Support NeoGAF

[hey_monkey]

Anyways, good on the citizen defending self and others.

Yeah, he defended the shit out of that parking lot.

It'll probably cost more to fix the bullet holes in the building than the guy got in the register. Not to mention someone died. ¯\_(&#12484_/¯

 

[Beefy]

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.

He didn't defend any one.

 

[HyperionX]

They really need to change the title. This is a random onlooker opening firing on a Waffle house, not a self-defense story as originally reported.

 

[Captin Quacker]

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.


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.)



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.

The shooter wasn't being robbed, he injected himself into a dangerous situation not only putting his life on the line but those inside the building as well

 

[DrSlek]

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.

Making the assumption that this other guy, who just saw you shoot someone in this hypothetical situation, doesn't just himself open fire.

 

[PBY]

Bottom line- if I were a patron I WOULDNT want someone to pull a gun on some hero fantasy shit.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

He didn't defend any one.

He defended himself from his own reckless behavior. I'm certainly impressed.

 

[Jonm1010]

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.

Nowhere did I pretend the robber didn't raise his gun. However that entire sequence of events was only brought on because a person outside of the situation decided to enter the situation in a way that unnecessarily increased risk to bystanders and escalated the situation.

If his aim was to protect the patrons inside he made their situation worse. If it was to bring the man to justice he chose a path that put bystanders in danger and unnecessarily escalated a situation that could of been handled more appropriately and could of led to a more just and safe outcome for all parties involved.

I am not excusing the robbers behavior when confronted but I am also not going to excuse Rivers actions simply because the robber attempted to raise his gun after he inappropriately escalated the situation.

 

[Opto]

Bottom line- if I were a patron I WOULDNT want someone to pull a gun on some hero fantasy shit.

But clearly the risk of crossfire is worth the justice of a vigilante /s

 

[Nuova]

I see nothing wrong here. Guy threatens people with a gun and gets his comeuppance.

You wave around a gun to threaten people, you best prepare for consequences.

 

[Kaiterra]

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?

This is what I think. Police are police, citizens are citizens. Citizens attempting to act like police are a recipe for trouble. Self-defense is one thing, aiding the authorities is one thing, but taking justice into your own hands is no bueno.

 

[EzekelRAGE]

The shooter wasn't being robbed, he injected himself into a dangerous situation not only putting his life on the line but those inside the building as well

The robber injected himself into such a situation by committing the crime in the first place. Which could lead to dangerous consequences, not only putting his life on the line but innocent people he traumatizes by robbing them.

However that entire sequence of events was only brought on because a person outside of the situation decided to enter the situation in a way that unnecessarily increased risk to bystanders and escalated the situation.

And the entire situation only happened because some guy decided to rob ppl.

Making the assumption that this other guy, who just saw you shoot someone in this hypothetical situation, doesn't just himself open fire.

You can make that assumption and I'll stick to my assumption. We can paint w/e narratives we want to fit w/e idea we want to push with all the ifs we want. At the end of the day the facts is, no one innocent appears to have been hurt or killed. All these hypotheticals about the robber being in some John Q type situation or the cowboy ending up killing a bystander don't mean anything.

 

[Jonm1010]

And the entire situation only happened because some guy decided to rob ppl.

That doesn't exonerate others behavior in their response to the situation.

If we follow this logic to its natural conclusion we are brought to a pretty scary world to live in.

 

[Burai]

The robber injected himself into such a situation by committing the crime in the first place. Which could lead to dangerous consequences, not only putting his life on the line but innocent people he traumatizes by robbing them.



And the entire situation only happened because some guy decided to rob ppl.


You can make that assumption and I'll stick to my assumption. We can paint w/e narratives we want to fit w/e idea we want to push with all the ifs we want. At the end of the day the facts is, no one innocent appears to have been hurt or killed. All these hypotheticals about the robber being in some John Q type situation or the cowboy ending up killing a bystander don't mean anything.

Armed robbers don't want to shoot anyone. They just want to steal stuff. The gun is leverage.

The only way anyone is getting shot is if some idiot decides that they are a hero and it's worth valuing stuff over life.

 

[TheTurboFD]

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.

I don't think why he did it matters now does it? The fact is he did it and was dealt with.

Good on the citizen.

 

[Lonewolf_92]

This is (unsurprisingly) extremely common. Not sure what it is that attracts criminals to Waffle House. A lot of cops eat there too.

They tend to be open late if not all night, coupled with the fact that there tend to be less customers during the nightshift.

Also, the concealed carry guy seems to have done damage that will take more to replace than the Waffle House likely was losing from the robbery, I'm sure they're happy about that.

 

[entremet]

They tend to be open late if not all night, coupled with the fact that there tend to be less customers during the nightshift.

Also, the concealed carry guy seems to have done damage that will take more to replace than the Waffle House likely was losing from the robbery, I'm sure they're happy about that.

They have insurance. No biggie.

 

[Jonm1010]

I don't think why he did it matters now does it? The fact is he did it and was dealt with.

Good on the citizen.

Was the situation dealt with appropriately though? I would say absolutely not.

Would you still be saying "good citizen" if the robber ran back inside after being confronted and it escalated the robbery into a hostage situation that left some of the patrons dead? Or one of the citizens bullets that missed hit a worker behind the counter?

The guy injected himself into a situation where the robber was fleeing and in doing so increased risk to bystanders and re-escalated the situation.

 

[ugh_the_boot]

The robber injected himself into such a situation by committing the crime in the first place. Which could lead to dangerous consequences, not only putting his life on the line but innocent people he traumatizes by robbing them.



And the entire situation only happened because some guy decided to rob ppl.


You can make that assumption and I'll stick to my assumption. We can paint w/e narratives we want to fit w/e idea we want to push with all the ifs we want. At the end of the day the facts is, no one innocent appears to have been hurt or killed. All these hypotheticals about the robber being in some John Q type situation or the cowboy ending up killing a bystander don't mean anything.

Well then by your logic the problem here is the person who invented the gun or whoever wrote american laws to allow people to carry the gun. How far down the line do you want to go with this? Just because someone robbed a store at gunpoint and was walking away without firing a shot doesn't all of a sudden make it ok for anyone in the vicinity to start drawing their weapon and firing it. The whole incident was 99% complete without anyone being hurt until cowboy came and shot the place up.

What if another guy with a gun pulled up and just caught the tail end of the situation, a guy with a gun shooting another guy walking out of waffle house, he just sees some random guy get gunned down and decides to pull out his own gun and shoot the cowboy, which in turn gets noticed by another person who then gun downs this guy...and so on. Can't you understand that two wrongs don't make a right?

 

[TheTurboFD]

Was the situation dealt with appropriately though? I would say absolutely not.

Would you still be saying "good citizen" if the robber ran back inside after being confronted and it escalated the robbery into a hostage situation that left some of the patrons dead? Or one of the citizens bullets that missed hit a worker behind the counter?

The guy injected himself into a situation where the robber was fleeing and in doing so increased risk to bystanders and re-escalated the situation.

Was there another article that stated this? The 2 I've read had no indication that the robber was actually fleeing before getting shot.

 

[DrSlek]

At the end of the day the facts is, no one innocent appears to have been hurt or killed. .

...which was always going to be the case.

 

[Gigglepoo]

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.

Again, if a person carrying a concealed weapon opened fire on the man who he just saw shoot another man dead, would you be alright with that? It's telling that you avoided answering my question directly.

Do you see a downside to citizens acting as judge, jury, and executioner?

 

[hey_monkey]

Was there another article that stated this? The 2 I've read had no indication that the robber was actually fleeing before getting shot.

Except for the update that said he was leaving?

 

[Dead Man]

If I was a customer inside that place, I would be pissed off with both the fuckwits with guns. Shooting into the building? Fuckwit. Get a description, let the robber leave, give description to police.

 

[TheTurboFD]

Except for the update that said he was leaving?

Ahh didn't notice the update posted a couple of pages back. So the customer told the guy to put down his weapon and instead the guy decided to raise it towards him? I wonder what the robber was thinking when he though it would be a smart idea to raise his weapon instead of just putting it down as instructed.

I also love how they have a strict no gun policy according to that article. Guess that really worked out for them.

 

[Metaphoreus]

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?

This is what's blowing my mind. The robber threatened the lives of everyone in the restaurant for pecuniary gain. The bystander threatened the life of the robber--and nobody else, so far as we can tell--to stop a crime (and, arguably, to protect innocent bystanders, but the point stands in either event). The robber even fired first! But the bystander is somehow the bad guy?

I guess the moral of the story is this: it's better to threaten several people's lives over petty cash than it is to threaten one person's life over his (potentially lethal) wrongdoing. Is that seriously a principle that the many in this thread berating the bystander adhere to?

Again, if a person carrying a concealed weapon opened fire on the man who he just saw shoot another man dead, would you be alright with that? It's telling that you avoided answering my question directly.

Is this a real question? If the concealed-weapon carrier reasonably believes that shooting the shooter is necessary to avoid death or serious bodily injury (to the carrier or to another), then yeah. Who wouldn't be? If the shooter shoots dead the one guy, throws the gun to the ground, and raises his hands above his head while kneeling to make clear he's no longer a threat, then no. Who would be?

It's the difference between ending an ongoing lethal threat and punishing past lethal conduct.

 

[lednerg]

Turning a robbery into a firefight is just dumb.

 

[Captin Quacker]

The robber injected himself into such a situation by committing the crime in the first place. Which could lead to dangerous consequences, not only putting his life on the line but innocent people he traumatizes by robbing them.

And the entire situation only happened because some guy decided to rob ppl.

that doesn't give the shooter a pass to approach the situation the way he did

 

[ugh_the_boot]

This is what's blowing my mind. The robber threatened the lives of everyone in the restaurant for pecuniary gain. The bystander threatened the life of the robber--and nobody else, so far as we can tell--to stop a crime (and, arguably, to protect innocent bystanders, but the point stands in either event). The robber even fired first! But the bystander is somehow the bad guy?

I guess the moral of the story is this: it's better to threaten several people's lives over petty cash than it is to threaten one person's life over his (potentially lethal) wrongdoing. Is that seriously a principle that the many in this thread berating the bystander adhere to?



Is this a real question? If the concealed-weapon carrier reasonably believes that shooting the shooter is necessary to avoid death or serious bodily injury (to the carrier or to another), then yeah. Who wouldn't be? If the shooter shoots dead the one guy, throws the gun to the ground, and raises his hands above his head while kneeling to make clear he's no longer a threat, then no. Who would be?

It's the difference between ending an ongoing lethal threat and punishing past lethal conduct.

What part of the robber walking out of the store without shooting anyone can't you understand? No lives were at risk at this point, why would you start a gunfight?

 

[Wag]

Why in the hell would you try to rob a Waffle House?

That's why.

 

[LudicrousSpeed]

The bystander threatened the life of the robber--and nobody else, so far as we can tell

He didn't threaten the lives of other people?

So the chances of the robber making a bee-line back for the Waffle House and holding hostages was 0%?

The bystander was equipped with some sort of magic gun that would make its bullets disappear if they missed the target?

If his interference in the situation had encited a gunfight, he knew that the robber was equipped with the same sort of magic gun that would ensure that people in the background behind the bystander wouldn't be harmed either?

Because if not, the bystander certainly did risk more than the lives of himself and the robber.

 

[TheTurboFD]

He didn't threaten the lives of other people?

So the chances of the robber making a bee-line back for the Waffle House and holding hostages was 0%?

The bystander was equipped with some sort of magic gun that would make its bullets disappear if they missed the target?

If his interference in the situation had encited a gunfight, he knew that the robber was equipped with the same sort of magic gun that would ensure that people in the background behind the bystander wouldn't be harmed either?

Because if not, the bystander certainly did risk more than the lives of himself and the robber.

Guess he should have let the robber go and possibly kill someone some other day right?

 

[Captin Quacker]

The robber injected himself into such a situation by committing the crime in the first place. Which could lead to dangerous consequences, not only putting his life on the line but innocent people he traumatizes by robbing them.

And the entire situation only happened because some guy decided to rob ppl.

that doesn't give the shooter a pass to approach the situation the way he did

This isn't the wild west we don't take the law into our own hands

Jonm1010 made a great point

Would you still be saying "good citizen" if the robber ran back inside after being confronted and it escalated the robbery into a hostage situation that left some of the patrons dead? Or one of the citizens bullets that missed hit a worker behind the counter?

 

[Gigglepoo]

Is this a real question? If the concealed-weapon carrier reasonably believes that shooting the shooter is necessary to avoid death or serious bodily injury (to the carrier or to another), then yeah. Who wouldn't be? If the shooter shoots dead the one guy, throws the gun to the ground, and raises his hands above his head while kneeling to make clear he's no longer a threat, then no. Who would be?

It's the difference between ending an ongoing lethal threat and punishing past lethal conduct.

What kind of training do people with concealed-carry permits get to ensure they can make a quick decision of life and death?

 

[Metaphoreus]

What part of the robber walking out of the store without shooting anyone can't you understand? No lives were at risk at this point, why would you start a gunfight?

Again, this is victim blaming. Let's step back and apply this to the real wrongdoer. The Waffle house employees hadn't shot anyone. They hadn't done anything to anyone. The Waffle house customers hadn't shot anyone. They hadn't done anything to anyone. No lives were at risk. Why would you threaten them?

Better question for you: why do you care so much more about what the bystander did than what the robber did? Had there been no robbery, there would have been no confrontation, no shooting, no deaths. Everybody lives and nobody breaks the law. Why the focus on an innocent bystander who took actions he was legally authorized to take?

Finally, the bystander didn't start a gunfight any more than the robber did when he pulled the gun in the Waffle House. The Waffle House employees chose to respond to the robber's unlawful threat with compliance. Why couldn't the robber have likewise responded to the bystander's lawful threat? Instead, he opened fire on the bystander. He started the gunfight, not the bystander.

 

[hey_monkey]

Ahh didn't notice the update posted a couple of pages back. So the customer told the guy to put down his weapon and instead the guy decided to raise it towards him?

There was a weapon pointed at him. This is how escalation works. The civilian escalated the situation.

 

[Jonm1010]

Guess he should have let the robber go and possibly kill someone some other day right?

There are more options then just confront the robber with a weapon while he is leaving and doing nothing.

As others have pointed out throughout this thread Rivers could of taken pictures of the guy, got his license plate, called the police and provided a detailed observation of where the robber was heading so they can intercept him.

All of those ideas seem much more appropriate and likely to lead to a safer and more just outcome for all parties involved.

 

[ugh_the_boot]

It amazes me that people can think that killing someone is the only solution to a problem. I guess this is the fundamental problem in America, people's mindset. This sort of stuff will keep happening because violence is now a part of your culture and the only way to combat violence is with more violence. Don't worry about solving the problem lets just shoot our way through the issue and anyone who comes out the other side without dying did well to survive.

At the end of the day none of this makes any difference to me as I don't live there which is why i'm amazed that people who actually do live there have no desire for a peaceful existence and would rather shoot their way through problems instead of solving them. There is no way your country will become safer with this mentality. Pretty soon y'all be drawing guns at each other just because someone looked at you funny and justify it with comments like "It's obvious he was carrying a gun so when he looked at me funny I knew he had intent to use it so I just blew him away." It's like Minority Report combined with Idiocracy! The madness of it all! 'MURICA FUCK YEAAA!!

 

[Oddduck]

Ha, this scene was the first thing to pop up in my head when I read the OP.

 

[CrunchyFrog]

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

Let's not pretend that a court of law is the same environment as the scene of an armed robbery. One is a precisely controlled event wherein there is no ongoing threat, the other is not.

The vigilante is certainly less justified in what he did, even if not legally culpable. He definitely could have easily avoided it altogether and let the police do their work (and certainly not done so while firing the weapon towards the restaurant, this is exactly the kind of thing an actual cop or properly trained individual would not have done).

I still have a hard time sympathizing with the robber, however. Once you directly threaten people with a deadly weapon you cross a distinct line, I don't care what circumstances led you to do so. Plus, if we wanna talk hypotheticals about the robber's life and what led him to commit this crime, who's to say this person wouldn't have gone off to do something worse had he been allowed to leave? The events leading to this robbery are irrelevant. You don't have a right to threaten people and put their lives at risk to get what you presume to want/need. I also think it's extremely naive to think that someone should have to wait to be shot at before they have the opportunity to defend themselves. Pointing a loaded weapon at someone is in and of itself an injurious act and IMHO just as bad as pulling the trigger.

 

[lednerg]

Again, this is victim blaming. Let's step back and apply this to the real wrongdoer. The Waffle house employees hadn't shot anyone. They hadn't done anything to anyone. The Waffle house customers hadn't shot anyone. They hadn't done anything to anyone. No lives were at risk. Why would you threaten them?

Better question for you: why do you care so much more about what the bystander did than what the robber did? Had there been no robbery, there would have been no confrontation, no shooting, no deaths. Everybody lives and nobody breaks the law. Why the focus on an innocent bystander who took actions he was legally authorized to take?

Finally, the bystander didn't start a gunfight any more than the robber did when he pulled the gun in the Waffle House. The Waffle House employees chose to respond to the robber's unlawful threat with compliance. Why couldn't the robber have likewise responded to the bystander's lawful threat? Instead, he opened fire on the bystander. He started the gunfight, not the bystander.

I'm not so sure how "lawful" what the bystander did was. What's Kansas law about pointing a gun at someone to prevent them from leaving?

 

[Jonm1010]

Again, this is victim blaming. Let's step back and apply this to the real wrongdoer. The Waffle house employees hadn't shot anyone. They hadn't done anything to anyone. The Waffle house customers hadn't shot anyone. They hadn't done anything to anyone. No lives were at risk. Why would you threaten them?

Better question for you: why do you care so much more about what the bystander did than what the robber did? Had there been no robbery, there would have been no confrontation, no shooting, no deaths. Everybody lives and nobody breaks the law. Why the focus on an innocent bystander who took actions he was legally authorized to take?

Finally, the bystander didn't start a gunfight any more than the robber did when he pulled the gun in the Waffle House. The Waffle House employees chose to respond to the robber's unlawful threat with compliance. Why couldn't the robber have likewise responded to the bystander's lawful threat? Instead, he opened fire on the bystander. He started the gunfight, not the bystander.

Rivers was not a victim. So it is hard to call this victim blaming.

Rivers injected himself into the situation and re-escalated it. That is a key piece of context you continue to ignore. Rivers also injected himself in a way that increased risk to bystanders. He doesnt get a pass on judgement simply because the other guy was a robber.

Like i said earlier today, Rivers seemingly has the shield of the law on this one based on your research but that doesn't make his actions morally or ethically justified or even appropriate.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I'm not so sure how "lawful" what the bystander did was. What's Kansas law about pointing a gun at someone to prevent them from leaving?

South Carolina, and I addressed this earlier.

Rivers was not a victim.

Rivers injected himself into the situation and re-escalated it. That is a key piece of context you continue to ignore. Rivers also injected himself in a way that increased risk to bystanders. He doesnt get a pass on judgement simply because the other guy was a robber.

Like i said earlier today, Rivers seemingly has the shield of the law on this one based on your research but that doesn't make his actions morally or ethically justified or even appropriate.

He didn't "re-escalate" anything. "Put down the gun" is an attempt to de-escalate a situation. The robber opening fire is what re-escalated the situation. This all comes down to the robber's decisions, not the bystander's. You know what could have avoided this entire chain of events? If the robber didn't rob a Waffle House at gunpoint. You know what else could have averted the robber's death? If the robber didn't open fire on an armed civilian who told him to disarm.

 

[LudicrousSpeed]

Guess he should have let the robber go and possibly kill someone some other day right?

The violent confrontation was over and the robber was leaving. There was no actively dangerous situation until the bystander pulled his gun, because the situation had de-escalated when the robber took the money and left.

The bystander had plenty of options that didn't mean drawing down in a populated area. Providing police with information about the car the robber left in, what he and the car he got into looked like, and telling police which way he went are all good things to do, and the key thing is that none of these options involve the loss of life on anyone's part.

But those things don't let you play Dirty Harry, and that's why they were inherently a less attractive option, even if that was the smart choice.

 

[lednerg]

South Carolina, and I addressed this earlier.

Oh, South Carolina, nevermind. Dude probably got a blowjob from the police chief's wife.

 

[LudicrousSpeed]

He didn't "re-escalate" anything. "Put down the gun" is an attempt to de-escalate a situation.

Pulling a gun on someone who is not actively threatening anyone is escalation. The robber was leaving the premises and pointing a gun at no one. As he's exiting, he's a threat to no one. At that point, the danger from the robber has dissipated, and if an unrelated party swoops in and pulls a gun on him, the unrelated party has just re-escalated.

It would be de-escalation if he was actively threatening anyone's life at the moment the gun got drawn on him. But since he wasn't, you can't claim de-escalation.

 

[Dead Man]

South Carolina, and I addressed this earlier.



He didn't "re-escalate" anything. "Put down the gun" is an attempt to de-escalate a situation. The robber opening fire is what re-escalated the situation. This all comes down to the robber's decisions, not the bystander's. You know what could have avoided this entire chain of events? If the robber didn't rob a Waffle House at gunpoint. You know what else could have averted the robber's death? If the robber didn't open fire on an armed civilian who told him to disarm.

Nope. Adding another gun is an escalation.

 

[Mass One]

Guess he should have let the robber go and possibly kill someone some other day right?

Are you memeing me? Out of all the crazy humanity-devoided things in this thread this is the up there. No one deserves death on the premise that they might do something. This isn't Breaking Bad, the gun nut isn't Mike Ehrmantraut. We already know what this person wanted "money" and we already know he isn't some comic book psychopath "he didn't kill anyone in the joint right?".

This is crazy. The bloodthirsty gun nut is crazy. Literally, no one had to die that that day. The situation was over, a crazy man with a CC wanted to kill someone he was morally superior too.

 

[ugh_the_boot]

Again, this is victim blaming. Let's step back and apply this to the real wrongdoer. The Waffle house employees hadn't shot anyone. They hadn't done anything to anyone. The Waffle house customers hadn't shot anyone. They hadn't done anything to anyone. No lives were at risk. Why would you threaten them?

Better question for you: why do you care so much more about what the bystander did than what the robber did? Had there been no robbery, there would have been no confrontation, no shooting, no deaths. Everybody lives and nobody breaks the law. Why the focus on an innocent bystander who took actions he was legally authorized to take?

Finally, the bystander didn't start a gunfight any more than the robber did when he pulled the gun in the Waffle House. The Waffle House employees chose to respond to the robber's unlawful threat with compliance. Why couldn't the robber have likewise responded to the bystander's lawful threat? Instead, he opened fire on the bystander. He started the gunfight, not the bystander.

No one is saying what the robber did was right, no one! I'll repeat, no one.....no one! Ok now that we have that out of the way, is the only way to solve a violent act with another violent act? Especially when the first violent act has been concluded with ZERO damage. People were left a bit frazzled and the store lost a little bit of money, but instead of the situation ending like this a lone cowboy pulls up and says to himself "We can't let this guy get away with a couple hundred dollars, LET'S KILL HIM!!!" So draws a gun on this guy.....again just so you understand the guy was walking out of the building without hurting anybody....do you understand this? He got what he wanted there was no need for anyone to get hurt, the best thing to do here is either draw the situation away from a crowded area or to let the guy run and let the cops deal with it, but "NO" says the cowboy "This needs to end right here right now! YOLO MOFOS!!!" BANG BANG BANG! Could this situation have had a better outcome if the cowboy wasn't there! Umm....hell yes! If I was in the Waffle House I would be pissed that the cowboy came and escalated a situation that was over and done with. Now you have some broken windows (which would cost more than what the robber would've stole) and a dead guy, some severely traumatized people, a court case etc when it could've just ended with the robber making a run for it and the police catching up with him later with the video footage or pictures that the cowboy took with his phone instead of being judge, jury and executioner.

 

[Brakke]

Hey guys what's going on in this thread?

Pointing a loaded weapon at someone is in and of itself an injurious act and IMHO just as bad as pulling the trigger.

Oh, complete nonsense? Ok then.

Not killing someone is just as bad as killing someone? Does that really make sense to you?