We really need to get out of this mentality of labeling things as left and right for opinions that should just be common sense for everyone. The bolded in your post is a risk this customer did not have to take. Once the robber left the facility, there was no need for this customer to use his gun and challenge someone with an AK-47. He and others should have only been concerned with calling the authorities and getting home safely. While the story mentions the customer was afraid for his wife, assuming the wife had a phone, he should have just called the wife and told her not to come to the Waffle House.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Robber with AK-47 shot by Waffle House customer
- Thread starter War Eagle
- Start date
- Status
We really need to get out of this mentality of labeling things as left and right for opinions that should just be common sense for everyone. The bolded in your post is a risk this customer did not have to take. Once the robber left the facility, there was no need for this customer to use his gun and challenge someone with an AK-47. He and others should have only been concerned with calling the authorities and getting home safely. While the story mentions the customer was afraid for his wife, assuming the wife had a phone, he should have just called the wife and told her not to come to the Waffle House.
Your mistake is you have already invested yourself in the idea that I have taken a fictional side as such exists in your mind and you are struggling to construct a strawman based off that impression, with your best effort producing words from my post advocating the presence of threads to argue opposing ideas.
ryutaro's mama
Member
So I researched this, per your post.
https://www.texaslawshield.com/castle-doctrine/
Not seeing anything that gives the shooter the right to pursue the suspect after he had left the "castle".
uncelestial
Member
So how would you characterize the quality of our discussions on global warming if one particular GAF poster kept making multiple threads about blizzards, cold spells, and occasional record low temperatures? Would it be remotely worth taking that person and that discussion seriously? If not, why is the "echo chamber" of global warming being real and man-made acceptable?
Point being: There are often echo chambers for a good reason. That is my problem with your comment.
Fallout-NL
Member
Nope, third post nailed it.
You said the same thing my mother did.
Also castle doctrine doesn't apply to the waffle house you happen to be eating at.
tearsintherain
Member
Literally in the page above what you linked. I guess technically speaking its not castle doctrine since this was not in a domicile, although nowadays some states allow you to classify the "space around you" as your "home" - hence you don't need to retreat if given the opportunity. It again varies wildly state by state, but in this case it seems exceptionally clear:
https://www.texaslawshield.com/portal/texas-gun-law/
link above said:
Seems pretty clear cut to me, legally speaking. I believe Texas and Florida even have specific laws that don't allow the state attorneys to prosecute self defense cases unless there is extraordinary mitigating circumstances.
Shrike_Priest
Member
It's interesting that Stand Your Ground allows for this (I assume it does since they didn't arrest him). But that, is INSANE.
Like, that's not what the law is called. I get that if the alternative is to let a hostile individual attack you, self defense is necessary. If you can't run, or it's unsafe to (perp has a gun for instance), by all means, take him/her out. But chasing and/or intercepting with deadly force is INSANE.
Now I know that Texas still has the death penalty, but I'm pretty sure armed robbery is not on the list.
Like, that's not what the law is called. I get that if the alternative is to let a hostile individual attack you, self defense is necessary. If you can't run, or it's unsafe to (perp has a gun for instance), by all means, take him/her out. But chasing and/or intercepting with deadly force is INSANE.
Now I know that Texas still has the death penalty, but I'm pretty sure armed robbery is not on the list.
It falls upon the opposing man to make a compelling argument, if he cannot then the debates will rarely turn fruitful. You are however condoning complete censoring of any opposing viewpoint, which I disagree with. If the idea comes to the big boy table and is laughed out of the room, that's fair. In short, echo chambers suck and no one should endorse them.
Piston Hyundai
Member
If you'd had read the OP's posts in this thread, you'd have realized that he agrees with you to an extent, and that he's trying to engage in a nuanced discussion about this. Being immediately dismissive and petulant about it isn't good for anyone.
Vilifying someone who holds an opposite opinion is an awful way to convince anyone of your righteousness.
Yeezus H. Christ
Banned
Yeah, both the shooter and the robber are in the wrong.
Shooter's actions led to an unnecessary loss of a life.
Shooter's actions led to an unnecessary loss of a life.
Here:
Pretty fucked up, IMO. At least people who carry in Texas are well trained.
It's mostly from a history of cattle and horse theives, IIRC.
ryutaro's mama
Member
Annnnd that is the grey area I am talking about.
Had this happened in the place, fine. But seeing as this wasn't his house or car or employment or business, it gets really blurry.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
Because what does "on the way" even mean? 10 minutes away? Literally at the edge of the parking lot? It's barely information, and certainly not enough to use as central evidence in this debate.
Link
The Autumn Wind
So just sentence all criminals to life/the death penalty then? Is that your solution?
actually i say walking in threatening people with a rifle led to an unnecessary loss of a life.
GrandHarrier
Member
Uh you realize balistics would easily tell you whether someone was shot in the front or back, right?
It doesn't matter if the shooter planned on shooting this guy or not. The point is that he was needlessly escalating an already defused situation by introducing another gun into the mix. This puts both him and the criminal in the wrong here. This is what the vast majority of us have a problem with. Common sense is not an "agenda".
their is nothing diffused about a guy walking around with a rifle threatening people.
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
You aren't the police, I'm not sure why people have such a hard time understanding that basic precept.
ryutaro's mama
Member
But he fled. The immediate danger to the patrons in that building ended when that happened.
CassidyIzABeast
Member
Lock both of their asses up.
SirClinksAlot
Member
Its also not great to have a vigilante chasing after someone with a handgun.
I can't talk to you about this because it deals with hypotheticals, agreeing to play by your rules we won't talk hypotheticals. before we even get to what you quoted above, the criminal would have to be arrested, which would involve him complying and not having any sudden movements that would draw the fire of the police.
In case you missed this response by another user after I made that statement, I'll present that to you here.
There is no rehab in jail, do you know people who go in and out of jail, do you know what they do in jail? Networking, they come home with a list of phone numbers on the torn off side of a Ritz crackers box and they get in contact with their cell mates friends, get themselves in more trouble.
Or they come home and go right back to hanging out with the knumbskulls that are still living that illegal lifestyle and get himself caught up in some shit again.
There is no rehab in prison.
i do agree.
i would like to know more about his wife coming to the store. was it reasonable to believe that she could possibly come face to face with this guy.
Valkyr1983
Banned
Unnecessary?
I'm not gonna lose sleep if the kind of person who would acquire an AK47 and rob innocent people bites the dust
Like, there is no way that was a good person, a decent human being
Stormhammer
Member
man i dunno, the people with the "well it could've gotten worse, innocents could've been injured" sound like the same people who throw flack at protesters for blocking traffic. no one was injured besides the robber, so your hypotheticals don't really mean much
Link
The Autumn Wind
All I'll say is wow.
And all I say is once you enter the system there is no one there trying to help you become a productive member of society again.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Valkyr1983
Banned
No I get that. But how long does that trickle down take? 10 years?
10 years of no one being able to protect themselves?
What should I do if someone breaks into my house to rob me in the night? Punch them?
I'm not trying to be combative, honestly asking how that would work
Wtf are you talking about? I'm still my friends only normal contact outside of prison that don't put them in shitty situations.
gioGAF
Member
Good luck with that fantasy...
ryutaro's mama
Member
Yes! Rehab doesn't work...not even in the very state this incident happened in!
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/...-population-shrinks-as-rehabilitatio-1/nRNRY/
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
It really isn't reasonable though, unless she was pulling into the parking lot at that exact moment. Surely he could have walked out side, seen if his wife was pulling in. Look around, okay, nope wife not here.
This guy who did this is probably the exact same person who did it in NC a couple months back. Same exact thing, difference is there the customers gave the guy shit and he fled the scene.
SuperAndroid17
Member
I can't believe there robber sympathizers here. Jesus Christ.
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
Sorry you seemingly cannot read before making a comment, no one is a robber sympathizer.
I just don't like someone acting like they are a cop and shooting someone who has left the scene of a crime cause 'their wife was on the way'.
ryutaro's mama
Member
Anti-vigilantism =/= robber support
So there is 2,500 less violent criminals in there? Non violent criminals? Not everyone is in there for robbery.
No one is sympathizing, but its cavalier as fuck for someone to go and put himself and possibly others in danger by going after the guy when they werent directly threatening them.
Even if this guy gets off for criminal charges he probably will lose a civil case and probably could ruin himself financially.
If the robbery was happening and he intervened ok I get it but not this as the story stands right now.
bootsthecat
Banned
'Already diffused' is a hypothetical. The man had legitimate fear for his wife apparently, and who's to say a man who was cavalier enough to rob a Waffle House with an AK-47 wasn't planning on hitting a restaurant down the street next? My guesses are as plausible as your guesses...unless of course, you have some sort of assurances he was going to go home to count his Waffle House dollars and go to bed.
Good on the citizen, and I am glad that the laws exist to protect him from prosecution. Anyone feels so strongly against it, as you mostly seem to...move to Texas and work on changing the laws pertaining to 'stand your ground' protections. Pretty simple stuff.
Krappadizzle
Member
You can get mad at him or mad at the fact that he's absolutely right. The system needs a massive overhaul.
Fuck people who are choosing not to be victims so these people can get reformed right?
Who in their right mind would allow themselves to be victimized so that the offender can potentially get help from the system? Not me.
I'm sure he didn't threaten or traumatize anyone in there at all. None of us were there
Only thing we could be sure is that it was probably not a pleasant experience for anyone involved.
CrimsonCommie
Member
I can't believe there are attempted murder sympathizers here. Holy fuck!
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
To be fair you see this in any gun thread and/or thread were 'bad guy got his'.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked