He shouldn't have felt threatened...

[crashhelmet]

um, by thta definition, self-defense would be impossible. not following the instructions of the robebr does NOT negate self-defense.

also, when someone is brandishing any form of weaon at me, you can be damn sure |I consider it a threat- and, if it went to court, would expect that belief to stand up in court.

put it another way: at what point woudl you deem it to be a sufficient level of threat to warranty shooting the thief? when thye point the gun at you? when thye have already fired? in both of those cases, it is probably too late.

How is a man with one firearm that was going about his day lawfully the aggressive one, and the other man with a firearm that was already in the act of one felony and threatening multiple people is not? I know which I would be more afraid of.

Wrong. Brandishing a gun, ordering everyone down, and demanding money is the aggressive role.

Neither of you read what I wrote, or even the news article itself, apparently... I'll quote myself and make it a little more visible.

The shooter in this case did not comply with the robbers. They ordered everyone down and he stayed in his chair. He then stood up and approached the robbers before shooting at them.

If he shot them from a prone position on the ground, or even in his chair where he was sitting, he would've remained in the "threatened" role. But he didn't. he stuck his head into the proverbial lion's mouth and dared it to bite him. He risked agitating the robbers even more and putting other people at risk.

At no time in the video did the robbers put a gun to anyone's head and threaten to execute someone. They simply waved their guns around. When he did shoot the one robber, the second one didn't shoot back. He tried to grab the wannabe hero's gun.

[TheHuckster]

Neither of you read what I wrote, or even the news article itself, apparently... I'll quote myself and make it a little more visible.


If he shot them from a prone position on the ground, or even in his chair where he was sitting, he would've remained in the "threatened" role. But he didn't. he stuck his head into the proverbial lion's mouth and dared it to bite him. He risked agitating the robbers even more and putting other people at risk.

At no time in the video did the robbers put a gun to anyone's head and threaten to execute someone. They simply waved their guns around. When he did shoot the one robber, the second one didn't shoot back. He tried to grab the wannabe hero's gun.

I did read your post. I don't give a crap if the robber was waving the gun around and the hero approached and shot him, it doesn't counter the fact that when people are held hostage in an enclosed space with only a few options of escape, it is a perilous and endangering situation which threatens everyone inside. People react to this threat in different ways: either by heeding their demands or by defending themselves, possibly with lethal force.

And how do you know if they didn't threaten to execute someone in a muted video? It's clear that everyone who went down on the ground felt threatened. He decided to react to this threat in a different way.

Again, I do think he acted carelessly and took an unwarranted risk, however I still don't think he is criminally responsible. When you're in an enclosed room brandishing a weapon as a robber, you are a threat to everyone inside. It takes 1 second to go from waving a gun around to pointing and shooting.

[Panacea]

The problem is this...

In many, if not almost all cases, a thief brandishing a gun is using it strictly for intimidation. They have no intentions of wanting to fire the weapon. They want to get their money, or whatever it is they're after, and get out.

Tell that to a lot of people who ended up in the hospital or the graveyard because they made a false move and the robber got nervous and fired.

Intent is irrelevant. You show up with a gun you are committing a violent act and there is always the potential for things to get out of hand. Responsibility for that attaches to the ROBBER, not the victims.

When someone else shows up with a gun, there is fear on both sides of the altercation. It can end up resulting in unintended deaths, whether it's the thief, the wannabe hero, or an innocent bystander.

In this case, the shooter is lucky that the accomplice didn't start shooting back.

I certainly agree that this could have happened. However, that is why I think CCP holders should have additional training to have a CCP. That the family of a dead robber is demanding this, however, is disingenuous and did more harm than good to the cause of reasonable people who are trying to implement such reforms.

When someone is pointing a gun at you and other people, it's not at all unreasonable to think they just might pull the trigger.

Another reason to want a "Like" button

If he shot them from a prone position on the ground, or even in his chair where he was sitting, he would've remained in the "threatened" role. But he didn't. he stuck his head into the proverbial lion's mouth and dared it to bite him. He risked agitating the robbers even more and putting other people at risk.

I read what you wrote, and it had nothing to do with this argument, which by the way is complete bullshit.

A person defending themselves should NOT be forced to put themselves in a submissive posture before they are allowed to defend themselves. That defies common sense.

The fact this thug pulled a gun immediately threatened EVERYONE in that restaurant. The posture of the defender is immaterial; he had every right to act as he did and shoot the son of a bitch.

Better training would minimize the risks to others and I support CCP holders being required to have that very training. But I'm not going to question what this citizen did. His act was both appropriate and lawful.

At no time in the video did the robbers put a gun to anyone's head and threaten to execute someone. They simply waved their guns around. When he did shoot the one robber, the second one didn't shoot back. He tried to grab the wannabe hero's gun.

You're grasping at straws here. Simply displaying the weapon is enough to put someone in a state of fear, which is all that is required to allow a citizen to defend themselves.

That the second thug was smart enough not to shoot, doesn't mean he didn't have malice in his heart when he participated in that robbery.

Just FYI: in many states you do not have to actually have a weapon to be convicted of armed robbery. South Carolina is one of those states.

A person who commits robbery while armed with a pistol, dirk, slingshot, metal knuckles, razor, or other deadly weapon, or while alleging, either by action or words, he is armed while using a representation of a deadly weapon or any object which a person present during the commission of the robbery reasonably believes to be a deadly weapon, is guilty of a felony

If you stick your fist in your jacket, tell a store clerk you have a gun and to empty the register, you've just committed armed robbery and they can send you away for 10 years. Why? Because any reasonable person would perceive the lump in your jacket to be a weapon, and under the law the victim only has to be reasonable in being afraid.

In this case, where an actual gun was displayed, the case is a slam dunk for reasonableness.

The second robber is damn lucky HE isn't pushing up daisies, by struggling over the gun with the citizen.

Oh, and by the way. The two punks didn't just try to clean out the register. They put everyone on the floor (except the shooter) demanding folks empty their pockets. They moved around so fast, they didn't notice the citizen wasn't complying with their orders. He took advantage of his opportunity, and killed the one punk.

When two thugs with guns are robbing you, there are no "fair fight" rules.

[crashhelmet]

I read what you wrote, and it had nothing to do with this argument, which by the way is complete bullshit.

A person defending themselves should NOT be forced to put themselves in a submissive posture before they are allowed to defend themselves. That defies common sense.

The fact this thug pulled a gun immediately threatened EVERYONE in that restaurant. The posture of the defender is immaterial; he had every right to act as he did and shoot the son of a bitch.

The posture of the defender is not immaterial. Nor is the attitude. You cannot provoke an attacker and claim self-defense, regardless of how the situation started.

South Carolina's Self-Defense laws state:

The common law of self-defense in South Carolina is set forth in State v. Fuller, 297 S.C. 440, 377 S.E.2d 328 (1989). The elements (conditions that a person must meet in order to successfully claim self-defense) of self-defense in South Carolina are:

1. you must be without fault in bringing on the difficulty;
2. you must actually believe you are in imminent danger of loss of life or serious bodily injury or actually be in such danger;
3. if you believe you are in such danger, you must use deadly force only if a reasonable or prudent man of ordinary firmness and courage would have believed himself to be in such danger, or, if you actually were in such danger, the circumstances were such as would warrant a man of ordinary prudence, firmness and courage to strike the fatal blow in order to save yourself from serious bodily harm or losing your own life; and
4. you had no other probable means of avoiding the danger of losing your own life or sustaining serious bodily injury than to act as you did in the particular instance.

(Source: http://www.sled.state.sc.us/sled/def...ce=Reciprocity)

His actions contradict numbers 1, 2, & 4. You could even argue that by him not complying with their orders or shooting the second gunman that he didn't feel like he was in imminent danger.

Better training would minimize the risks to others and I support CCP holders being required to have that very training. But I'm not going to question what this citizen did. His act was both appropriate and lawful

He definitely needed more training. What he did was neither appropriate. He failed to assess the situation properly. BOTH robbers were waving guns around. Not just the one he shot.

He's only being treated as a hero because no one else got hurt.

This is only considered lawful because of South Carolina's SYG laws. Laws so fucked up that a man was awarded immunity from prosecution after he shot and killed an innocent bystander when a group of girls followed his daughter home and threatened her

[Hyena Dandy]

I read what you wrote, and it had nothing to do with this argument, which by the way is complete bullshit.

A person defending themselves should NOT be forced to put themselves in a submissive posture before they are allowed to defend themselves. That defies common sense.

The fact this thug pulled a gun immediately threatened EVERYONE in that restaurant. The posture of the defender is immaterial; he had every right to act as he did and shoot the son of a bitch.

That's not how a self-defense claim is (as far as I can tell) intended to work. You're supposed to prove that not only were you afraid for your life, but you honestly believed that was the ONLY way you wouldn't die. Upon seeing that the robbers came in, ordered people on the ground, and ordered them to give their stuff, a reasonable person would conclude that doing the same is not going to lead to his death. He doesn't (apparently) suffer from any psychological issues which would cause him to interpret things abnormally threateningly.

That said, Stand Your Ground laws may, in this case, be working as intended.

[NecCat]

His actions contradict numbers 1, 2, & 4.

I read what you wrote, rewatched the video, reread what you wrote. I don't understand what you are saying.

According to you 1. you must be without fault in bringing on the difficulty;

The shooter is shown seated at a counter, eating a meal, one assumes after ordering and paying normally. Gunmen 1 and 2 enter and start threatening people. Unless the shooter knew the gunmen and somehow planned the attack with them there is no way he could have been considered to have any fault in bringing on the difficulty.

2. you must actually believe you are in imminent danger of loss of life or serious bodily injury or actually be in such danger;

Having two unknown, armed and threatening men point guns at people including yourself in your area has got to be a text book definition of believing you are in imminent danger of loss of life or serious bodily injury, and of actually being in such danger. It IS dangerous to have people threaten you with guns.

4. you had no other probable means of avoiding the danger of losing your own life or sustaining serious bodily injury than to act as you did in the particular instance;

He wasn't free to leave the situation, which is the first defense the law requires you to consider. The instructions he ignored would have put him in a stationary defenceless position, giving him no means at all of avoiding the danger of losing his life, let alone a probable one. The argument that following instructions is likely to result in the assailant leaving without firing his gun relies on the mind and whims of a person who has decided to threaten someone with a gun. That seems about as effective as wishing a robbery away.

The shooters choice to not follow instructions, which would have been 100% fatal had the gunmen chose it to be, and to instead act to defend his life and that of the others in the restaurant, seems to follow South Carolina's self defence laws as you have stated them exactly.

He definitely needed more training. What he did was neither appropriate. He failed to assess the situation properly. BOTH robbers were waving guns around. Not just the one he shot.

So the shooter doesn't believe he can hold two armed gunmen safely at gunpoint, shoots the one that was approaching him most aggressively, then tries to hold the second one at gunpoint. When the second one tries to fight with his hands and not his gun, and the shooter couldn't shoot and be sure of the target, the shooter doesn't shoot at him. When the second gunman leaves the scene, the shooter doesn't shoot at him. He lets the gunman go. Is your argument that he should have shot at both gunmen because both had guns? By not shooting someone who wasn't pointing his gun at him, by not shooting when he couldn't get off a clean shot, and by not shooting someone in the back who was running away I think he showed fantastic judgment of the situation, and assessed it brilliantly.

[crashhelmet]

I read what you wrote, rewatched the video, reread what you wrote. I don't understand what you are saying.

According to you

No, not according to me. According to the South Carolina Common law, set forth by judicial precedence.

1. you must be without fault in bringing on the difficulty;

The shooter is shown seated at a counter, eating a meal, one assumes after ordering and paying normally. Gunmen 1 and 2 enter and start threatening people. Unless the shooter knew the gunmen and somehow planned the attack with them there is no way he could have been considered to have any fault in bringing on the difficulty.

By "refusing to be a victim" and refusing to comply with the robbers' demands, he risked bringing more difficulty upon himself.

2. you must actually believe you are in imminent danger of loss of life or serious bodily injury or actually be in such danger;

Having two unknown, armed and threatening men point guns at people including yourself in your area has got to be a text book definition of believing you are in imminent danger of loss of life or serious bodily injury, and of actually being in such danger. It IS dangerous to have people threaten you with guns.

Again, not complying with the robbers as well as standing up and approaching the robbers makes it difficult to prove imminent danger.

4. you had no other probable means of avoiding the danger of losing your own life or sustaining serious bodily injury than to act as you did in the particular instance;

He wasn't free to leave the situation, which is the first defense the law requires you to consider. The instructions he ignored would have put him in a stationary defenceless position, giving him no means at all of avoiding the danger of losing his life, let alone a probable one. The argument that following instructions is likely to result in the assailant leaving without firing his gun relies on the mind and whims of a person who has decided to threaten someone with a gun. That seems about as effective as wishing a robbery away.

The shooters choice to not follow instructions, which would have been 100% fatal had the gunmen chose it to be, and to instead act to defend his life and that of the others in the restaurant, seems to follow South Carolina's self defence laws as you have stated them exactly.

Again, you cannot not agitate or instigate an assailant and claim self defense. You are bringing difficulty upon yourself.

So the shooter doesn't believe he can hold two armed gunmen safely at gunpoint, shoots the one that was approaching him most aggressively, then tries to hold the second one at gunpoint. When the second one tries to fight with his hands and not his gun, and the shooter couldn't shoot and be sure of the target, the shooter doesn't shoot at him. When the second gunman leaves the scene, the shooter doesn't shoot at him. He lets the gunman go. Is your argument that he should have shot at both gunmen because both had guns? By not shooting someone who wasn't pointing his gun at him, by not shooting when he couldn't get off a clean shot, and by not shooting someone in the back who was running away I think he showed fantastic judgment of the situation, and assessed it brilliantly.

What????? Approaching him most aggressively???? What situation are you commenting on?

Justin Harrison stood up from his chair with his gun in his hand, approached the shooters, and shot Dante Williams IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD.

Justin Harrison approached the robbers most aggressively.

[Rageaholic]

By "refusing to be a victim" and refusing to comply with the robbers' demands, he risked bringing more difficulty upon himself.

Gotta say that's a pretty bullshit law. It's puts too much responsibility on the victim to handle the situation and the not aggressor who instigated it.

[otakuneko]

1. you must be without fault in bringing on the difficulty;

Check.

2. you must actually believe you are in imminent danger of loss of life or serious bodily injury or actually be in such danger;

Two perps waving guns around. Check.

3. if you believe you are in such danger, you must use deadly force only if a reasonable or prudent man of ordinary firmness and courage would have believed himself to be in such danger, or, if you actually were in such danger, the circumstances were such as would warrant a man of ordinary prudence, firmness and courage to strike the fatal blow in order to save yourself from serious bodily harm or losing your own life; and

Check. Lesser force would have resulted in continued danger.

4. you had no other probable means of avoiding the danger of losing your own life or sustaining serious bodily injury than to act as you did in the particular instance.

Check. There is no reason to believe compliance will avoid danger.

Well, glad that's settled. Let's go eat sushi or something.

[MadMike]

In many, if not almost all cases, a thief brandishing a gun is using it strictly for intimidation. They have no intentions of wanting to fire the weapon. They want to get their money, or whatever it is they're after, and get out.

You would think so, but that's not always the case. There was an incident in my area a couple of years ago, where a group of teenagers held up a convenience store. The clerk complied and handed over the money, and didn't try to fight back in any way whatsoever. Then, as the gunmen were leaving, one of them turned towards the clerk and shot him, supposedly to earn some "street cred." IIRC, the clerk lingered in a coma for awhile before finally dying.

[siead_lietrathua]

this confuses me. because the guy didn't cow BEFORE shooting the badguys it's not self defense?
i mean, by that logic because a women 'nads a guy BEFORE he can get her clothes off means it wasn't really self-defense from rape.
a person shooting a bear rather than playing dead totally was not self-defending from getting mauled.
the guy that punches out a mugger with a knife totally wasn't defending himself from the threat of stabbing because, ya know, the robber may not have intended to stab him.

you are not required to comply peacefully with a threat if you can overpower the threat. that's the entire damn point of self defense.

Justin Harrison stood up from his chair with his gun in his hand, approached the shooters, and shot Dante Williams IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD.

Justin Harrison approached the robbers most aggressively.

edit: where in the hell in that video does it say that harrison (the self-defender) got up and walked towards the robber(williams?)
it says the OPPOSITE.
"the video shows WILLIAMS, gun by his side, walk towards Harrison, who stands up and fires several shots"
so, what, that he stood up out of his chair makes him suddenly not self-defending?
also, i don't see anywhere, on any articles, saying he was shot in the back of the head. it says he was shot in the head and chest. the FAMILY is claiming he was shot in the back of the head, but the wound is most likely the exit would. you don't manage to shoot someone in the front (chest) yet magically in the back (head) within seconds of eachother.
jeese louise.

second edit: if you have a gun and the ability to defend yourself, i can understand not wanting to get on the ground. if you are face-down on the floor you are vulnerable. if he had tried to rise from a prone position rather than seated, he would likely be shot or beat before he got to his knees, expecially if they are already approaching.

so unless you wanna claim the only possible way this could be self defense is if he shot at a horrible angle while lying on his belly while praying they didn't shoot him first when he had to shift to get his gun..... yeah. it's illogical.

[protege]

Then, as the gunmen were leaving, one of them turned towards the clerk and shot him, supposedly to earn some "street cred." IIRC, the clerk lingered in a coma for awhile before finally dying.

Mike, there was a similar incident not too far from me. Some years ago, a gas station was held up late at night. The clerk complied, but got shot in the face anyway. He later died of his injuries. After that happened, the counter was moved closer to the door, and fitted with bulletproof glass. The robbery was all over a few dollars (from what I read in the newspaper, the clerk had already made a 'drop,' so the register didn't have much in it), not worth killing someone over. The thug that did it was some stupid kid. IIRC, he was later killed during an unrelated home invasion--seems he chose to force his way into a residence, and was shot by the homeowner. Karma's a bitch, folks.

Do I have any sympathy? For the clerk, sure. He had moved to the US, was working for minimum wage, but was going to school for a better life. There was no reason he had to die for less than $50 No sympathy for the perp. He got what he deserved, IMHO. He made his bed, now he's lying in it.

I am one of those folks that will defend myself if threatened. If some thug forces their way into my place, I'll assume they're going to harm me. I will do what it takes to neutralize the threat. If that means the thug gets a pipe wrench upside the head, I'm OK with that.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

Upon seeing that the robbers came in, ordered people on the ground, and ordered them to give their stuff, a reasonable person would conclude that doing the same is not going to lead to his death.

Except that, unfortunately, we have examples in the news where people would follow every order, not fight back, give them everything, and then the robbers shot the person anyway.

So a person who knows of those examples, could reasonably conclude that there is no way to predict whether or not complying with the robbers would lead to said person remaining unharmed. It is then reasonable for that person to use means necessary to neutralize the threat.

Considering that Harrison (self-defense) only shot the robber coming toward him, and then did not take another shot when he knew he could accidentally shoot another bystander, and did not shoot the running second robber in the back:

He clearly only shot to neutralize the threat. When it was neutralized he stopped shooting.

[Panacea]

Gotta say that's a pretty bullshit law. It's puts too much responsibility on the victim to handle the situation and the not aggressor who instigated it.

It's not a bullshit law. The law is just fine.

Crashhelmet has completely misread and misrepresented what the law actually says and means because he wants to demonize Mr. Harrison. NecCat's analysis is spot on what the law really means.

[BlaqueKatt]

It's not a bullshit law. The law is just fine.

Crashhelmet has completely misread and misrepresented what the law actually says and means because he wants to demonize Mr. Harrison. NecCat's analysis is spot on what the law really means.

Plus shooting while seated is not stable(improper stance), and takes training and practice, also not standing he wouldn't be as able to see what was behind the target, could endanger those on the floor.