Support NeoGAF

[CharlieDigital]

This is victim blaming. The robber escalated the situation by trying to shoot the arresting bystander.

What do you think would have happened if the shooter took a picture, noted his description, and took down his license plate instead of acting as judge, jury, and executioner?

Spoiler

Justice

How would you feel about this outcome if a bystander were shot in the process of this vigilante shooting into the Waffle House? It's pure luck that no one else was injured by the vigilante. Just look at the scene of the entrance. Imagine an employee had ran up to try to get a license plate number or description of a getaway vehicle.

 

[Metaphoreus]

How would you feel about this outcome if a bystander were shot in the process of this vigilante shooting into the Waffle House? It's pure luck that no one else was injured by the vigilante. Just look at the scene of the entrance. Imagine an employee had ran up to try to get a license plate number or description of a getaway vehicle.

What happened was justice. The robber threatened to kill people. He was killed in self-defense. Justice.

The fact that nobody innocent was hurt is not just luck. It was likely intentional. Nobody would have been near the robber at this point unless they were a hostage. There were no hostages. The bystander was in a relatively-dark area firing into a relatively-well-lit area. He'd have seen if anybody was near the robber. Nobody innocent was hit because the bystander fired on a scene in which hitting an innocent was unlikely.

 

[Opto]

This dude playing cowboy got lucky and will be used to propagate a gun culture that continues to spill a lot more innocent blood than save it

 

[Somnid]

What happened was justice. The robber threatened to kill people. He was killed in self-defense. Justice.

The fact that nobody innocent was hurt is not just luck. It was likely intentional. Nobody would have been near the robber at this point unless they were a hostage. There were no hostages. The bystander was in a relatively-dark area firing into a relatively-well-lit area. He'd have seen if anybody was near the robber. Nobody innocent was hit because the bystander fired on a scene in which hitting an innocent was unlikely.

You're really reaching here with the amount of information available. Also, is justice really the most important thing? Adulterers getting stoned to death is also justice, how about settling for a less culturally loaded value like reducing harm to everyone.

 

[ugh_the_boot]

"Waffle House customers have used guns to take down would-be thieves before."

This statement makes me extremely concerned about what the fuck is going on in america. What a fucking mess, may as well be the wild west still. I would hate to live somewhere where people getting shot are daily occurences.

 

[CharlieDigital]

What happened was justice. The robber threatened to kill people. He was killed in self-defense. Justice.

Let's play a game of imagination.

Let's imagine for a moment that the shooter (keep in mind, there is only one shooter in this story) decided not to shoot and instead, took a cellphone picture discretely from his car, noted his description, called authorities, stuck around and gave the description to authorities, and got went in and got his waffles.

In this alternate series of events, is anyone threatened with danger to their life?

Keep in mind, the actual robbery was already over and the robber was just leaving the scene at this point; shooter was never a victim until he threatened the robber. You could almost make the case that if the robber were to shoot at this point, he shot in self defense.

 

[Metaphoreus]

You're really reaching here with the amount of information available. Also, is justice really the most important thing? Adulterers getting stoned to death is also justice, how about settling for a less culturally loaded value like reducing harm to everyone.

Sure, it's possible that this guy fired blindly into a group of people and was lucky to only hit the guy pointing a gun at him. But I think the scenario I outline above is far more likely. At least, it better fits the facts we do know and the reasonable inferences we can draw from them.

If our preferred value is reducing harm to everyone, then we should still praise the bystander, who attempted to do just that. If the robber had peacefully complied with the bystander's command, no one would have been hurt, including Waffle House, which would have been hurt by having its cash-filled till stolen.

All of this ultimately comes down to the robber trying to kill people. I'm astonished there's more sympathy in this thread for that guy than the guy who tried to arrest him peaceably.

Let's play a game of imagination.

Let's imagine for a moment that the shooter (keep in mind, there is only one shooter in this story) decided not to shoot and instead, took a cellphone picture discretely from his car, noted his description, called authorities, stuck around and gave the description to authorities, and got went in and got his waffles.

In this alternate series of events, is anyone threatened with danger to their life?

Keep in mind, the actual robbery was already over and the robber was just leaving the scene at this point; shooter was never a victim until he threatened the robber. You could almost make the case that if the robber were to shoot at this point, he shot in self defense.

Yes, the people inside the Waffle House who were threatened during the robbery and before the robber was out of range of firing on them.

I'd be interested in seeing your case that the robber, confronted with a lawful order to put down his gun and surrender, acted in self-defense when he threatened the life of yet another innocent bystander. He was the aggressor here, throughout. He deserves nobody's sympathy.

 

[omlet]

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

If he had been a police officer in the same position, would that make a difference to you? (That is, would you still have the same objection to the attempt to stop the robber?)

If not, how is a citizen arrest attempt any different?

Or if so, would you agree then that you're saying that citizens should not enforce or uphold the law when allowed and able to?

Let's play a game of imagination.

Let's imagine for a moment that the shooter (keep in mind, there is only one shooter in this story) decided not to shoot and instead, took a cellphone picture discretely from his car, noted his description, called authorities, stuck around and gave the description to authorities, and got went in and got his waffles.

In this alternate series of events, is anyone threatened with danger to their life?

Uh, yes, the people who were robbed by the thief wielding a gun.

 

[hey_monkey]

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

Resisting while black.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

"Waffle House customers have used guns to take down would-be thieves before."

This statement makes me extremely concerned about what the fuck is going on in america. What a fucking mess, may as well be the wild west still. I would hate to live somewhere where people getting shot are daily occurences.

I believe something like 30 states allow open-carry without any kind of permit(concealed carry is legal just about everywhere, with a special permit, except for a special few that are just whatever, who cares).

So, yeah, this country is real fucked up when it comes to guns.

 

[Forearms]

From the Post and Courier Article:

Justin Rivers, 34, also shot a man to death in self-defense in March 2012, when he opened fire on what he perceived to be an attempted carjacker trying to break into his rental car at a Ladson Road traffic light. He then drove away, fearing continued assault, and called 911 during a stop about two miles from the shooting. No charges were filed in the killing.

EDIT: Meta pointed out that Justin is the brother of the shooter in this story - thanks!

It also sounds like the robber tried to shoot at him, but that wouldn't have happened if Justin Rivers didn't confront him. Also, LOL at anyone saying it's ok to open fire towards a public establishment.

 

[Hylian7]

Edit: I just saw the rest of the updates on this story. This changes things.

 

[Stet]

From the Post and Courier Article:



Sounds like he found his chance to take another life.

It also sounds like the robber tried to shoot at him, but that wouldn't have happened if Justin Rivers didn't confront him. Also, LOL at anyone saying it's ok to open fire towards a public establishment.

Congrats, you're a multiple murderer!

From an armed robbery?

I'm on board with the anti-gun movement too, but lets not try to peddle bullshit and use this as fuel for that fire somehow. The robber was armed, the customer with the concealed weapon acted and did something about it. On top of that, the guy was only injured, and not killed.

I'm against open and concealed guns being so prevalent out there, but this kind of the few stories where this was okay.

You're very late to this thread. The robber is dead. The robbery was already finished when he was killed. He was leaving and the bystander (who wasn't even in the Waffle House) confronted him and killed him.

 

[Forearms]

From an armed robbery?

I'm on board with the anti-gun movement too, but lets not try to peddle bullshit and use this as fuel for that fire somehow. The robber was armed, the customer with the concealed weapon acted and did something about it. On top of that, the guy was only injured, and not killed.

I'm against open and concealed guns being so prevalent out there, but this kind of the few stories where this was okay.

What articles did you read?

 

[Hylian7]

What articles did you read?

Just the OP one, I realize that was out of date now and edited my post regarding that.

 

[Metaphoreus]

From the Post and Courier Article:



Sounds like he found his chance to take another life.

It also sounds like the robber tried to shoot at him, but that wouldn't have happened if Justin Rivers didn't confront him. Also, LOL at anyone saying it's ok to open fire towards a public establishment.

To be clear, Justin Rivers is the brother of the guy (Kenneth Rivers) who shot the robber in this case.

 

[Dai101]

Also, LOL at anyone saying it's ok to open fire towards a public establishment.

Just like in the movies!! I mean, what did you expect from a country that has been educated by movies and tv, where heroes open fire and solve everything with guns?

 

[PBY]

Guy should be arrested.

 

[Marauder Shields]

So the robber was armed after all. Fair play.

 

[InfiniDragon]

You're very late to this thread. The robber is dead. The robbery was already finished when he was killed. He was leaving and the bystander (who wasn't even in the Waffle House) confronted him and killed him.

Yeah, based on the new information I don't see this guy getting no charges. Then again, there have been worse cases where people got a walk.

 

[Forearms]

To be clear, Justin Rivers is the brother of the guy (Kenneth Rivers) who shot the robber in this case.

I stand corrected! Thanks.

 

[Beefy]

So the robber was armed after all. Fair play.

Calling some one getting killed fair play is disgusting.

 

[Marauder Shields]

Calling some one getting killed fair play is disgusting.

I don't have much sympathy for someone who engages in armed robbery and puts innocent lives at risk.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

I don't think you should be allowed to kill in self-defence. This is how it works in my country:

In my country, defending yourself is not considered an inalienable right. Right wing and left wing agree that the democratic government should hold a monopoly on violence. If you shoot a burglar to death, you will be convicted of murder or manslaughter (this reduces the incentive to use violence for the burglar). In any threatening situation you would never be allowed to use more force than the minimum needed to defuse the situation, which depends on the following factors: 1. The threat level of the assailant. If the assailant has no weapons (not even a blunt instrument) and you are significantly stronger than them, you would be expected not to use any kind of weapon yourself (the minimum amount of force to defuse the situation would be to restrain the assailant or scare them away). Notice how this incentivizes criminals to not use weapons. 2. Who is under attack. If you are alone and faster than the assailant, you can just run away. If family members are sleeping close-by, then more force would be allowed. 3. Other circumstances. This is a bit vague, but it can include stuff like whether there are other people around who you can run to, or your mental state during the attack.

In this case, they should have just noted down the register plate number of the robber and called the police. That would be enough to catch the robber later. Security camera footage would be enough to convict him. Any loss by the business, assuming the robber did not get caught, would be covered by insurance. What happened here led to an avoidable death, and put innocent by-standers at risk.

 

[Beefy]

I don't have much sympathy for someone who engages in armed robbery and puts innocent lives at risk.

Do you know why he robbed the place? Do you know what kind of person he was? Even the best person can reach such a low point in their life they turn to crime. I have sympathy for him. The guy left the Waffle place and never fired a shot until some one pointed a gun at him.

 

[Wolfe]

I don't have much sympathy for someone who engages in armed robbery and puts innocent lives at risk.

There's a large difference between an action taking place and an action having the possibility to take place.

 

[ugh_the_boot]

I love america and all the things it does but the gun mentality/laws absolutely ruin the place for me. I would actually like to live there but there is no way I would do so with the current gun laws and the mentality of the people there.

All these people defending the guy who shot the robber have obviously read up nothing about the situation in question (which really doesn't surprise me based on what I said earlier about the mentality of americans and their guns). The robber was walking out of the Waffle House store (apparently with the takings) when this would be hero parked himself behind a car with gun drawn and when the robber walked to the door he ordered him to drop his gun and when robber did not do so there was an exchange of gunfire where the robber got shot.

So in summary armed man held up waffle house and was getting away with the takings, no one had been hurt and no bullets were fired when some cowboy rocked up and started a gunfight (for no reason) where bullets were exchanged (some missing their target and hitting the window next to the robber....so basically these stray bullets the cowboy fired could've killed an innocent bystander) where the robber was shot and killed.

If you guys can't see the problem with what the cowboy did here then your country has surely gone to shit because of this mentality.

 

[Dr.Acula]

I don't think you should be allowed to kill in self-defence. This is how it works in my country:

In my country, defending yourself is not considered an inalienable right. Right wing and left wing agree that the democratic government should hold a monopoly on violence. If you shoot a burglar to death, you will be convicted of murder or manslaughter (this reduces the incentive to use violence for the burglar). In any threatening situation you would never be allowed to use more force than the minimum needed to defuse the situation, which depends on the following factors: 1. The threat level of the assailant. If the assailant has no weapons (not even a blunt instrument) and you are significantly stronger than them, you would be expected not to use any kind of weapon yourself (the minimum amount of force to defuse the situation would be to restrain the assailant or scare them away). Notice how this incentivizes criminals to not use weapons. 2. Who is under attack. If you are alone and faster than the assailant, you can just run away. If family members are sleeping close-by, then more force would be allowed. 3. Other circumstances. This is a bit vague, but it can include stuff like whether there are other people around who you can run to, or your mental state during the attack.

In this case, they should have just noted down the register plate number of the robber and called the police. That would be enough to catch the robber later. Security camera footage would be enough to convict him. Any loss by the business, assuming the robber did not get caught, would be covered by insurance. What happened here led to an avoidable death, and put innocent by-standers at risk.

Guns are really tricky.

People have been convicted for firing "warning shots" or "wounding shots" because by their very nature they attest that the person using the gun were not in fact in imminent mortal danger, by virtue of being able to fire a warning or wounding shot.

It's because guns only exist as lethal weapons. You can miss easily, and even a perfectly aimed non-lethal shot can hit an artery, or can fragment and travel into places on the body (for real, I've read about entrance wounds in the stomach and exit wounds in the neck).

So really, because the weapon is lethal, and because it can only be used when a person fears for their life (which can be subjective, remember Zimmerman getting acquitted?), you can't allow any real subjectivity for self-defence in a society which places such a high value on guns.

If you allow people to use guns in self-defence, you pretty much have to allow lethal self-defence.

 

[Jagernaut]

I love america and all the things it does but the gun mentality/laws absolutely ruin the place for me. I would actually like to live there but there is no way I would do so with the current gun laws and the mentality of the people there.

All these people defending the guy who shot the robber have obviously read up nothing about the situation in question (which really doesn't surprise me based on what I said earlier about the mentality of americans and their guns). The robber was walking out of the Waffle House store (apparently with the takings) when this would be hero parked himself behind a car with gun drawn and when the robber walked to the door he ordered him to drop his gun and when robber did not do so there was an exchange of gunfire where the robber got shot.

So in summary armed man held up waffle house and was getting away with the takings, no one had been hurt and no bullets were fired when some cowboy rocked up and started a gunfight (for no reason) where bullets were exchanged (some missing their target and hitting the window next to the robber....so basically these stray bullets the cowboy fired could've killed an innocent bystander) where the robber was shot and killed.

If you guys can't see the problem with what the cowboy did here then your country has surely gone to shit because of this mentality.

The cowboy endangered the lives of the people inside the Waffle House. What if he missed the robber with his shots and the robber retreated back into the restaurant. Now a robbery that was over could have turned into a hostage situation and the people inside could have been killed.

 

[Jonm1010]

I don't think you should be allowed to kill in self-defence. This is how it works in my country:

In my country, defending yourself is not considered an inalienable right. Right wing and left wing agree that the democratic government should hold a monopoly on violence. If you shoot a burglar to death, you will be convicted of murder or manslaughter (this reduces the incentive to use violence for the burglar). In any threatening situation you would never be allowed to use more force than the minimum needed to defuse the situation, which depends on the following factors: 1. The threat level of the assailant. If the assailant has no weapons (not even a blunt instrument) and you are significantly stronger than them, you would be expected not to use any kind of weapon yourself (the minimum amount of force to defuse the situation would be to restrain the assailant or scare them away). Notice how this incentivizes criminals to not use weapons. 2. Who is under attack. If you are alone and faster than the assailant, you can just run away. If family members are sleeping close-by, then more force would be allowed. 3. Other circumstances. This is a bit vague, but it can include stuff like whether there are other people around who you can run to, or your mental state during the attack.

In this case, they should have just noted down the register plate number of the robber and called the police. That would be enough to catch the robber later. Security camera footage would be enough to convict him. Any loss by the business, assuming the robber did not get caught, would be covered by insurance. What happened here led to an avoidable death, and put innocent by-standers at risk.

This is actually a very interesting angle to explore. Both in applying to the question of whether this man was morally and ethically justified or whether his actions were appropriate given the context of the situation.

Not to mention I would be interested in what if any corroborating evidence we have that such an approach to self defense laws has on reducing the rate of violent or deadly occurrences when crimes are committed.

Based on the argument that a person is only justified when applying minimum effective force needed to defuse a situation and assist in bringing the assailant to justice. The context of this particular situation is one where the threat was effectively defused before Rivers injected himself into the situation. Seeing as the robber was on his way out and the threat of violence had passed with it. Furthermore there are a number of alternatives Rivers could have taken that didn't re-escalate the situation in the way it did and unnecessarily put innocent people back at risk. Rivers very easily could of written down the guys license plate, taken pictures, called police and alerted them of his movement so they could intersect him. Instead he went beyond the minimum required to defuse the situation and the result was a re-escalation that led to an unnecessary death and unnecessary risk to bystanders.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

Guns are really tricky.

People have been convicted for firing "warning shots" or "wounding shots" because by their very nature they attest that the person using the gun were not in fact in imminent mortal danger, by virtue of being able to fire a warning or wounding shot.

It's because guns only exist as lethal weapons. You can miss easily, and even a perfectly aimed non-lethal shot can hit an artery, or can fragment and travel into places on the body (for real, I've read about entrance wounds in the stomach and exit wounds in the neck).

So really, because the weapon is lethal, and because it can only be used when a person fears for their life (which can be subjective, remember Zimmerman getting acquitted?), you can't allow any real subjectivity for self-defence in a society which places such a high value on guns.

If you allow people to use guns in self-defence, you pretty much have to allow lethal self-defence.

Which is why I think you should try to minimize the amount of guns owned in a population, and as a general rule, never allow guns for self-defence, except for when that is literally the only option. For example, if someone is pointing a gun at a kid.

 

[Least100Seraphs]

You only have to take a look at how far apart from each other those bullet holes are, to see that the bystander was, at the very least, a well-meaning but poor-aiming individual.

For those who say "what if it was a cop, not a cilivilian?"

I'd like to think that a police officer would arrive at the scene and assess.
Hopefully, he'd recognise that the robber was leaving the premises, and recognise that putting himself between an armed robber and the robber's exit route changes the situation from "robber runs away" to "robber either surrenders, runs back inside the building for safety, or tries to shoot his way free".
The officer would hopefully recognise that if the robber doesn't surrender, that either means the officer gets fired upon, or the robber gets fired upon, with both of those situations risking the lives of good people (the cop or the people in the restaurant).

With that in mind, I would then hope that the officer realises that the best course of action is get a description of the robber and his vehicle, and allow the robber (for now) to escape the law, and better spend his time checking on the status of the innocents in the restaurant.

 

[EzekelRAGE]

Do you know why he robbed the place? Do you know what kind of person he was? Even the best person can reach such a low point in their life they turn to crime. I have sympathy for him. The guy left the Waffle place and never fired a shot until some one pointed a gun at him.

Doesn't matter what excuse he uses to threaten lives for cash, it's still a crime. All we know so far is (as for what type of person he was), he was the kind of person that would threaten ppl's lives for cash.

Ppl are bashing the guy for confronting the robber.. What about the robber making the decision to raise his gun to him in the first place? Seems like some of you only want the victims to think about things like this(when it was thought the shooter was in the restaurant ppl were still on his case).

If you get low enough in life to partake in the life of crime, no matter what the reason, you have to deal with the consequences of that lifestyle.

 

[PBY]

Doesn't matter what excuse he uses to threaten lives for cash, it's still a crime. All we know so far is (as for what type of person he was), he was the kind of person that would threaten ppl's lives for cash.

Ppl are bashing the guy for confronting the robber.. What about the robber making the decision to raise his gun to him in the first place? Seems like some of you only want the victims to think about things like this(when it was thought the shooter was in the restaurant ppl were still on his case).

If you get low enough in life to partake in the life of crime, no matter what the reason, you have to deal with the consequences of that lifestyle.

The robber pointed his gun at the shooter and initiated a violent encounter ? That's the only instance where I'm okay with this outcome.

 

[Dai Kaiju]

.

 

[EzekelRAGE]

The robber pointed his gun at the shooter and initiated a violent encounter ? That's the only instance where I'm okay with this outcome.

Looks like the shooter confronted the robber while he was leaving. I'm imagining the shooter has his gun already drawn. Instead of just giving up, the robber decides to test his luck and raises his gun. Whether it's to try to "scare" the guy or actually kill him is up in the air, since the shooter didn't give him the chance to make that decision (which he shouldn't have). If I'm reading it right, that is what happened.

 

[LudicrousSpeed]

If you get low enough in life to partake in the life of crime, no matter what the reason, you have to deal with the consequences of that lifestyle.

Last I checked, the penalty for robbing a store is not summary execution.

 

[EzekelRAGE]

Last I checked, the penalty for robbing a store is not summary execution.

The robber took that option away (trial/jail etc) from himself when he raised his gun.

 

[hey_monkey]

Doesn't matter what excuse he uses to threaten lives for cash, it's still a crime. All we know so far is (as for what type of person he was), he was the kind of person that would threaten ppl's lives for cash.

Ppl are bashing the guy for confronting the robber.. What about the robber making the decision to raise his gun to him in the first place? Seems like some of you only want the victims to think about things like this(when it was thought the shooter was in the restaurant ppl were still on his case).

If you get low enough in life to partake in the life of crime, no matter what the reason, you have to deal with the consequences of that lifestyle.

But this is not an accepted consequence. In America we don't execute people for robbery or for threats.

 

[Jonm1010]

Doesn't matter what excuse he uses to threaten lives for cash, it's still a crime. All we know so far is (as for what type of person he was), he was the kind of person that would threaten ppl's lives for cash.

Ppl are bashing the guy for confronting the robber.. What about the robber making the decision to raise his gun to him in the first place? Seems like some of you only want the victims to think about things like this(when it was thought the shooter was in the restaurant ppl were still on his case).

If you get low enough in life to partake in the life of crime, no matter what the reason, you have to deal with the consequences of that lifestyle.

The robber only raised his gun AFTER the shooter injected himself into the situation and after the threat of violence toward the bystanders had passed and the robber was on his way out. Initiating an armed confrontation and re-escalating the situation while simultaneously raising the risk toward the bystanders.


That is a pivotal piece of context that got skipped over.

He may be within his legal rights to do what he did, however I don't think he was morally justified. Nor do I think he made an appropriate choice in this situation.

 

[Hyun Sai]

Last I checked, the penalty for robbing a store is not summary execution.

According to many posters here, it should be ! Justice ! That's why we need more guns outta there !

 

[LudicrousSpeed]

EDIT: Not worth bothering.

 

[Aureon]

Second one this week. A shooter fired at an escaping shoplifter at a Home Depot earlier this week.

I fucking hope he's been locked away for attempted murder. Holy shit.

wut....the criminal was armed and attempting robbery, the very definition of an act of violence. People's lives are in danger, that's the exact moment you can use your concealed firearm lol.

Because escalating a robbery into a potential shootout is PURE GENIUS.
Risking human lives to prevent something that's one step above petty thieving? Insanity.

 

[PBY]

The robber took that option away (trial/jail etc) from himself when he raised his gun.

To me it looks like the cowboy added violence to the situation.

 

[coleco]

I don't have much sympathy for someone who engages in armed robbery and puts innocent lives at risk.

Completely agreed.

 

[dabig2]

I don't have much sympathy for someone who engages in armed robbery and puts innocent lives at risk.

Fuck sympathy. The robber being a POS doesn't excuse the gung-ho customer's escalation of violence and reigniting a violent situation for the people in the store when he fired into it. That this story will be used to champion not only guns but also concealed carry is what has people arguing about this story in a different light. This isn't about the thief.

 

[Gigglepoo]

I don't have much sympathy for someone who engages in armed robbery and puts innocent lives at risk.

Would you be alright if another gun-toting bystander saw the customer shoot the robber and opened fire? Because that's what you're advocating when citizens are allowed to be judge, jury, and executioner.

 

[Bodacious]

"Waffle House customers have used guns to take down would-be thieves before."

This statement makes me extremely concerned about what the fuck is going on in america. What a fucking mess, may as well be the wild west still. I would hate to live somewhere where people getting shot are daily occurences.

First there's gotta be an armed robbery. The problem starts there, not with whether someone in the store is carrying concealed.

 

[EzekelRAGE]

But this is not an accepted consequence. In America we don't execute people for robbery or for threats.

The robber took that option away (trial/jail etc) from himself when he raised his gun.

The robber only raised his gun AFTER the shooter injected himself into the situation and after the threat of violence toward the bystanders had passed and the robber was on his way out. Initiating an armed confrontation and re-escalating the situation while simultaneously raising the risk toward the bystanders.

That is a pivotal piece of context that got skipped over.

The fact the robber makes the decision to raise his gun in response to the shooter seems to get skipped over. I could see the side of you guys more if the guy was exiting the store and the guy just shot him. No warning, no anything.

But looks like the reports say the robber raised his gun in response to the shooter trying to stop him.

To me it looks like the cowboy added violence to the situation.

If simply threatening someone with a gun is violence, the robber introduced it first with threatening the wafflehouse customers with violence.

So no one sees anything wrong with the robber attempting the robbery in the first place?
- Seems like most ppl want to give the guy a therapy session while being robbed.

No one is blaming the robber for not giving up when the shooter first approached him?

So the robber should go on his merry way, most likely to rob future people.
- Was wafflehouse, no way that would supply enough money for w/e he needed to rob for.

If I'm being robbed at gunpoint and have the opportunity to kill the robber, I'm taking the chance, no second thought. I couldn't care less about why he is robbing me or how he is as a person. (I bring this up again because before the news broke that the guy was exiting the wafflehouse, ppl were upset at the cowboy trying to stop a crime.)

Would you be alright if another gun-toting bystander saw the customer shoot the robber and opened fire? Because that's what you're advocating when citizens are allowed to be judge, jury, and executioner.

If I'm the cowboy who shot the robber and another guy comes to me, tells me to drop the gun, while pointing his gun at me. I drop it immediately, explain the situation and wait for the police to arrive.

 

[TheJLC]

First there's gotta be an armed robbery. The problem starts there, not with whether someone in the store is carrying concealed.

Yup. Almost everywhere you go in the us there is someone conceal carrying, be it ordinary citizens or off-duty active or retired law enforcement.

So many Waffle House transactions go on normally. It takes an armed robber to make the exception.

Anyways, good on the citizen defending self and others.