Family of Dead Armed Robber Calls for Stricter Gun Laws

[AMT]

Let me explain...

Guy tries to rob you/others. He's got a gun out and you pull out your firearm...

If he drops his gun and runs he is no longer a threat and can no longer shot him. You can try to stop him and detain him, but your best bet is to call the police, tell them what happened and be a good witness to the crime.

Now, say he doesn't drop the gun...in my opinion- he is still a deadly threat until he is no longer armed. Just because he left the restaurant doesn't mean he's no longer a threat.

You don't have to wait for the badguy to run to cover or reload to shoot him. He's a threat until he's not.

So, are you trying to say that it is OK to chase after them, running down the street, shoot them in the back, and it is OK?

 

[BigStick]

...
Although doing a Google search for Waffle House robbery turned up a surprising number of hits, even when I added the name of the town. You take you life in your hands going into one of those places.

I have heard this before. If there is a specific chain of restraunts that get robbed all the time, why would anyone go there? Or is it all of the restraunts, and this chain just makes the news more?

Being from a region where we don't have them, I am confused. They must have REALLY GOOD waffles to risk your life to get them.

 

[AMT]

The Waffle House (the awful waffle as it is also known) is huge back East. Kind of like IHOP out here. Not unlike out here, located everywhere. Good parts of town, and bad parts of town. Open late and feeds the drunks when the bars close down. Yea, not always the best feeling when in one that is located in a not-so-desirable part of town.

 

[GrpCapMandrake]

I have heard this before. If there is a specific chain of restraunts that get robbed all the time, why would anyone go there? Or is it all of the restraunts, and this chain just makes the news more?

Being from a region where we don't have them, I am confused. They must have REALLY GOOD waffles to risk your life to get them.

They're to die for.

 

[Bam]

The family of Williams says that Harrison didn't need to shoot and shouldn't have felt threatened.

This made me laugh! The video clearly shows the moron pointing a gun at employees and guests in an extremely THREATENING way. Yet nobody should have felt threatened? SERIOUSLY?

Harrison didn't need to shoot? Their cousin didn't need to be a scumbag, if he was actually respectable like they say he would still be alive.

 

[Stomper]

If I was named "Dante" like the perpetrator, I would have changed my last name to "Inferno" and become a NASCAR racer... or even a Chip & Dales performer!

 

[RicInOR]

On an side note. The Waffle House Measure, is used to determine how bad a natural disaster, usually hurricanes, are. If the Waffle House's are closed, It is Bad.

Those weather channel reports in the wind and water -- those guys are eating somewhere - the WH.

 

[Riot]

So, are you trying to say that it is OK to chase after them, running down the street, shoot them in the back, and it is OK?

If they have used hostile intent to use deadly force and all of the criteria for deadly force is still present (means, motive and opportunity) the fact that they have their back to you and distance between you has nothing to do with it.

Let me explain.

Bullets can travel great distances and penetrate through multiple layers and of various concealment.

Just because someone exits a building or runs to cover to reengage you from a position that is advantageous to them is tactically unsound.

Mind you a guy running away with a knife is going to be a hard sell to explain why you shot him in the back when he turned and ran from you after he noticed you were armed.
However, do you have to wait for the man that just unloaded a magazine on you to reload before you shoot him?

No. You don't.

I would just as quickly shoot a man in the face armed with a knife as I would a man in the back running with a pistol.

 

[AMT]

I agree that defending your life by using deadly force if you feel you, your loved ones or those around you (think the theater/school/mall shootings) would be justified.

I just feel that you would be extremely hard pressed to defend your actions when the person is shot in the back 30/40+ feet from you while they were trying to run from you.

Kind of like someone breaking into your car in your driveway, with or without a gun in their hands. If you go outside to engage them you had better have a great attorney. Same scenario... and they started to run from your house, and were down the street/driveway, after you went out to engage them and you started shooting at them in their back.

If the person runs to take cover and engage, then they have shown that they really do want to do harm to you and others. THEN all bets are off for when/where they get shot regardless of distance from you.

If they are fleeing you have to assume there is no longer a threat.

I guess this is one of those "where do you stop shooting?"

I would love to hear a LEO, prosecutor/defense attorney, judge to chime in.

Personally, and I mean personally, I think you would be convicted of murder by doing what you've mentioned.

 

[Riot]

I agree that defending your life by using deadly force if you feel you, your loved ones or those around you (think the theater/school/mall shootings) would be justified.
I just feel that you would be extremely hard pressed to defend your actions when the person is shot in the back 30/40+ feet from you while they were trying to run from you.

Well this is where the argument of "why are you shooting him in the first place"? comes into play. 30/40 yards Doesn't mean a lot to a firearm- other than accuracy. Can you just as easily die from a gunshot 30/40 yards as you can at <1 yard? You bet.

Kind of like someone breaking into your car in your driveway, with or without a gun in their hands.

That's where I actually have issues with people shooting at someone stealing property. There's a difference between someone having a crowbar in their hand and breaking into an unoccupied vehicle versus someone coming at you with a crowbar demanding your wallet. One deserves to be shot until he is no longer a threat; the other deserves to be in a prison cell.

If you go outside to engage them you had better have a great attorney.

What do you mean by "engaging them"? Shooting them, or just yelling at them to stop with a gun drawn?

Same scenario... and they started to run from your house, and were down the street/driveway, after you went out to engage them and you started shooting at them in their back.

Armed vs. Unarmed and Hostile Intent vs. Criminal Intent has to be assessed here. Just because a bad guy has a weapon (lets go back to the crowbar analogy) doesn't automatically mean you can kill them. What I'm including with my "shoot them in the back" scenario is someone that has already displayed hostile intent towards you or others.

A knife out and in a threatening manner while verbally demanding your possessions.
A gun pointed at you or others or even fired in the air.
A car, started and traversing in your direction.
A baseball bat, poised for a swing and within reach.

These are all situations where someone is displaying hostile intent. Unless they drop the weapon or are in no position to harm you with it (i.e. a knife out of lunging range) then shooting this person is still viable. Firearms can and will kill at hundreds of yards- the only thing it really depends upon is the proficiency of the shooter.

Just as a lucky punch can render you paralyzed, a lucky shot can still kill you- that is all I'm saying.

If the person runs to take cover and engage, then they have shown that they really do want to do harm to you and others.

They have shown that they "really want to do harm to others" the minute that they pointed a gun at me/others. You do not have to be shot at to defend yourself.

THEN all bets are off for when/where they get shot regardless of distance from you.

All bets were off the minute those thugs brought guns drawn into the establishment. They were a threat until they were neutralized- either by being disarmed or by no longer being able to use the weapons that they displayed the Hostile Intent to do harm.

If they are fleeing you have to assume there is no longer a threat.

This is a false assumption. A tactical retreat to cover, a malfunctions check on your firearm or reloading can be done during this "fleeing". If you point a gun at me you will get shot until you are no longer a threat- regardless of distance or if your back is turned.

I guess this is one of those "where do you stop shooting?"

Until you are no longer a threat.

I would love to hear a LEO, prosecutor/defense attorney, judge to chime in.
Personally, and I mean personally, I think you would be convicted of murder by doing what you've mentioned.

Being former LEO and current DT instructor I can still tell you I will shoot someone in the back. I, too had a moral dilemma with shooting people in the back until I was explained the reasoning...now I embrace it.

It occurred while showing someone trying to disarm you and you happen to win the exchange- if you shoot them, you just shot an unarmed person. However, if they are reaching for your weapon you have to assume that their intent isn't to sell it on Craigslist (thus Hostile Intent is perceived).

I also had this happen on a training exercise while in the Army. A "bad guy" had a weapon's malfunction when the bolt of his M249 locked forward to the rear. The bad guy attempted to fix the gun and nobody shot him while this time elapsed...the lesson? Just because the bad guy can't shoot you now doesn't mean he won't when he can. If he has already shown a propensity to commit violence (pointing a gun at you) why should you assume that he won't shoot you when the tables turn back into his favor?

 

[RVTECH]

He's pointing a gun at me and demanding money, but I shouldn't feel threatened? Yeah, got it.

Like I have said MANY times - it is the prevailing belief among liberals (for some unknown reason) it is better to be a victim than to defend yourself. I suspect this may be based on the (incorrect) theory by 'giving in' to someone's demands results is a 'lessening' of their violent tendencies.

 

[coyote223]

Its always someone else's fault. They just can't take responsibility for their piss-poor parenting, or the fact that the kids were engaged in criminal activity. A new trend started by the angel boy trayvon's parents,,,

We have to take everyone's gun rights away, so our angelic childrenz don't get kilt while committing armed robbery,,,

 

[Riot]

Like I have said MANY times - it is the prevailing belief among liberals (for some unknown reason) it is better to be a victim than to defend yourself. I suspect this may be based on the (incorrect) theory by 'giving in' to someone's demands results is a 'lessening' of their violent tendencies.

It's also under the false assumtion (from a Liberal standpoint) that we are shooting them because they are stealing the wallet.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

This shooting "in the back" question depends on what the person is doing while the back is turned.

If they're stabbing someone with their back to you, that's much different situation than fleeing a car prowl, and the question is, if fleeing, fleeing what? IIRC, it is permissible to shoot someone fleeing a dangerous felony such as criminal homicide. Local laws may vary.

In the exchanges I've had with people who many would classify as "liberals", their general viewpoint seems to be that all encounters with violent crime should be a matter left up to the police, who are there to protect and serve. Call in the professionals. You needn't do anything.

Along those same lines, a longtime friend and I were discussing short-term collapse scenarios such as those which occur during a week long natural catastrophe, such as (Katrina) Mt. Rainier erupting and stopping all food, traffic, and police services.

"What have you got in your garage if something like that happens? Have you got a supply of water and a shotgun? MRE's?"

"Nothing." This is a guy with a JD (law) degree, not a crack addict sitting on a park bench. Yet, the total of his preps and equipment to survive if the power goes off and water stops is... nothing.

This illuminates the mindset that the well-to-do needn't be self sufficient or prepared for anything because the Volvo and American Express card will always save the day. AAA will always come down the road to change the tire.

And that's how we see people in the more privileged communities tending to vote in ways that place more and more power in State and Federal hands, while stripping the self-sufficiently minded of the basic ability to defend themselves.

It is a viewpoint which stems from a "rosy glasses" mindset: they deserve- and live in -a trouble-free world, that the college degrees and income that those bring will bring a utopian lifestyle: where crime, poverty, service interruptions and natural disasters will just not touch them. They don't need MRE's guns, spare fuel, solar panels or anything else because of the invisible shield of privilege that somehow surrounds them.

So back to the original post, regarding the family suing the defenders of their own lives: imagine if the perp lived long enough to appear in your civil trial to testify about how YOU ruined his life, which was full of promise and now is just an estimate of loss of earning power? Hoo!

 

[BigStick]

The other thing that could justify you in shooting him in the back is a consideration of defense of the 3rd party. He may have turned away from you, but what about the people in the parking lot who he is running towards with gun drawn? They may not do what he expects/wants, and he could shoot them for it. They are still in immediate danger even though you "might" not be.

This could hold significant weight, especially if you are meeting family or friends there who you know may be showing up shortly. You don't want to give the thug a chance to bump into and engage them on the way out.

 

[AMT]

I can understand about shooting in the back in certain scenarios - every scenario is going to be different. Someone with their back to you knifing someone, etc. Yes, "imminent life threatening danger to you and/or those around you....." Justification is there.

What I question is the person running away and you shooting. The person running away, you chasing and shooting.

If it were legal, 100% legal with no recourse, why don't the police do it? Why run after a BG? Just stand there and shoot. No one can run 1300 fps.

 

[BigStick]

It is the police's job to catch the bad guys and put them in the system, not to kill them. Plus, they don't need the bad PR for the departments.

 

[AMT]

I guess there is something to that. They are not judge, jury and executioner. Our society hasn't fallen THAT far - yet.

 

[Stomper]

I guess there is something to that. They are not judge, jury and executioner. Our society hasn't fallen THAT far - yet.

"I AM the law." -Judge Dred

 

[Riot]

What I question is the person running away and you shooting. The person running away, you chasing and shooting.

I'm not going to wait until the guy realizes that his gun is on SAFE, reloads or gets to cover.

Again, I'm not shooting at him simply because I have the upper hand or because I'm angry that he had the audacity to point a firearm at me...I'm shooting him because he's still a threat.