Support NeoGAF

[Wolfe]

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.

Nice circular logic, no on is arguing that the guy committing the robbery wasn't wrong or that he didn't deserve to be punished, that's obvious.

What's also obvious is that Capt Cowboy for a Day could have just has easily hit a bystander with his idiocy.

Regardless of the circumstances, at the end of the day someone is now dead when it's possible no one had to die. And everyone saying "he was committing a crime, no sympathy"... Jesus christ, we have a judicial system for a fucking reason and last I checked getting executed for armed robbery was never part of it.

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.

Dude you can continue to argue semantics and opinions all day, guy that shot the robber is just as much a shithead as the robber in my eyes.

And no, Cowboy still started a gun fight by firing on someone in public. Doesn't mean that the robber didn't create the scenario where the cowboy found himself in the position to shoot the robber, just that the cowboy started that "gunfight" all on his own. I read nothing of the robber "opening fire on the bystander", instead that the cowboy took cover and then started shooting at the robber. Do you not see how stupid that was? Guy was shooting at the entrance of a business that people were inside!

 

[Metaphoreus]

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.

The "cowboy" acted precisely as we would hope the police would have acted: by demanding that the criminal surrender. He didn't open fire. He didn't decide he wanted to kill somebody. The criminal then opened fire on the "cowboy," and it was only at that point that the "cowboy" returned fire.

At every point in this entire ordeal, the ball was in the robber's court. He could have not robbed the Waffle House at gunpoint. He could have put down his gun when accosted. He could have not opened fire on the armed bystander.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Dude you can continue to argue semantics and opinions all day, guy that shot the robber is just as much a shithead as the robber in my eyes.

And no, Cowboy still started a gun fight by firing on someone in public. Doesn't mean that the robber didn't create the scenario where the cowboy found himself in the position to shoot the robber, just that the cowboy started that "gunfight" all on his own. I read nothing of the robber "opening fire on the bystander", instead that the cowboy took cover and then started shooting at the robber. Do you not see how stupid that was? Guy was shooting at the entrance of a business that people were inside!

I swear, none of you knows what "semantics" means.

Here's the "opening fire on the bystander" bit you missed:

Rivers, 39, of North Charleston told police he took cover behind an SUV in the parking lot and ordered Davis to drop his weapon as he was coming out of the restaurant. Instead, Davis raised his gun and fired. Rivers shot him once in the abdomen near the groin, according to the report.

EDIT: Figured there'd be another post by now. Oh well. My bad on the double post.

 

[Jonm1010]

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.

What was the situation being de-escalated? The robber was leaving the restaurant after not harming anyone remember? Rivers was in his vehicle witnessing the robbery. Rivers was not an active part of the robbery nor was there an active threat to any of the patrons lives when he made the decision to confront the robber. His choice to confront the robber and inject himself into the situation in the way he did re-escalated the situation and put bystanders at risk. Sure the robber took it further and raised his gun but I dont think anyone is or has condoned that action. Nor should they.

However Rivers doesn't get to exonerate himself from judgement for making that choice simply because the confronted had broken the law.

The "cowboy" acted precisely as we would hope the police would have acted: by demanding that the criminal surrender. He didn't open fire. He didn't decide he wanted to kill somebody. The criminal then opened fire on the "cowboy," and it was only at that point that the "cowboy" returned fire.

At every point in this entire ordeal, the ball was in the robber's court. He could have not robbed the Waffle House at gunpoint. He could have put down his gun when accosted. He could have not opened fire on the armed bystander.

He is not the police.

 

[ugh_the_boot]

No one is sympathizing with the robber let me just make that clear. I would also rather these people be dead or never born BUT creating a second dangerous situation when the first one had concluded was the cowboy faults. There are no two ways about it.

 

[Metaphoreus]

He is not the police.

So what? We've established he was just as authorized as the police to do what he did. It also appears he behaved in exactly the same way we'd hope the police would have. Does the blue uniform really make that much of a difference to you? You'd be A-OK with the outcome if he was in a cop get-up?

 

[Jonm1010]

So what? We've established he was just as authorized as the police to do what he did. It also appears he behaved in exactly the same way we'd hope the police would have. Does the blue uniform really make that much of a difference to you? You'd be A-OK with the outcome if he was in a cop get-up?

We have also established that being right in the eye of the law doesnt make someone morally or ethically right or make their actions appropriate. Furthermore one of the first things any police training will teach you is if you suspect there is a criminal with a gun you call and wait for backup. The only exception is if you feel yourself or someone else is in imminent danger. As has been reported that was not the case here. So even if we ignore the distinctions between police and civilian this guy likely did not act like an ideal police officer would approach this situation.

Either way this is getting off into red herring territory.

 

[LudicrousSpeed]

So what? We've established he was just as authorized as the police to do what he did. It also appears he behaved in exactly the same way we'd hope the police would have. Does the blue uniform really make that much of a difference to you? You'd be A-OK with the outcome if he was in a cop get-up?

The difference is that (theoretically) that police officer has actual training for situations like these, training that some rando who bought a handgun does not. Training that would tell the cop that maybe he should try to find some place other than out in front of a crowded restaurant to have this confrontation, training that would help minimize the risk to bystanders.

Sadly, with the current state of cops, the difference between the yahoo who decided to irresponsibly re-escalate a bad situation and put a crowded restaurant of people into the line of fire and a cop probably is just the laundry. Of course, had a police officer reacted as irresponsibly as this guy did, I'd criticize him just the same.

 

[lednerg]

So what? We've established he was just as authorized as the police to do what he did. It also appears he behaved in exactly the same way we'd hope the police would have. Does the blue uniform really make that much of a difference to you? You'd be A-OK with the outcome if he was in a cop get-up?

If he was a friend of mine, I'd tell him to his face that he's a fucking moron. Especially if he wasn't trained for that kind of situation. He could've gotten himself or other bystanders shot, taken hostage, or killed. He should've waited for the police. Maybe tailed him out of the parking lot to help them locate him if need be.

 

[VindicatorZ]

The moment someone pulls out a gun and threatens violence, it is fair game to shoot them. There's no time to wait and comply with the robber. You never know what someone is going to do. Sometimes robbers shoot people even after they've been complied with.

However in this case, it seems the incident was already over.

 

[CrunchyFrog]

Hey guys what's going on in this thread?



Oh, complete nonsense? Ok then.

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

So you're totally okay with people just being able to threaten violent force whenever they want? Regardless, pointing a gun at someone puts them in ACTUAL danger as I said before for the same reasons that you don't point guns at people in a shooting range, the difference here being that it was done with purposeful and criminal intent.

 

[Least100Seraphs]

It seems there's misunderstanding over escalation and de-escalation during the incident. The whole point of those words is that things can gradually go up or down in terms of danger. It's not an on-off switch.

When the robber entered the Waffle House, pulled out his gun and demanded money, that's escalation. Money was given. Robber turned around to leave.
As robber is leaving the building, the situation is de-escalating. He has what he wants, he's not aiming a gun at anyone. He's fleeing the scene. He doesn't want to kill, he wants to get out ASAP because he knows that while he's heading out the door, Waffle House is calling the cops. At this point, Waffle House is safer than they were a minute ago, and is getting safer with every step the robber takes, as it's away from Waffle House.

At this point, CC man pulls a gun, points it at the robber, and tells robber to put down the gun. We now have a random civilian pointing a deadly weapon at 1 robber (and X civilians in the building behind). This is escalation. Things are now more dangerous for everyone than they were when robber was trying to flee.

At this point, apparently the robber decided he fancied his chances at shooting the CC-man. Or maybe he was raising his hands, or was confused and didnt know where the command was being given from, or maybe wasn't given the chance and was just gunned down (the information so far on the confrontation between robber and CC-man only so far has the CC-man's side). This is escalation.

At this point, according to the report, CC-man opened fire. According to photos, it seems at least 3 or 4 shots were fired by CC-man. One of these shots broke glass about 6ft off the ground, whereas others are less than 3ft from the ground. CC-man was certainly not a crack shot, as only one bullet hit the robber (around the lower abdomen). Photos of the scene show at least one bullet going through the front glass window, and the second glass window a few feet behind it at about waist height. This is escalation.

At some point after the first CC-man shot was fired, the robber apparently fired at least one round from his gun. There doesn't seem to be much info on where it went other than it not hitting anyone. It may have caused the front window panel to shatter. This is more escalation. It's briefly a gunfight, with bullets going in more than one direction, endangering CC-man, Waffle House employees, and whoever else was in bullet range.

Now, I agree that the robber definitely shouldn't have robbed the place. Walking into a store to rob is bad. Using a gun to do so is worse. I think we can all agree that threatening to shoot at Waffle House employees is an awful thing to do. In fact, the only thing worse, really, would be to actually shoot at Waffle House employees.

You know, like CC-man did when he stood in the carpark and fired into Waffle House.

 

[Least100Seraphs]

So what? We've established he was just as authorized as the police to do what he did. It also appears he behaved in exactly the same way we'd hope the police would have. Does the blue uniform really make that much of a difference to you? You'd be A-OK with the outcome if he was in a cop get-up?

Woah now. I, for one, would hope to hell that actual police would not behave the way CC-man did. He fired multiple shots, some piercing glass 6 feet from the ground, others 2 feet from the ground, with only one actually hitting the robber, in the groin of all places.
At least one bullet went through both the front and back glass window and continued into the restaurant.

 

[Wolfe]

It seems there's misunderstanding over escalation and de-escalation during the incident. The whole point of those words is that things can gradually go up or down in terms of danger. It's not an on-off switch.

When the robber entered the Waffle House, pulled out his gun and demanded money, that's escalation. Money was given. Robber turned around to leave.
As robber is leaving the building, the situation is de-escalating. He has what he wants, he's not aiming a gun at anyone. He's fleeing the scene. He doesn't want to kill, he wants to get out ASAP because he knows that while he's heading out the door, Waffle House is calling the cops. At this point, Waffle House is safer than they were a minute ago, and is getting safer with every step the robber takes, as it's away from Waffle House.

At this point, CC man pulls a gun, points it at the robber, and tells robber to put down the gun. We now have a random civilian pointing a deadly weapon at 1 robber (and X civilians in the building behind). This is escalation. Things are now more dangerous for everyone than they were when robber was trying to flee.

At this point, apparently the robber decided he fancied his chances at shooting the CC-man. Or maybe he was raising his hands, or was confused and didnt know where the command was being given from, or maybe wasn't given the chance and was just gunned down (the information so far on the confrontation between robber and CC-man only so far has the CC-man's side). This is escalation.

At this point, according to the report, CC-man opened fire. According to photos, it seems at least 3 or 4 shots were fired by CC-man. One of these shots broke glass about 6ft off the ground, whereas others are less than 3ft from the ground. CC-man was certainly not a crack shot, as only one bullet hit the robber (around the lower abdomen). Photos of the scene show at least one bullet going through the front glass window, and the second glass window a few feet behind it at about waist height. This is escalation.

At some point after the first CC-man shot was fired, the robber apparently fired at least one round from his gun. There doesn't seem to be much info on where it went other than it not hitting anyone. It may have caused the front window panel to shatter. This is more escalation. It's briefly a gunfight, with bullets going in more than one direction, endangering CC-man, Waffle House employees, and whoever else was in bullet range.

Now, I agree that the robber definitely shouldn't have robbed the place. Walking into a store to rob is bad. Using a gun to do so is worse. I think we can all agree that threatening to shoot at Waffle House employees is an awful thing to do. In fact, the only thing worse, really, would be to actually shoot at Waffle House employees.

You know, like CC-man did when he stood in the carpark and fired into Waffle House.

Well put.

I concede I missed the part about robber man shooting at cowboy but that doesn't negate anything about how wrong cowboy was in that situation.

 

[Dead Man]

I swear, none of you knows what "semantics" means.

Here's the "opening fire on the bystander" bit you missed:



EDIT: Figured there'd be another post by now. Oh well. My bad on the double post.

You seem to be implying he only fired one shot.

 

[BlitzerRadic]

They're robbers, not murderers. That is the simple psychology of robbery.
If they were out to kill, they would shoot first and take later.

And you have no proof that the defence wouldn't have resulted in more deaths.
If the customer was slow, maybe that person would have gotten shot first and put the robber in panick. Then maybe the robber would have silenced everyone in the restaurant.

No different than someone who takes another person hostage - they both threaten the life of innocents to get what they want and i'm pretty sure every time they expect to use deadly force (why would they send out swat if they didnt).

 

[ugh_the_boot]

So what? We've established he was just as authorized as the police to do what he did. It also appears he behaved in exactly the same way we'd hope the police would have. Does the blue uniform really make that much of a difference to you? You'd be A-OK with the outcome if he was in a cop get-up?

So what you're saying is everyone in america are born police officers, they just need to drop into their local police station, pickup up their free gun, badge and uniform and they are ready to fight crime. Yes or no this is what you believe?

 

[Metaphoreus]

You seem to be implying he only fired one shot.

How so?

So what you're saying is everyone in america are born police officers, they just need to drop into their local police station, pickup up their free gun, badge and uniform and they are ready to fight crime. Yes or no this is what you believe?

No.

 

[Javaman]

Listening to the 911 calls was interesting. According to the shooter's brother they both work security somewhere. The last caller thought he was the bad guy with how he was handling crowd control afterwards.

 

[Brakke]

So you're totally okay with people just being able to threaten violent force whenever they want?

No. And you can see clearly that I didn't say that.

Regardless, pointing a gun at someone puts them in ACTUAL danger as I said before for the same reasons that you don't point guns at people in a shooting range, the difference here being that it was done with purposeful and criminal intent.

We have a thing for this it's called "assault with a deadly weapon" or "attempted murder" or "brandishing a weapon"; we destinguish these crimes from murder because not-killing someone is different than killing someone.

 

[Dead Man]

How so?



No.

Misunderstood the context of the quote, carry on with your other wrongness

 

[Captin Quacker]

No.

then what exactly made him authorized?

 

[Metaphoreus]

then what exactly made him authorized?

South Carolina law.

 

[Captin Quacker]

South Carolina law.

well I guess I'll have to withdraw my previous statement

this is the wild west and you can take the law into your own hands

 

[CrunchyFrog]

No. And you can see clearly that I didn't say that.

And you can clearly see that I didn't say "not killing someone is just as bad as killing someone" but rather "pointing a gun at and threatening to kill someone can be just as injurious as killing someone." You seem to want to leave out the fact that this guy is directing deadly force at someone unprovoked with criminal intent.

We have a thing for this it's called "assault with a deadly weapon" or "attempted murder" or "brandishing a weapon"; we destinguish these crimes from murder because not-killing someone is different than killing someone.

And that's fine and dandy in a court of law, but as I said in the context of an armed robbery unlike that of a courtroom the threat of lethal force is ongoing, hence the need to counter with potentially lethal force to end that threat. When put between the two, I'm gonna side with the justifiable impetus to prevent possible and likely harm rather than trying to preserve the one who threatened it in the first place. And if you wanna honestly argue on pre-existing legal grounds rather than moral/philosophical grounds, then we already have stand-your-ground and self-defense legislation on the books already.

 

[GorillaJu]

I'm anti-gun but you won't get any sympathy from me if you walk into a place threatening people's lives and then get shot. I'm not a fan of a civilian doing it because of their lack of training, but I wouldn't feel sorry for the robber either.

No ones asking for sympathy. They're asking for people to see the larger picture, and the danger of what very well could have happened in that situation.

 

[Any Questions]

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.

This is getting out of control. Pretty soon innocent blood will be spilt when some average gun packing Jo goes nuts when he or she feels threatened or sees a crime.

Good luck America, unfortunately this problem is going to have to get much much worse before there is real appetite to change.

 

[DrSlek]

This is getting out of control. Pretty soon innocent blood will be spilt when some average gun packing Jo goes nuts when he or she feels threatened or sees a crime.

Good luck America, unfortunately this problem is going to have to get much much worse before there is real appetite to change.

That's a thing that already happens regularly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Jordan_Davis

 

[ugh_the_boot]

South Carolina law.

No one is disputing whether what the cowboy did was within the constraints of the law (although I would never live in a place with such a law as it's basically the wild west), what we are disputing is whether the front the of the waffle house (just after the crime had been committed and danger had subsided) was the best place to make a such an 'arrest' and potentially provoke another dangerous outcome (which is exactly what happened). If cowboy really wanted to make the arrest (why anyone would want to do this instead of reporting it to police is beyond me) he should've followed this guy to a safer place to do so.

Again the robber dying is not the problem for me....infact i'm glad he's dead (the world is over populated as it is) but endagering the lives of bystanders just so you can be dirty harry was a mistake the cowboy made and if I was in the waffle house when this incident occurred I would've been hella pissed at the cowboy for re-igniting such a dangerous situation.

Can you tell me what advantages there was for the cowboy in performing a citizen's arrest here over the police dealing with it afterwards (provided the cowboy instead took photos/video of the criminal and handed it to the police)?

 

[TheTurboFD]

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

So it would be OK if he did everything he did while wearing a blue uniform? If a cop did the same steps as the citizen and the robber raised his gun I'm pretty sure what would happen next.

No ones asking for sympathy. They're asking for people to see the larger picture, and the danger of what very well could have happened in that situation.

Funny because when others bring up a "what could have happened" situation if the robber escapes, such as killing someone another day , everyone brushes it off. Then again what do you expect from people who try to play lawyer on a forum.

 

[hey_monkey]

So it would be OK if he did everything he did while wearing a blue uniform? If a cop did the same steps as the citizen and the robber raised his gun I'm pretty sure what would happen next.

Please don't put words in my mouth - and being reductionist here doesn't help. This is not a simple situation. If it was a single cop putting people at risk to shoot someone against most protocols, which would require backup and would probably not involve shooting into a restaurant without great cause? Yeah, that would probably be an issue, but I'm not an expert in police work. But I didn't bring up the police. I said I have an issue with an individual with questionable training just deciding, under his own steam, to shoot someone who did not seem to be an active threat in a situation that had already de-escalated.

 

[PBY]

So it would be OK if he did everything he did while wearing a blue uniform? If a cop did the same steps as the citizen and the robber raised his gun I'm pretty sure what would happen next.

Funny because when others bring up a "what could have happened" situation if the robber escapes, such as killing someone another day , everyone brushes it off. Then again what do you expect from people who try to play lawyer on a forum.

Yeah actually, to me its very different if its a cop? How do you not see that difference?

 

[Kaiterra]

Listening to the 911 calls was interesting. According to the shooter's brother they both work security somewhere. The last caller thought he was the bad guy with how he was handling crowd control afterwards.

Another big reason I think this kind of thing should be left to the police if at all possible. Like, say I'm another concealed carrier and I see this guy just shot someone. In the heat of the moment, all I can observe is that this guy is straight up blasting a dude in a parking lot. I'd be justified in shooting him then, right?

 

[Javaman]

Another big reason I think this kind of thing should be left to the police if at all possible. Like, say I'm another concealed carrier and I see this guy just shot someone. In the heat of the moment, all I can observe is that this guy is straight up blasting a dude in a parking lot. I'd be justified in shooting him then, right?

No, you're supposed to understand the situation before getting involved. They stress that in concealed carry classes. The guy that taught my class gave several examples of misread situations and the tragedies that can occur. They also explain how important it is to holster the weapon once the threat is over to prevent being mistaken as a threat by responding officers.

You're absolutely right though that it's very dangerous to get involved.

 

[Reset]

Nice to see that the robber was caught and no one else was injured.