is an official badass M/F - well then, you unload on him like Doc Holiday at the O.K.

Okay?

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

jmorris noted:

You think you're going to get much more than that out of a lawyer? I didn't see anyone in this entire thread saying that the actions of the armed citizen were "the best choice." But, he did make a choice, and is apparently willing to leave with the consequences of his choice.

Interesting -- I just noted member Warp's signature line in one of his posts in another thread:

"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
― Edmund Burke

“In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing."
― Theodore Roosevelt

That is all for now. Old Dog out.

Might I point out that there is a difference between "doing nothing" and "making a conscious and informed decision to take no action".

Likewise, making a decision to remain behind, in this shooting instance, and keeping customers calm and sheltered while calling for help (911) is NOT "doing nothing", as it seems some others may be implying.

 

[danez71]

Might I point out that there is a difference between "doing nothing" and "making a conscious and informed decision to take no action".

Likewise, making a decision to remain behind, in this shooting instance, and keeping customers calm and sheltered while calling for help (911) is NOT "doing nothing", as it seems some others may be implying.

Since you're referring to me in a not so covert way.....



You have a point except that,

In the context of this scenario, "making a conscious and informed decision to take no action" except to make sure everyone is calm, ducking below the window line, and anyone that may have a heart condition is OK is "choosing to do nothing" to prevent your wife from running into armed robber with AK and a drum mag in a dimly lit parking lot.


YMMV, but I'll take the opportunity every time to protect my wife 24/7 365 days out of the year (leap year too!) over making sure that the waffle house patrons are calm and no one needs their nitroglycerin pills..


Isnt that why we carry? To protect our selves and our families?

Or do we carry to make sure everyone is OK inside the waffle house?

 

[jmorris]

You think you're going to get much more than that out of a lawyer?

Likely not, but I have always had the "best" results by doing things that don't need the consultation of a lawyer and that is having two of them in my immediate family...

In any case "justified" by a former prosecutor from the State and County the incident occurred in, is a positive endorsement.

 

[Red Wind]

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

If you got a name like Toby Shook, your bio better be impressive! I kid. I'm sure the counselor is tip top and worthy of his endorsements.

 

[Sam1911]

You have a point except that,

In the context of this scenario, "making a conscious and informed decision to take no action" except to make sure everyone is calm, ducking below the window line, and anyone that may have a heart condition is OK is "choosing to do nothing" to prevent your wife from running into armed robber with AK and a drum mag in a dimly lit parking lot.


YMMV, but I'll take the opportunity every time to protect my wife 24/7 365 days out of the year (leap year too!) over making sure that the waffle house patrons are calm and no one needs their nitroglycerin pills..


Isnt that why we carry? To protect our selves and our families?

Or do we carry to make sure everyone is OK inside the waffle house?

As I've pointed out quite a few times, the wife angle could change what risks someone might reasonably take, and whether one would remain in one place or move.

We don't know much about that situation. His wife was somewhere, or coming there, or maybe already there somewhere out side. As we discussed a while back, there is some chance that running outside, calling out to the robber and forcing a shooting was the reasonable way to make certain of her safety but any supporting facts leading to that conclusion have clearly not been made available to us.

Moving out to the parking lot to keep a watch to make sure she didn't walk into harm's way seems like a decent idea. But that's not quite what happened.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Since you're referring to me in a not so covert way.....



You have a point except that,

In the context of this scenario, "making a conscious and informed decision to take no action" except to make sure everyone is calm, ducking below the window line, and anyone that may have a heart condition is OK is "choosing to do nothing" to prevent your wife from running into armed robber with AK and a drum mag in a dimly lit parking lot.


YMMV, but I'll take the opportunity every time to protect my wife 24/7 365 days out of the year (leap year too!) over making sure that the waffle house patrons are calm and no one needs their nitroglycerin pills..


Isnt that why we carry? To protect our selves and our families?

Or do we carry to make sure everyone is OK inside the waffle house?

You're sure into making a lot of assumptions, here. Like, for instance, that I'm singling you out in my last post.

Doing nothing has been on the table for discussion as far back as post #5 where another member said "This looked like a situation that called for a good witness instead of intervention." Even so, he advocated doing something (be a good witness) over strictly "doing nothing" by not intervening.

And where, pray tell, do you get the impression from my last post that I would choose to do nothing to prevent my wife from running into an armed robber?

While attempting to carry on a meaningful dialog in an internet forum on a purely text basis is, by its very nature, limited in scope and content, it should be readily understood that not every single little detail is going to find its way into a posting. Thus absence of anything in particular does not necessarily mean, or imply, more than the fact that it simply was not posted.

One such detail would be the subject of my wife in this instance. You seem to think that just because I did not mention in my last post that I would have considered my wife, that this, somehow, implies I would not have. Where do you get that? I also did not mention looking out for crying children, panicing pregnant mothers, or a crazed service animal, either. None of which indicates I would not consider them and do something about them.

But that is a pointless exercise because we're not discussing what I would have done based on all kinds of hypothetical circumstances.


We carry to protect ourselves. The law also allows us to extend that self-protection to others around us, such as our family members and others.

"Protecting" someone who is not physically there, as in the WH example, is NOT necessarily legal OR smart.

And THAT is what I (and others) have been trying to say.

If anybody chooses to pursue a bad guy when he's broken off the engagement and is leaving the scene, they better have their head on straight about it. Because they WILL be held accountable for their actions if they choose wrong. This is not a subject that can be taken blithely

And how can one take care of and protect their family if their choice gets them killed, disabled for life, impoverished through court battles, or imprisoned?

 

[danez71]

You're sure into making a lot of assumptions, here. Like, for instance, that I'm singling you out in my last post.

Doing nothing has been on the table for discussion as far back as post #5 where another member said "This looked like a situation that called for a good witness instead of intervention." Even so, he advocated doing something (be a good witness) over strictly "doing nothing" by not intervening.

And where, pray tell, do you get the impression from my last post that I would choose to do nothing to prevent my wife from running into an armed robber?

While attempting to carry on a meaningful dialog in an internet forum on a purely text basis is, by its very nature, limited in scope and content, it should be readily understood that not every single little detail is going to find its way into a posting. Thus absence of anything in particular does not necessarily mean, or imply, more than the fact that it simply was not posted.

One such detail would be the subject of my wife in this instance. You seem to think that just because I did not mention in my last post that I would have considered my wife, that this, somehow, implies I would not have. Where do you get that? I also did not mention looking out for crying children, panicing pregnant mothers, or a crazed service animal, either. None of which indicates I would not consider them and do something about them.

But that is a pointless exercise because we're not discussing what I would have done based on all kinds of hypothetical circumstances.


We carry to protect ourselves. The law also allows us to extend that self-protection to others around us, such as our family members and others.

"Protecting" someone who is not physically there, as in the WH example, is NOT necessarily legal OR smart.

And THAT is what I (and others) have been trying to say.

If anybody chooses to pursue a bad guy when he's broken off the engagement and is leaving the scene, they better have their head on straight about it. Because they WILL be held accountable for their actions if they choose wrong. This is not a subject that can be taken blithely

And how can one take care of and protect their family if their choice gets them killed, disabled for life, impoverished through court battles, or imprisoned?

Are you saying that you used post# 205 to address post the point made in #5, made 8 pages ago, and not my comments made on this very page just a few posts before yours???



I didn't get that impression at all. Now you're making assumptions about me and what I said.


I said,

You have a point except that,

In the context of this scenario,,,,

IOW, I agree with what you're saying but it doesn't apply in the context of this scenario. And its THIS scenario that we're talking about, right?


You also said:

But that is a pointless exercise because we're not discussing what I would have done based on all kinds of hypothetical circumstances.

That's seems to be conformation that we're talking about this scenario.


How, pray tell to you, do you get that I'm accusing you of doing nothing to protect your wife in this scenario when I acknowledged you have a point... but that it doesn't fit THIS scenario?

 

[danez71]

As I've pointed out quite a few times, the wife angle could change what, and whether one would remain in one place or move.

We don't know much about that situation. His wife was somewhere, or coming there, or maybe already there somewhere out side. As we discussed a while back, there is some chance that running outside, calling out to the robber and forcing a shooting was the reasonable way to make certain of her safety but any supporting facts leading to that conclusion have clearly not been made available to us.

Moving out to the parking lot to keep a watch to make sure she didn't walk into harm's way seems like a decent idea. But that's not quite what happened.

OK Sam. I get it.

The wife angle "could change what, and whether one would remain in one place or move."

And other than that

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

Fine. Cool.

 

[JohnKSa]

I believe I noted that citizens should take whatever actions within the law to stop crimes.

That's the point. It's generally not within the law to pursue someone after they have committed a crime, initiate an armed confrontation with them and then shoot them if they respond with deadly force to the threat that you have presented to them. (That may not be precisely what happened here, but if it's not then it's still worth making the comment just so that it's clear what kind of thing could get an armed citizen in trouble.)

In this case, being able to justify following the criminal out of the building where the crime was committed by stating that the purpose was defending a third party due to arrive on the scene imminently seems to have provided adequate rationale for what happened. Let's hope that it holds up.

Some here apparently feel that the sole reason to arm themselves is self-defense, and perhaps defense of family.

If you read the TX statutes regarding the use of deadly force, it would be hard to come up with a more accurate single-sentence summary than to say that: "The sole reason to arm yourself is to defend innocent life."

That would include self-defense, defense of family and even the defense of innocent third parties under some circumstances.

It wouldn't generally include following a criminal away from the scene of a completed crime and initiating a confrontation where someone ends up getting shot.

It wouldn't include taking back communities. I'm not aware of anything in the TX statutes regarding the justifiable use of deadly force that suggests that deadly force is justified to allow citizens to take back their communities.

I think there's a lot of confusion here. This isn't about opinion. How people FEEL about this doesn't really change what the law actually SAYS about it. As I said earlier, I'm not exactly all broken up about the fact that an armed robber is likely going to be out of circulation as a result of this. But I AM concerned that another armed citizen might see what happened here as evidence that if they ever witness a crime, that they can follow the criminal confront him and then shoot him if he makes a wrong move. Because there's a good chance that if they do, they could end up being shot by the bad guy if they lose the confrontation or in jail if they "win" it.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Are you saying that you used post# 205 to address post the point made in #5, made 8 pages ago, and not my comments made on this very page just a few posts before yours???

No.

I'm saying you're showing a habit of making posts into something they're not in this thread, and then being defensive & argumentative about it.

You made assumptions that weren't true, then called me out on them. If I had wanted to address your comments specifically, I would have sourced them by either name or direct quote and we could have conversed here on a more personal level about them.

Sometimes general themes develop in threads and it's a particular theme that gets addressed and not an individual.

 

[Old Guy]

All this blather about "calling out" Not charging, etc. Hundreds of words.

And no one here would advocate shooting him in the building? When he was 4ft away? All gambling on his good will? 30 rounds? More rounds than people.

The 7.62X39 projectile at close range? Devastating.
All he had to do, was press the trigger. He was nuts, yes?

 

[Jim Watson]

These things are seldom clear cut.
All we can be sure of is that the patrons are alive, the intervening (wisely or not) CCW is alive, and the perp is in custody in used condition, unlikely to do more perpetrating any time soon.
Maybe the CCW can avoid the next cell and we may hope his wife is appreciative of his efforts.

 

[Kleanbore]

And no one here would advocate shooting him in the building? When he was 4ft away? All gambling on his good will? 30 rounds? More rounds than people.

That's something that can only be assessed by someone who is there. It would depend on a number of things:

• Does the would-be defender have reason to really believe that the robber is likely to shoot if he does nothing, or is it more likely that the robber will only start firing if he is engaged by gunfire?
• Can a would-be defender reasonably succeed in hitting with a sufficient number of shots to effect a stop before the robber can shoot?
• Can he do so without injuring others?
• Is there a covert "tail gunner" lurking in the place, there for just such a development?

That assessment would depend upon the robber's apparent mindset; on where his attention is directed; on where the would-be defender is with respect to the robber; and on where everyone else is.

Drawing a gun could save lives, or it could result in casualties the would not have occurred but for the would-be defender's intervention.

In retrospect, it would have been a bad gambit in the Dallas Waffle House robbery---Mr. Cooper left without harming anyone.

That's hindsight, but that is the way most armed robberies turn out.

For those who might find themselves indecisive, if the robber tells everyone to get on the floor, or to get into a back room, that is a pretty good indication that inaction would not lead to a situation that ends well.

 

[Jim Watson]

Not being an expert, I have to fall back on one cop's advice to his wife:
"If we are in an establishment that is being held up, let them take the money and go. But if they start searching customers which would find my gun and badge or if they tell us to lay on the floor where they will likely eliminate witnesses, stand back, the shooting is fixing to start."

Had a case like that here, a restaurant was being held up, an armed customer dove under his table. When he saw the crooks herding the other patrons into the pantry, he opened fire. Everybody approved. Except the crooks.

 

[Old Guy]

You have to be sure of your skill, your equipment, gun/holster.

In my case, I taught people to shoot people, for over twenty years, in Toronto Canada students were Police and Security.

It is impossible to know what an other person is going to do, you can only predict what you will do.

Equipment. Slick Kydex holster, no snaps, Glock 19 held in by a tight crimp, but with a strong yank, it is coming out.
I have shot thousands of rounds, all from the holster, no standing at a bench.

I teach people to hit a 2" circle at 7m (eye socket) domestic, inside a kitchen.

An upward directed 147g 9mm, from 4' into the top lip, or nose (Brain stem?)
is lights out. Shoot through? In the roof. I have thought this through? Yes Sir!

When I am out and about, with my Wife. My Job, looking after her, in any circumstances. That is my job. And I have done that for 23 years.

 

[danez71]

All this blather about "calling out" Not charging, etc. Hundreds of words.

And no one here would advocate shooting him in the building? When he was 4ft away? All gambling on his good will? 30 rounds? More rounds than people.

The 7.62X39 projectile at close range? Devastating.
All he had to do, was press the trigger. He was nuts, yes?

Yes, nuts.

No, the mantra here seems to be that once he leaves the building, why would you do anything else but to just call 911? Just duck for cover, make sure everyone is calm and that people don't need their heart meds And maybe if your wife is on her way, you might want to deviate.


No advocating taking measures to prevent/hinder the armed gunman with an AK and drum mag from coming back for more of what he came for; Or, worse!

No one here advocates locking the door behind him. Or turning out the lights to prevent being silhouette targets. It seemed pretty easy for him the 1st time but I guess the theory is that bad guys never come back.

I never thought of it before, but maybe pulling the fire alarm could work to get the guy out of the immediate area quicker?

If you're not armed, maybe a fire extinguisher, or other make shift weapon is within reach.


Even if we take the wife out of the picture;

I (hopefully) would at least take some action to prevent the armed BG with an AK and drum mag from coming back as that seems more prudent than worrying about everyone being calm and that no one has chest pains.

 

[jmorris]

30 rounds?

They have video of him with the rifle and a still shot of it in the video at this link.

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

Looks like a 75 round drum mag to me.

 

[Kleanbore]

No advocating taking measures to prevent/hinder the armed gunman with an AK and drum mag from coming back for more of what he came for; Or, worse!

Make that coming back in.

When I mentioned Condition Orange (and reholstering) I meant to imply that.

I don't know enough about locking that kind of door to comment.

 

[Old Guy]

Dane.

Not "Pulling a gun" Shooting him! The only person you can direct, is you. Drum Mag. Worse!

Waiting till? Not a good idea, he is 4' away. A snap shot at that range, I could do. And would do.

Do not think about/Legal/is there two Etc/Etc. I had a Brother in Law like that, wait/wait, someone else will look after it. Sure.