General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRobber killed in SC Waffle House shooting by customer
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by EarlG (a host of the General Discussion forum).
SPARTANBURG, S.C. — The Spartanburg County Sheriff's Office says a man attempting to rob a local Waffle House at gunpoint was shot and killed by a customer carrying a concealed weapon.
Lt. Tony Ivey says two men entered the restaurant early Saturday morning and at least one was carrying a handgun. A customer with a concealed weapons permit drew his gun, and fired when one of the suspects pointed the weapon at him.
Spartanburg County Coroner Charles Clevenger identified the dead man as Dante Lamont Williams of Roebuck, who turned 19 years old on Saturday.
<snip>
http://www.thestate.com/2012/01/21/2122485/police-robber-killed-in-sc-waffle.html
Told you them Waffle Houses were dangerous!
Wonder if they gave him free hash browns?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)would seem to be the message from this. Robbers in places like New York City can be much more comfortable that the bystanders will be defenseless.
spin
(17,493 posts)Many carry on a regular basis.
It would be wise for anyone considering robbing an establishment or a individual in Florida to be aware of this fact.
Florida also has a "Stand Your Ground" self defense law which means that a Floridian has no duty to retreat if attacked when in a place he has a right to be.
Wise criminals who rob and pillage other citizens practice their profession in cities like New York or Chicago. Unfortunately many such criminals lack commonsense.
marmar
(79,085 posts)
The sh*t you read on DU sometimes......
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)WTF is right...
derby378
(30,262 posts)With all of our gun shows and concealed-carry permits, you'd think we'd have levelled the city by now. But no, we found a way to make it work without sacrificing our Second Amendment rights. Who knew?
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Thugs do not want to get killed any more than the rest of us. Florida and rural locations are higher risk than areas where the poor are disarmed by classist gun control laws with racist roots.
Renew Deal
(84,617 posts)Tell that guys family about how it's OK to commit robberies in NY.
Blacksheep214
(877 posts)I doubt this will get many because of the propaganda value to the NRA.
Don't mention the kids who shoot their friends Shhh!
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)as they parade around claiming to stand for civll liberties... it's a sick joke.
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)I guess that's better than out of Chocolate.
Archae
(47,245 posts)Meth just shuts off their thinking process.
Zax2me
(2,515 posts)In this case, a now dead one.
rfranklin
(13,200 posts)Is there something about concealed carry that renders one invulnerable to bullets?
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)To be sitting there without a way to defend yourself/loved ones or having a gun to level the playing field?
Notice the guy with the conceal carry was obeying the law, the guy without it was using the gun in a crime.
The one without it would not care how many laws were made about guns, he would ignore them. And those are the people you have to worry about anyway.
Sadly, we have learned (through bush and terror) to fear each other and believe we are all the enemy. Looks like they really won.
LonePirate
(14,320 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)But for better or worse, that's not the world we live in. Until such time as our species manages to evolve out of predatory behavior (and frankly, I suspect we'll become extinct long before that happens), I prefer to keep my options open.
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)range. They know their weapon and they know how to hit what they are aiming at. That usually is not the case with your average street thug that will do things like hold guns sideways.
spin
(17,493 posts)The bad guys in the movies often shoot that way.
Movies are where the bad guys learn to shoot.
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)
MattBaggins
(7,947 posts)"generally" is not a very good quantitative term.
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)MattBaggins
(7,947 posts)Be good friends with the right people.
I have had offers of CC just because I'm a vet and my Dad is a retired cop. I've been given the "wink wink, don't worry about the paperwork and such nonsense" talks.
I don't care one iota if people carry guns, but I know personally a shitload of gun owners that are one IQ point away from being legally labelled morons.
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)Good arguments for our against.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)In Texas you attend a 10hr class with a closed book test you must make a 70% or better on. Along with a live fire test of 50 rds.
CHL SHOOTING TEST
3 yards, 20 rounds
•1 shot, 2 seconds, 5 times
•2 shots, 3 seconds, 5 times
•5 shots, 10 seconds, 1 time
7 yards, 20 rounds
•5 shots, 10 seconds, 1 time
•2 shots, 4 seconds, 1 time
•3 shots, 6 seconds, 1 time
•1 shot, 3 seconds, 5 times
•5 shots, 15 seconds, 1 time
15 yards, 10 rounds
•2 shots, 6 seconds, 1 time
•3 shots, 9 seconds, 1 time
•5 shots, 15 seconds, 1 time
Scoring
8,9 and 10 rings = 5 points
7 ring = 4 points
on target, outside rings = 3 points
All strings start from 'low ready'. All shooting may be done with one or two hands. Until 2006, the test was shot using the TXPT target shown in the photos. The 5 point area on the target is approximately 12" across. Starting in 2006 the traditional B27 target will be used for CHL qualification. either a revolver or semi-auto of any caliber. If you only qualify with a revolver (non-semiauto/NSA category) you cannot legally carry a semi-auto. You get three attempts to pass. A 70% score
You are then given both a state and federal background check.
The background check is the same as given LE in Texas and your Texas CHL can be used instead of a NCIS call in when purchasing a firearm.
Cost of the package is $140 for the state and $100 for the class. $240 total. License is good for 5 years.
Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
safeinOhio
(36,808 posts)in two states. The first one, Michigan, was an open book test and you were required to hit the broad side of a barn. In Ohio, the instructor gave every question on the test and answer just before the test, but you could not use notes or books. From 30 feet you had to put 4 out of five shots in a 3 foot circle.
I'm all for "shall issue" CCWs, but I think the requirements could be tightened up.
MattBaggins
(7,947 posts)Supposedly we are all some librul gun snatchers but all it take up here is a few dollars in local sheriffs campaign coffers.
Or just having friends that are all gun fanatics and you get a permit offered to you even when you never asked for it. Or when someone who runs a security firm just assumes you think as they do and offers you a job you would never consider taking.
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)demtenjeep
(31,997 posts)hubs carries a lot, me not so much, just have it when I travel alone.
onethatcares
(16,945 posts)gun show advertised in todays Tampa Bay Times states that during the largest gun show on the west coast of Florida concealed carry weapon classes will be given three times per day. Take the class, fill out the paperwork and if you pass the FBI check, you got it. No need to go to a range and listen to all that noise and stuff.
Psst, I'm not busting your rocks, it's just being well trained isn't a requirement for anyone but home remodelers.
Peace, out.
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)Nothing beats practice on the range.
WingDinger
(3,690 posts)John Travolta.
WonderGrunion
(2,995 posts)confronted by Eddie Murphy and Arsenio Hall.
marmar
(79,085 posts)
Warpy
(114,322 posts)The CCW guy acted as judge and jury. Unless there was reason to think everyone was in danger (and having a gun waved at them isn't necessarily that big a threat, the guy just didn't want any heroes to try to tackle them), the shooting is unjustified.
A clearer case was here in town when a woman's ex attacked her with a knife and had cut her badly when someone with a CCW shot him. In that case, it probably saved a life even as it took one.
People with guns need to be a lot clearer on what constitutes a grave threat and what does not.
Nobody is going to mourn the punk in that story but his family. Still, you don't know what he might have become once he'd grown up. Most people do redeem themselves after misspent youth. I did.
JSnuffy
(374 posts)When he lets off that first round?
Ridiculous standard....
Got exactly what he deserved...
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)TheWraith
(24,331 posts)And unless your "misspent youth" involved robbing people under threat of murdering them, I would say that that's no comparison at all.
Pointing a gun at someone is an explicit threat of killing them, period. Trying to make it into anything else is silly. You can say "oh, it was just for intimidation," but lots and lots of these stories end with the robber shooting the clerk or a customer--accidentally, because they panicked, or just because they don't want to be identified. These two kids were threatening the lives of everyone in that diner, and the result would have been no different if a police officer were there.
spin
(17,493 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 21, 2012, 01:40 PM - Edit history (1)
if someone points a gun at me, I will judge my reaction on what I believe they are likely to do.
If I believe that the individual merely wants my wallet, he can have it. I can always replace my money, my driver's license and my credit cards. I may not be able to replace my health or my life.
But if I honestly feel that he intends to shoot me no matter how much I cooperate with his demands, I will take action to defend my life. That may involve attempting to disarm him if he is extremely close and it may involve using my legally concealed handgun.
I refuse to condemn the individual who had the carry permit and shot the robber as I wasn't standing in his shoes. I will point out that the majority of people who carry legally are not looking to blow some fool away. Shooting another person is the last thing I would ever want to do. If I chose to do so, I am aware that there are significant legal and psychological aftereffects that I would face. My decision to use lethal force would mean that I felt there were no other choices of action.
edited for stupid mistake
Logical
(22,457 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)krispos42
(49,445 posts)...typo?
spin
(17,493 posts)EX500rider
(12,121 posts)Really? You gonna go with that, a criminal pointing a gun at you is no big threat?! What exactly do you consider a big threat, guys packing nuclear demolition charges? lol
Waiting till he shoots and kills someone is waiting too long in my opinion. Don't wanna get shot, don't point guns at people is a good rule.
Misspent youth=armed robbery to you?!
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)I was unarmed and not doing anything to threaten anyone.
Would I have been justified in shooting him had I been armed (and capable of drawing aiming and firing before he fired)?
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)I'd sure have wanted it on video at my trial.
EX500rider
(12,121 posts)Park Ranger/Criminal These two things are not the same.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Thus, this "judge and jury" thing is misplaced. If he had hunted down the robber that evening and shot him, then he would be a vigilante. But he didn't... his life, and the lives of others at the restaurant, were in clear and immediate danger, and he acted within the bounds of the law.
The big complaint about gun ownership is that it makes it easy for people to commit violent crimes, and yet here we have you saying that the robber's life was too important to end despite the circumstances of his death... embarked on a career of violence, willing and able to use powerful weapons to commit the violent crimes, a de facto felon by his mere possession of a gun during the robbery (he's 19, remember), etc.
I'm being told that keeping people like the robber from getting guns is important enough to disarm all of the 50 million handgun owners of America, but once he had the gun and commits the crime, he's too important enough to shoot.
Meh.
LonePirate
(14,320 posts)If CCW holders are trained and expert gun handlers, why didn't he shoot the robber in the leg. The instinct to protect oneself is often muddled by a thirst to kill and that itself is wrong.
There is nothing good to come from this story.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)not some stupid TV show. Would shooting him in the leg force him to drop the gun and surrender?
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)And Hollywood / TV has no relation to reality. Almost anyone who has taken a CCW class can tell you is you are trained to shoot for the center of the person's mass (body), not the limbs. It's a lot easier to hit the center of mass rather than rapidly moving limbs.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Or shoot off only the robber's trigger finger?
Or better yet, set his weapon to "stun"?
Movies are not real life. In real life, you shoot at the largest target (the chest) and you shoot to kill. Harsh, I know, but a fate easily avoided by not committing armed robberies.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Shooting a guy in the legs doesn't keep him from pulling the trigger, which is the point (in this particular case) of the CCWer firing. So now he (the robber) is on the floor (maybe), in shock and pain, surging with rage and panic and fear and adrenaline, and now he's even more frantic to get away because now he's injured. The shock and adrenaline are blocking the pain, for now, but that won't last. The CCWer is attacking him unjustly (because, after all, he's not planning on shooting anybody, the gun is for intimidation and "just in case"
, and in his mind he's defending himself from the CCWer, who is now also a factor in preventing him from fleeing and is close enough to engage in physical combat.
And the robber still has the loaded gun and the ability to use it.
Very bad combination!
No, once things have deteriorated to this point, the CCWer has to disable the armed robber, and do it fast. END IT. The fastest way is a shot to the brain, which would immediately kill the robber and shut down his entire nervous system, but a couple to the chest is almost as good, with the robber likely to be stunned by the impacts and fall to the floor, then bleeding out into unconsciousness or death before recovering from the shock of impact.
I'll point out that you're also asking the CCWer to make a precision shot from a fast draw with adrenaline surging through his system.
I know the scene at the end of Fargo, where the sheriff carefully shoots the fleeing felon in the leg, but the two situations are not comparable. The felon was unarmed and fleeing, and the sheriff was unable to pursue (preggers) and had time to take several shots before finally hitting the felon. Also, there was no immediate danger of her missing. If she had emptied the gun to no avail, she would not be facing a life-or-death confrontation.
Are_grits_groceries
(17,111 posts)You are taught to shoot to kill. There is too much uncertainty in trying to just wound somebody. Once you have engaged somebody in a possible gunfight, all bets are off.
obamanut2012
(29,106 posts)In most states, it's illegal to draw or even SHOW (ie illegally brandish) your weapon unless you have a threat of IMMEDIATE bodily harm.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)"shoot to stop". You shoot to stop the aggressor, nothing more.
Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
Are_grits_groceries
(17,111 posts)However, the shot you take is COM and is likely to kill as opposed to wound.
spin
(17,493 posts)
Schema of femoral artery (labeled as #20) and its major branches - right thigh, anterior view.
Marysville security guard dies of gunshot wound Sept. 25
***snip***
Lamoureux noted that the current theory is that, after the end of his shift that evening, the man accidentally shot himself with the 9-millimeter handgun that he carried in his briefcase. From there, the bullet severed his femoral artery and he bled to death.
"It fits the angle of the bullet," Lamoureux said. "When the femoral artery is punctured or severed, you lose consciousness within 30 seconds and bleed to death within a couple of minutes. When the man was found, he had his cell phone on the seat between his legs and the number 9 was up, indicating that he'd tried to dial 911. If you bleed out that fast, that's not even enough time for an aid car to reach you."
http://www.marysvilleglobe.com/news/103961214.html
The Myth
Since I don't want to kill anyone, I could just shoot an attacker in the arm or leg instead of shooting him in the torso or head. That wouldn't be using deadly force since I wouldn't want to kill him.
The Reality:
***snip***
Shooting an attacker in self-defense is an intentional use of force. Shooting someone often causes serious physical injury, no matter where the bullet lands. Even if the shot only hits an arm or a leg, the attacker could easily die from shock or blood loss. That is why shooting someone in the arm or leg is, legally speaking, every bit as serious as if you deliberately shot them right through the heart.
Legally, there is no such thing as shooting someone without using deadly force.
http://corneredcat.com/Myths_About_SelfDefense/
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)That'll teach me to read the whole thread first.
Or... maybe not.
obamanut2012
(29,106 posts)It's dangerous to bystanders, and to yourself. You are trained that if you have to shoot, to aim COM and shoot. It isn't easy to get a CCW permit, even in states where it's "easy."
Are there some idiots who should never, ever have a CCW? Yes. Are there drivers who pass their test and get a license who should never drive? Of course.
I wasn't at this Waffle House, so I have no idea what level the threat was, so I can't say the guy should have shot or shouldn't have shot. Armed robbery is a violent crime, though. It isn't like shoplifting, or even pursesnatching.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Aarrgh, spin beat me to it....
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)I assume you have some sourcing for such a wild and disingenuous claim.
CCW holders in most states are tested on the legalities and are required to demonstrate some level of competence with a pistol. They are not required to be experts in either. They are also trained to shoot until there is no longer a threat. A gunman with a leg wound can still be serious threat. One after the Mozambique drill, not so much.
There is nothing good to come from this story
Good has come of this...society has one less member who is willing to wantonly endanger others for his illegal gain.
Zax2me
(2,515 posts)BWAAAA HA HAAAA!!!!
Funny, dude.
Dante Lamont Williams just waved his gun at the wrong person.
Or the right one, as I see it.
Logical
(22,457 posts)ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)That everyone has to be in danger is specious standard and not the law. This shoot was a valid as the one you cited. There does not need to be bullets fired or blood spilled to justify the use of deadly force.
obamanut2012
(29,106 posts)Is the standard of most states I know of, and it can include other people being at threat, too. This shooting meets the law in SC.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)And since the man a CCW permit, I'm sure the instructor taught him under what circumstance he could shoot.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)That may well be the single most absurd thing I've ever read on these forums...possibly on the entire interwebz. Having a deadly weapon employed as a tool of coercion is the very definition of "grave threat." It is in no way the responsibility of the potential victims to somehow magically determine if the perpetrator is serious about using the weapon or not. That aske them to assume a completely unacceptable risk, given that armed robberies do indeed result in violent attacks on the victims in a statistically very significant number of cases.
This shooting is perfectly justified by any rational standard.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)then explain how the rest of us can learn the talent.
And by the way, "having a gun waved at them" indicates lethal capability. If someone is willing to do that in commission of a crime, you want me to trust that their intent is not lethal? Really?
crazyjoe
(1,191 posts)Jean V. Dubois
(101 posts)Sure I do. An older felon.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)So you trust the other dude waving a gun at you? wow ...you know that this is America don't you? ...America = f*cked up place and people.
derby378
(30,262 posts)The robber pointed his gun at the customer, who fired before the robber could.
Nobody is celebrating the death of a 19-year-old who did something stupid, but sometimes actions have consequences.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)Ha!
He'll probably just eat free at his local for the rest of his life.
Never try to rob an Awful Waffle.
Blacksheep214
(877 posts)In this case it seems justified. Roll the videotape if there is one. Let's see.
I find the celebration which accompanies one of these actions akin to everyone gathering round the hangin tree to celebrate death.
Even necessary killings are not a cause for celebration in my opinion, although there are some who do rise to that level.
Bin Ladin is one and when we get Zawahari.
Some people just need killin'!
But high fives and toasts? You wasted a kid, not Dillinger!
This doesn't make you Eliot Ness.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)While I consider this shooting to be absolutely justified, there is no reason to celebrate even the most necessary killing of a human being.
safeinOhio
(36,808 posts)Exactly. Thanks
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)And that an idiot has been cleared out of the pool? Yeah, that too.
Jean V. Dubois
(101 posts)And BTW, a 19 year old armed robber isn't a "kid". 
Blacksheep214
(877 posts)He thinks Marines pissing on the dead was done by 'kids'!
What's it going to be?
Have you ever had to kill?
I really despise these gung ho civillians who trivialize killing. Find me a police officer who really feels like that.
Jean V. Dubois
(101 posts)Thankfully, no. I understand the paperwork is murder.
(drumroll, ba-dum-dum ching!)
I really despise these gung ho civillians who trivialize killing.
Hm...I certainly don't despise you. Am I trivializing the death of this man? I suppose so...but he earned it. I'll gladly mock the death of anyone who points a gun someone's face in the course of an armed robbery. The world is a better place without this perp.
Edweird
(8,570 posts)safeinOhio
(36,808 posts)According to a running tally from the Violence Policy Center, a Washington nonprofit that tracks gun deaths, at least 300 people, including 11 police officers, have been killed by concealed-carry permit holders since 2007. The center believes that figure is low because it must rely on newspaper stories that only sometimes contain such information.
Read more: http://lacrossetribune.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnists/dave-zweifel-secrecy-shields-gun-law-s-impact/article_9d8f1ffc-38aa-11e1-9f8d-001871e3ce6c.html#ixzz1k7w2oEnV
Better training and testing could help, along with police agencies checking all felony arrest for CCW permits and pulling them.
Edweird
(8,570 posts)If you want to impress me, use DOJ/FBI stats.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)If a 17yo perp gets shot and killed by someone defending their family the VPC logs it as a child killed by guns.
Edwierd is correct, you need to use better sources.
safeinOhio
(36,808 posts)Few states allow anyone to cross reference CCWs with crimes.
http://www.blueridgenow.com/article/20111226/ZNYT02/112263035/1008/sports?Title=Guns-in-Public-and-Out-of-Sight
The New York Times examined the permit program in North Carolina, one of a dwindling number of states where the identities of permit holders remain public. The review, encompassing the last five years, offers a rare, detailed look at how a liberalized concealed weapons law has played out in one state. And while it does not provide answers, it does raise questions.
More than 2,400 permit holders were convicted of felonies or misdemeanors, excluding traffic-related crimes, over the five-year period, The Times found when it compared databases of recent criminal court cases and licensees. While the figure represents a small percentage of those with permits, more than 200 were convicted of felonies, including at least 10 who committed murder or manslaughter. All but two of the killers used a gun.
some examples in the article
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)safeinOhio
(36,808 posts)Because a source is bias does not mean all research or information is false. If so any information or research funded by gun manufactures or the NRA is also false.
HopeHoops
(47,675 posts)Unless he wanted a few hundred pounds of frozen hash browns, he wouldn't get much. They time-drop like a 7-11. Besides, the meals are so inexpensive there can't be that much in the register at any given time.
Don't they have an Applebee's in S.C.???
Jean V. Dubois
(101 posts)Given that you could probably get at least 10 times as much cash there as you would by robbing a 7-11 or Denny's.
Then again, we're speaking of thugs...not rocket scientists.
HopeHoops
(47,675 posts)Dave Brenner had a great line: "There's a sign in the post office that says 'It is a federal offense to attack a post office worker - while he is on duty."
He also said the other sign was "No dogs allowed, except seeing eye dogs - WHO IS THAT SIGN FOR?"
Jean V. Dubois
(101 posts)I suspect most robbers, if asked, would reply "Uh...a what crime?" In any case, they don't expect to get caught.
HopeHoops
(47,675 posts)I got caught for shoplifting a pair of sunglasses when I was in 8th grade. It isn't on my record now, but I fucked up.