Support NeoGAF

[mentallyinept]

Reading the updated account, it seemed that the CC holder escalated the situation beyond what needed to happen.

There was no shots fired, and the robber was leaving the scene.

I can understand unholstering your weapon in that situation, but trying to hold the robber up when he was leaving was a total cowboy move. He's not a police officer or military personnel. I wouldn't be surprised if he was charged with something for this.

Now I could see my opinion changing if the guy was parked directly next to the exit that the robber left out of and was walking toward the vehicle, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[Stet]

Some noteworthy updates. The suspect was 19 year old Joshua Jermaine Davis, and he did have a gun. The shooting occurred when he was leaving the restaurant.

Live 5 News:


Post and Courier:


So yeah... the incident was over when this man chose to confront the robber.

Once again...saved them from what?

 

[xKilltheMx]

So CC guy created an unnecessary situation that could have led to himself and other innocents getting shot to save Waffle House some money and killed somebody in the process who otherwise would be prosecuted by the law and the sentence would not be death?

This guy is a hero. Finally the hero we asked for.

 

[hey_monkey]

So the guy had a gun but didn't want to shoot anyone and was leaving? Yet got shot and killed when he left. To me that isn't protecting any one.

I stand by my previous wording with the update: some rando stood in judgment and executed this man. No one was in danger. It was over. A human being was killed over a cash drawer at a diner because someone had a piece of paper that allowed them to carry a lethal weapon.

I don't understand how anyone can be okay with that. I really just don't.

 

[Dan]

I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that no one is here now to continue cheering about this.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that no one is here now to continue cheering about this.

Give 'em time.

 

[Jonm1010]

I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that no one is here now to continue cheering about this.

What will be interesting to see is watching those same cheerleaders pop back up in the next gun thread arguing the same DGU points.

 

[j-wood]

But do we even know if the robber would have used the weapon?

Do we even know if he wouldn't have?

Look this isn't a great situation regardless, and the best outcome is no one gets shot. But the possible scenario is he comes in to rob with a gun, takes the money, then shoots the cashier. That's happened tons of times. Sure, it's happened the other way too, where he takes the money and doesn't shoot anyone.

So basically people in this thread are saying take the chance that the armed robber decides not to shoot anyone above shooting him if someone with a concealed carry is eating dinner.

In this scenario if the kid was leaving, the guy should have told him to freeze, and waited for police. If he kept running, then he kept running, no need to shoot the kid if he was already out the door.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

please rank these outcomes from best to worst

1) no one gets shot
2) robber gets shot
3) innocent people get shot

it's kind of unfathomable that there are human beings that think 2-1-3 is the way to go.

.

 

[Beefy]

Do we even know if he wouldn't have?

Look this isn't a great situation regardless, and the best outcome is no one gets shot. But the possible scenario is he comes in to rob with a gun, takes the money, then shoots the cashier. That's happened tons of times. Sure, it's happened the other way too, where he takes the money and doesn't shoot anyone.

So basically people in this thread are saying take the chance that the armed robber decides not to shoot anyone above shooting him if someone with a concealed carry is eating dinner.

In this scenario if the kid was leaving, the guy should have told him to freeze, and waited for police. If he kept running, then he kept running, no need to shoot the kid if he was already out the door.

You realise that post was before it was confirmed to be a gun right? He also didn't use the gun did he? He left not shooting one person and got shot and killed.

 

[j-wood]

You realise that post was before it was confirmed to be a gun right? He also didn't use the gun did he? He left not shooting one person and got shot and killed.

Yeah, and as i said, if he was out the door in this scenario it was wrong to shoot him, no one was in danger.

If this happened while a robber has a cashier at gunpoint asking for money, then it's a different conversation.

 

[Dan]

In this scenario if the kid was leaving, the guy should have told him to freeze, and waited for police. If he kept running, then he kept running, no need to shoot the kid if he was already out the door.

Now that's a fantasy. A man with a gun confronted another man with a gun. The most logical outcome ensued, with them shooting at each other. In this situation, it's the CC holder stepping in and effectively blocking his escape that led to a shootout.

You realise that post was before it was confirmed to be a gun right? He also didn't use the gun did he? He left not shooting one person and got shot and killed.

He did apparently get a shot off after being confronted by the CC holder. But no, the gun wasn't used until the citizen intervened.

 

[Jonm1010]

Do we even know if he wouldn't have?

Look this isn't a great situation regardless, and the best outcome is no one gets shot. But the possible scenario is he comes in to rob with a gun, takes the money, then shoots the cashier. That's happened tons of times. Sure, it's happened the other way too, where he takes the money and doesn't shoot anyone.

So basically people in this thread are saying take the chance that the armed robber decides not to shoot anyone above shooting him if someone with a concealed carry is eating dinner.

In this scenario if the kid was leaving, the guy should have told him to freeze, and waited for police. If he kept running, then he kept running, no need to shoot the kid if he was already out the door.

Ummm, except we now have the context of the situation and thats not how it went down. The shooter was in the parking lot and the robber was in the process of fleeing after having not shot anyone. The CC guy made the situation worse and depending on the law of the state may face legal consequences.

If anything this incident and the home depot one from earlier this week tells me the current CC laws are not adequately preparing or vetting people asking for the right they are seeking to have legitimized in the eye of the law.

 

[To Far Away Times]

Yeah, and as i said, if he was out the door in this scenario it was wrong to shoot him, no one was in danger.

If this happened while a robber has a cashier at gunpoint asking for money, then it's a different conversation.

I think most people imagine a robbery involves an threat of violence against innocent people. When I read the story that's what I imagined when he was shot. If the robbers raise the stakes they should be prepared for the consequences, whatever they end up being.

But yeah, no one should shoot someone running out the door.

 

[cameron]

One officer says the incident shows how firearms can be useful "in the right hands."

In light of the new info, was the officer who said this aware the suspect was leaving?

 

[Messypandas]

So the altercation was over, the kid was carrying some 5am waffle bills out the door and Judge Dredd stepped up and killed him for not obeying his commands. Damn, I feel safer knowing this dumb 19 year old is going to be 6 feet under. There was no possibility of him ever turning his life around and realising what an idiot he was. What a patriot.

 

[OrlanisWorks]

Customer got lucky not accidentally shooting anyone else.

Ya done saved the next waffle house, bud.

 

[The Faceless Master]

well, in this scenario


1

 

[zelas]

Some noteworthy updates. The suspect was 19 year old Joshua Jermaine Davis, and he did have a gun. The shooting occurred when he was leaving the restaurant.

Live 5 News:


Post and Courier:


So yeah... the incident was over when this man chose to confront the robber.

Lol. So not only did a concealed carry fail to stop the robbery from happening in the first place, it was used to create the only injury in the situation and on a criminal that was leaving the scene? Gotta love vigilante justice.

 

[BurritoBushido]

Great. Can't wait for everyone to hold this up as the reason we need more guns.

 

[cameron]

Customer got lucky not accidentally shooting anyone else.

Ya done saved the next waffle house, bud.

Yeah. These images were posted earlier; new info says the customer shot into the Waffle House from the parking lot. Look at all the bullet holes.

 

[Apoc87]

Customers play acting as vigilante security guards.

Doesn't even sound like there was ever any real threat of violence until the customer shot. This ain't the Wild West. Having a concealed carry permit does not mean you're deputized and can shoot people to maybe theoretically prevent a situation from turning ugly.

That's what a concealed Carry is for.

 

[xKilltheMx]

Yeah. These images were posted earlier; new info says the customer shot into the Waffle House from the parking lot. Look at all the bullet holes.

What the fu. Is this true?
I thought he was inside and shot outside?
What the hell...

 

[cameron]

What the fu. Is this true?
I thought he was inside and shot outside?
What the hell...

From the update Dan posted earlier:

Some noteworthy updates. The suspect was 19 year old Joshua Jermaine Davis, and he did have a gun. The shooting occurred when he was leaving the restaurant.

Live 5 News:

The man who shot Davis was sitting in his vehicle as the event unfolded. He eventually left his vehicle, walked across the parking lot and sought cover behind another parked car.

The customer said he took out his gun as the suspect was leaving the restaurant, and ordered him to drop his gun. The suspect raised the weapon, and the customer engaged him in fire.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Yeah. These images were posted earlier; new info says the customer shot into the Waffle House from the parking lot. Look at all the bullet holes.

If only the people inside the Waffle House were armed, they could have shot the guy who was shooting at the other guy and putting their lives at risk.

 

[xKilltheMx]

From the update Dan posted earlier:

This just keeps getting worse he shot INTO the waffle house to protect them from the guy who already left the waffle house?

My god he wont be charged for this shit will he?

I need somebody to come defend this please so I know who's opinion to ignore for now on.

 

[DragonSworne]

I expect the shooter to be charged a crime.

You can't just take a guys life away because he tries to rob someone. WTF

 

[Hex]

That's what a concealed Carry is for.

Wrong.
This was not a self defense situation.

 

[DragonSworne]

From the update Dan posted earlier:

WTF. He shot the guy after he was surrendering?

 

[Veritigo_X]

WTF. He shot the guy after he was surrendering?

That's not what it says.

The suspect raised the weapon, and the customer engaged him in fire.

 

[Hyun Sai]

Responsible gun owner right ? Whatever makes feel him like a man I suppose... Bang Bang !

 

[Jonm1010]

WTF. He shot the guy after he was surrendering?

I'm getting the impression the CC guy confronted the robber as he was in the process of fleeing after robbing the place, which escalated the situation. To which the robber reportedly raised his gun and the CC guy fired at him in response.

Still doesnt make what the CC guy did right though. He isnt the cops. He was not directly threatened, there was no immediate threat of violence, and he also fired toward an occupied building full of civilians. None of that should be acceptable.

 

[Hex]

Stores let shoplifters go when they are out the door because it is a risk.
Insurance would cover the loss, their faces were no doubt on camera.
If they did nothing they would have been out the door and would have been picked up before long.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Some noteworthy updates. The suspect was 19 year old Joshua Jermaine Davis, and he did have a gun. The shooting occurred when he was leaving the restaurant.

Live 5 News:

Post and Courier:

So yeah... the incident was over when this man chose to confront the robber.

This changes the analysis, but not the outcome.

South Carolina law expressly authorizes citizen's arrests in two statutes:

Upon (a) view of a felony committed, (b) certain information that a felony has been committed or (c) view of a larceny committed, any person may arrest the felon or thief and take him to a judge or magistrate, to be dealt with according to law.

Considering this statute only, the bystander was authorized to attempt to arrest the robber. Armed robbery is a felony in South Carolina (sec. 16-11-330), and Dan's information suggests that the bystander viewed the events unfolding (i.e., the "felony committed") inside the Waffle House. That being the case, the rest is the standard self-defense analysis from earlier in the thread. The robber raised the gun at the bystander, the sort of action that would inspire in a target the reasonable belief that lethal action is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury. So, the killing was justified.

The next statute makes this all the more clear:

A citizen may arrest a person in the nighttime by efficient means as the darkness and the probability of escape render necessary, even if the life of the person should be taken, when the person:

(a) has committed a felony;

(b) has entered a dwelling house without express or implied permission;

(c) has broken or is breaking into an outhouse with a view to plunder;

(d) has in his possession stolen property; or

(e) being under circumstances which raise just suspicion of his design to steal or to commit some felony, flees when he is hailed.​

Given that this incident occurred before 5 AM, and that sunrise was not until about 7:20 AM, the Waffle House robbery was well within the timeframe covered by this second statute ("in the nighttime"). As noted above, armed robbery is a felony in South Carolina, so subsection (a) was satisfied. In addition, the robber clearly had stolen property in his possession, so subsection (d) was also satisfied. Consequently, the bystander was authorized to "arrest" the robber "by efficient means . . . even if the life of the" robber "should be taken." But, notably, the bystander didn't simply open fire on the robber; he attempted to arrest him first (by telling him to drop the gun). At that point, the choice belonged to the robber how to respond, and he responded with a threat to the bystander's life.

This suggests a different modification to Stumpokapow's list of outcomes than the one I suggested earlier in the thread. Here's the new list, from best to worst outcomes:

1.) Nobody gets shot and the robber is arrested.
2.) Nobody gets shot and the robber escapes.
3.) The robber gets shot.
4.) Any other conceivable outcomes where no innocent people are injured.
5.) Innocent people get shot.

The bystander chose (1) over (2). In response, the robber shifted that choice to one between (3) and (5), and the bystander chose (3) rather than (5).

 

[Dai Kaiju]

Maybe the shooter didn't have enough time to think or react.

 

[HyperionX]

I expect the shooter to be charged a crime.

You can't just take a guys life away because he tries to rob someone. WTF

It's a white man shooting a black man. There's nearly no chance of prosecution. Basically the same as if a cop did it.

 

[uncredited male]

I searched about this and got led to some other CC-shooting videos.

I think some people think innocent bystanders are like Yetis.

 

[TheSlySoul]

So Home Depot, then Waffle House. I am going to say movie theater next!

Yeah. These images were posted earlier; new info says the customer shot into the Waffle House from the parking lot. Look at all the bullet holes.

Wait, so he was outside and saw the robber leaving and shot inside? The bullets could have hit someone accidentally. What a dummy.

 

[FyreWulff]

Sorry Meta, resisting arrest isn't an offense punishable by death.

 

[Jonm1010]

This changes the analysis, but not the outcome.

South Carolina law expressly authorizes citizen's arrests in two statutes:



Considering this statute only, the bystander was authorized to attempt to arrest the robber. Armed robbery is a felony in South Carolina (sec. 16-11-330), and Dan's information suggests that the bystander viewed the events unfolding (i.e., the "felony committed") inside the Waffle House. That being the case, the rest is the standard self-defense analysis from earlier in the thread. The robber raised the gun at the bystander, the sort of action that would inspire in a target the reasonable belief that lethal action is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury. So, the killing was justified.

The next statute makes this all the more clear:



Given that this incident occurred before 5 AM, and that sunrise was not until about 7:20 AM, the Waffle House robbery was well within the timeframe covered by this second statute ("in the nighttime"). As noted above, armed robbery is a felony in South Carolina, so subsection (a) was satisfied. In addition, the robber clearly had stolen property in his possession, so subsection (d) was also satisfied. Consequently, the bystander was authorized to "arrest" the robber "by efficient means . . . even if the life of the" robber "should be taken." But, notably, the bystander didn't simply open fire on the robber; he attempted to arrest him first (by telling him to drop the gun). At that point, the choice belonged to the robber how to respond, and he responded with a threat to the bystander's life.

This suggests a different modification to Stumpokapow's list of outcomes than the one I suggested earlier in the thread. Here's the new list, from best to worst outcomes:

1.) Nobody gets shot and the robber is arrested.
2.) Nobody gets shot and the robber escapes.
3.) The robber gets shot.
4.) Any other conceivable outcomes where no innocent people are injured.
5.) Innocent people get shot.

The bystander chose (1) over (2). In response, the robber shifted that choice to one between (3) and (5), and the bystander chose (3) rather than (5).

Thank you for the breakdown.

So we have established that he is likely justified in the eyes of the law for what he did. That still leaves the question as to whether his actions were right or not. Just because something is legal doesnt mean it is moral, ethical or appropriate.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Sorry Meta, resisting arrest isn't an offense punishable by death.

We've already covered the distinction between capital punishment and lethal self-defense in this thread. And it's disingenuous to call pointing a gun at the person attempting to arrest you merely "resisting arrest."

Thank you for the breakdown.

So we have established that he is likely justified in the eyes of the law for what he did. That still leaves the question as to whether his actions were right or not. Just because something is legal doesnt mean it is moral, ethical or appropriate.

That's true. In this case, I find the bystander's conduct hard to criticize. He didn't rush in and start shooting the place up. He moved to cover and demanded that the robber put his gun down. Only once threatened did he open fire. Honestly, this is exactly what the police would (OK, OK, what the police should) have done had they been there.

 

[Woody Invincible]

Yeah. These images were posted earlier; new info says the customer shot into the Waffle House from the parking lot. Look at all the bullet holes.

That's actually pretty cool. Nice shot, man.

 

[InfiniDragon]

Can any of our european/australian posters chime in and tell us what it's like to live in such fear

I get what you're attempting to pull off here but in America (unfortunately), the people that someone might theoretically "fear" are armed, so I can see how having to place their faith in another instead of being able to protect themselves might be a scary factor for certain personalities. Not saying it's necessarily a good thing but it is what it is.

Whereas in Europe and Australia your comment is fully justified since people don't have to worry about some yahoo busting down the door all guns blazing. So a person in a potential robbery situation can let the proper folks handle it instead of going "I need to take care of this however I can before this guy kills someone" if they have the means to believably do so (such as the cases with the armed folks like this story).

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

We've already covered the distinction between capital punishment and lethal self-defense in this thread. And it's disingenuous to call pointing a gun at the person attempting to arrest you merely "resisting arrest."



That's true. In this case, I find the bystander's conduct hard to criticize. He didn't rush in and start shooting the place up. He moved to cover and demanded that the robber put his gun down. Only once threatened did he open fire. Honestly, this is exactly what the police would (OK, OK, what the police should) have done had they been there.

It's perfectly easy to criticize. He's a gung ho citizen that escalated a situation(by leaving his vehicle, first drawing his weapon and confronting the man) that was already deescalated with the robber on the way out with all that Waffle House gold, and no one physically hurt, There's nothing noble about putting yourself in that situation, only some misguided hero mentality, that lead to bullets flying. It this kind of shit that sets a horrible precedent, and shouldn't in any way be celebrated.

 

[Metaphoreus]

It's perfectly easy to criticize. He's a gung ho citizen that escalated a situation(by leaving his vehicle, first drawing his weapon and confronting the man) that was already deescalated with the robber on the way out with all that Waffle House gold, and no one physically hurt, There's nothing noble about putting yourself in that situation, only some misguided hero mentality, that lead to bullets flying. It this kind of shit that sets a horrible precedent, and shouldn't in any way be celebrated.

This is victim blaming. The robber escalated the situation by trying to shoot the arresting bystander. At the point when the robber was accosted by a guy with a gun, he should have known he'd been caught and the jig was up. He could have put down his gun and walked away with his life. He didn't do that. He, having threatened to kill the people in the Waffle House, now threatened to kill the guy outside.

The robber is the bad actor in this story, not the bystander.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

This is victim blaming. The robber escalated the situation by trying to shoot the arresting bystander. At the point when the robber was accosted by a guy with a gun, he should have known he'd been caught and the jig was up. He could have put down his gun and walked away with his life. He didn't do that. He, having threatened to kill the people in the Waffle House, now threatened to kill the guy outside.

The robber is the bad actor in this story, not the bystander.

Nah, they were both fuckwits. I don't care if the guy was within his rights under state law to enact a citizens arrest, he opened fire in a public place and risked the lives of bystanders. He wasn't a victim, he wasn't even in the store when the robbery took place. He made a choice to escalate a situation and someone died as a result, he's a piece of shit.

 

[lednerg]

Geez, what a hero.

Spoiler

fucking hell

 

[CharlieDigital]

Nah, they were both fuckwits. I don't care if the guy was within his rights under state law to enact a citizens arrest, he opened fire in a public place and risked the lives of bystanders. He wasn't a victim, he wasn't even in the store when the robbery took place. He made a choice to escalate a situation and someone died as a result, he's a piece of shit.

I think this bears repeating and is a fact that needs to be highlighted over and over again.

 

[Shmuppers]

I would have been one of those cheerleaders as well, until the new info came out. Dude wanted to play hero.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

This is victim blaming. The robber escalated the situation by trying to shoot the arresting bystander. At the point when the robber was accosted by a guy with a gun, he should have known he'd been caught and the jig was up. He could have put down his gun and walked away with his life. He didn't do that. He, having threatened to kill the people in the Waffle House, now threatened to kill the guy outside.

The robber is the bad actor in this story, not the bystander.

I don't want to live in your world.