He shouldn't have felt threatened...

[Gravekeeper]

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.

This line of argument doesn't really work here. Because it goes both ways. You can't make this argumen without bringing up the same point about the other side of the argument. Yes, this could be the one time the robbers are heartless killers. But this could also be the one time the CC holder fucks up and gets himself and others killed. You can't have it both ways.

This guy is being called a hero because he challenged two robbers who were NOT potential killers. Who are precisely the people you argue you need take the chance on and fight back. Had these two actually been potential killers we might have a pile of bodies thanks to this guy. If he had fucked up and not hit the first guy but a bystander or sent bullets hurdling out into the street we would be calling him a moron.

Whether he is a hero or a moron depends entirely on the outcome of the gamble he took. The reason they recommend you comply with an armed robber is because complying has the vastly better statistical chance of your health and survival. You can bring up anecdotes about times when this did not work, but they are the statistical minority to the point of being a a curious blip. Arguing in favour of them lowers the chance of survival, if indeed survival is your objective and not retribution as ot was with this guy who in the interview states he refused to be a victim and made a stand, not that he was scared for his life or the lives of others around him.

Being killed in a robbery is statistically very rare. Even being injured in a robbery is statistically rare. But obviously the chance of a fatality sky rockets when the robbers are challenged or scared by resistence and especially if opposing firearms are introduced. From a statisticaly perspective, the introduction of a opposing gun owner into any robbery scenario drastically increases the chance of an unfavourable outcome for everyone involved. Regardless of how much the NRA might like to think otherwise.

The guy in this scenario didn`t make a valiant stand against evil, he won the statistical lottery by having this end with only one body.

[MadMike]

This guy is being called a hero because he challenged two robbers who were NOT potential killers.

And you know this, how?

[siead_lietrathua]

The guy in this scenario didn`t make a valiant stand against evil, he won the statistical lottery by having this end with only one body.

while i can agree with the bulk of what you said, whether he got dumb lucky or not has little to do with the reasons the family are saying he shouldn't have shot. which was mainly that he shouldn't have felt threatened by two guys with guns.

while i can dig that it could have gone worse... it didn't. the situation that happened happened as best it could probably have played out with the cards it was dealt, with only one death instead of the potential deaths of many (from either the defender's mis-shots OR the potential robber gun violence).

but even if things did go to shit, and multiple deaths had happened, that wouldn't make the parent's idea of "shouldn't have felt threatened" any more ridiculous. i can't think of any situation where an armed robber doesn't feel threatening to a rational human unless they're the one doing the robbing.

[s_stabeler]

This guy is being called a hero because he challenged two robbers who were NOT potential killers. Who are precisely the people you argue you need take the chance on and fight back. Had these two actually been potential killers we might have a pile of bodies thanks to this guy. If he had fucked up and not hit the first guy but a bystander or sent bullets hurdling out into the street we would be calling him a moron.

so, by your logic, self-defense should be abolished as a defense, because either someone is a potential killer, or they will kill several people if we shoot them. And we should always give hostage-takers their demands, or else we'll be risking them shooting the hosatges. And we should immediately do whatever terrorists ask, or they'll kill thousands of people. It's using the exact same logic.

to make another point, you don't, when someone is pointing a wepon at you, have to decide if they are bluffing or not. The standard is that a reasonable person would believe themselves at the time to be at immediate risk of being shot. Having people burst in, waving guns about, qualifies.

[NecCat]

Whether he is a hero or a moron depends entirely on the outcome of the gamble he took. The reason they recommend you comply with an armed robber is because complying has the vastly better statistical chance of your health and survival.

That is a statistical truth, the problem with it is the outcome depends entirely on the mind of the robber(s), and you (the one being robbed) don't know which side of the statistic you are going to land on until it is over. There is really only 4 ways this can play out:

If the gunman have decided not to shoot anyone & everyone complies = everyone gets out safe
If the gunman have decided not to shoot anyone & someone else shoots first = most likely people get hurt or killed, robber or innocent
If the gunman have decided to hurt or kill people & someone else shoots first = most likely people get hurt or killed, robber or innocent
If the gunman have decided to hurt or kill people & everyone complies = nobody except the robbers get out safe


If you have the means to defend yourself or others, complying with the robbers (assuming the others with you do the same) means you will either be totally fine, or end up dead, and the robbers will be the ones making the decision. People who have decided to rob me at gunpoint are not the ones that I trust weighing the scale when my life is in the balance.

If you have the means to defend yourself and others and choose to, there is a reasonable chance of survival for the innocent. It might not be the most probable chance, but it is a reasonable chance. That seems to be a much better decision than the equal chance of ending up fine or dead, depending on what the robber has decided.

[Gravekeeper]

And you know this, how?

There was no return fire. Robber #2 chose to engage him physically then flee instead of use his weapon. Not exactly the actions of someone who set out to murder a restaurant under the guise of armed robbery.

but even if things did go to shit, and multiple deaths had happened, that wouldn't make the parent's idea of "shouldn't have felt threatened" any more ridiculous.

That's been bugging me. Because only the article on the clearly not biased "Guns Save Lives" website claims that. Its actually the opposite in the news story but that part is conveniently left out of the original link. The rest of her quote is:

Tamika McSwain is Williams' cousin and said more training is needed before someone is given a CWP. McSwain said the video contradicts statements made by Harrison about what happened the night of the robbery, and said if Harrison had been bettered trained he may not have fired the fatal shots.

"I understand he felt threatened by the situation," McSwain said. "But he said the gun was pointed at him so he fired. In fact he (Williams) was walking out."

McSwain admits that Williams made a terrible decision the night he died.

Furthermore, she's correct in that the CWP holder's witness statements are not corroborated by the video evidence. As he claims he opened fire because the robber came at him with his gun pointed at him. Instead, the robber had his gun at his side and the CWP holder shot him dead on the spot. Killing him instantly.

So its possible he could be open to a civil suit at least.

so, by your logic, self-defense should be abolished as a defense, because either someone is a potential killer, or they will kill several people if we shoot them. And we should always give hostage-takers their demands, or else we'll be risking them shooting the hosatges. And we should immediately do whatever terrorists ask, or they'll kill thousands of people. It's using the exact same logic.

No its not. But congradulations on your man shaped pile of straw. Obviously I am talking about the scenario of an armed robbery as that is the entire topic of this thread.

The standard is that a reasonable person would believe themselves at the time to be at immediate risk of being shot. Having people burst in, waving guns about, qualifies.

During a robbery, the objective of the robbers is to rob. Which is why literally every credible source, manual and training course on the subject tells you to stay calm, comply and do not resist or do anything to startle or provoke the robber. Because that is your and everyone around you's best chance to walk away uninjured and alive.

If you have the means to defend yourself and others and choose to, there is a reasonable chance of survival for the innocent. It might not be the most probable chance, but it is a reasonable chance. That seems to be a much better decision than the equal chance of ending up fine or dead, depending on what the robber has decided.

Your best chance for survival is to stay calm and comply. Period. If you resist, you increase the chance of you or another innocent person being injured or killed. Period. Not knowing which side of a statistic you're on doesn't mean probability is 50/50. That's not how math works. Yes, you may not know if you're in the 99.87% that survive or the 0.13% unlucky enough to encounter a violent or homicidal robber during a stick up. But are you going to bet on 99.87% or 0.13%?

[TheHuckster]

There was no return fire. Robber #2 chose to engage him physically then flee instead of use his weapon. Not exactly the actions of someone who set out to murder a restaurant under the guise of armed robbery.

A fact we don't find out until after the man fired. Hindsight is 20/20. Before he fired that shot, nobody has any clue what the men's true motivations or intentions are.

So its possible he could be open to a civil suit at least.

I disagree. I don't think his family is entitled to any compensation due to a member getting killed during an armed robbery, even if the shooter didn't tell the whole story straight.

During a robbery, the objective of the robbers is to rob.

An action which is taken by a very special group of people: a.) Drug addicts who need a hit. b.) Nuts who cannot find a legitimate means of income. c.) Sociopaths who really don't care about anyone's well-being during the robbery, except perhaps the fact that harming or killing them would make the cops a bit more aggressive in pursuing them.

These groups are unpredictable and, in some cases, mentally unstable.

Which is why literally every credible source, manual and training course on the subject tells you to stay calm, comply and do not resist or do anything to startle or provoke the robber. Because that is your and everyone around you's best chance to walk away uninjured and alive.

Your best chance for survival is to stay calm and comply. Period. If you resist, you increase the chance of you or another innocent person being injured or killed. Period. Not knowing which side of a statistic you're on doesn't mean probability is 50/50. That's not how math works. Yes, you may not know if you're in the 99.87% that survive or the 0.13% unlucky enough to encounter a violent or homicidal robber during a stick up. But are you going to bet on 99.87% or 0.13%?

I agree that the safest option, statistically, is to obey the robber's demands and do everything you can to not inflame the already-dangerous situation. However, I disagree that disobeying the robber and shooting him should be a civil or criminal offense.

[Gravekeeper]

A fact we don't find out until after the man fired. Hindsight is 20/20. Before he fired that shot, nobody has any clue what the men's true motivations or intentions are.

But that again goes to statistics. There is an utterly mineut chance that either robber would harm or kill anyone on scene. Furthermore, robber #1 was shot dead before or if he could or would take life threatening action. Which is a problem and the legality of such is based on local law as to whether or not it would be a crime.

I disagree. I don't think his family is entitled to any compensation due to a member getting killed during an armed robbery, even if the shooter didn't tell the whole story straight.

Don't look at me, I'm just pointing out how America's legal system is in regards to lawsuits.

An action which is taken by a very special group of people: a.) Drug addicts who need a hit. b.) Nuts who cannot find a legitimate means of income. c.) Sociopaths who really don't care about anyone's well-being during the robbery, except perhaps the fact that harming or killing them would make the cops a bit more aggressive in pursuing them.

No, its not taken by a very special group of people. Its generally taken by desperate, broke and/or stupid people. Typically young, desperate and/or stupid. Everyone needs to stop inflating the statistical minority as the majority scenario. That just isn't the reality of the situation.

Mental illness, especially serious psychosis, is rare and mental illness has a very negliable impact on violent crime. You're vastly more likely to be attacked by someone who is perfectly sane, and someone with mental illness is actually 250% more likely than you to be a victim of violent crime.

I agree that the safest option, statistically, is to obey the robber's demands and do everything you can to not inflame the already-dangerous situation. However, I disagree that disobeying the robber and shooting him should be a civil or criminal offense.

Whether its a civil liability is up to the courts and anything will fly to at least a couple hearings in the US. Whether its a criminal offense is up to the juristiction. This can and would be a crime in some States and other countries. So whether the shooter's actions are legal or not is a matter of geography. If this had occurred in Canada for example, he would have been arrested and charged.

[TheHuckster]

Whether its a civil liability is up to the courts and anything will fly to at least a couple hearings in the US. Whether its a criminal offense is up to the juristiction. This can and would be a crime in some States and other countries. So whether the shooter's actions are legal or not is a matter of geography. If this had occurred in Canada for example, he would have been arrested and charged.

And what I'm saying is, regardless of geography, I disagree with any laws which would make someone criminally liable for taking a situation like this in their own hands and successfully neutralizes the hostiles, even if deadly force is used. I have a problem with a situation where a victim of a violent act (and, yes, robbing someone while waving a gun, regardless of whether they've fired yet is a violent action) chooses to defend himself and gets raked over the coals for it.

[Panacea]

Don't look at me, I'm just pointing out how America's legal system is in regards to lawsuits.

Even in America, you have to come to court with clean hands. Courts are usually reluctant to reward people who are hurt while committing a crime. And this happened in South Carolina. No judge in South Carolina is going to let a civil suit like that proceed.

Whether its a civil liability is up to the courts and anything will fly to at least a couple hearings in the US. Whether its a criminal offense is up to the juristiction. This can and would be a crime in some States and other countries. So whether the shooter's actions are legal or not is a matter of geography. If this had occurred in Canada for example, he would have been arrested and charged.

Agreed; jurisdiction matters. This happened in South Carolina. The shooter's actions are lawful there, which is why he wasn't arrested.

[Gravekeeper]

And what I'm saying is, regardless of geography, I disagree with any laws which would make someone criminally liable for taking a situation like this in their own hands and successfully neutralizes the hostiles, even if deadly force is used.

A restaurant is not a warzone and a robber is not an enemy combatant. There has to be some reasonable line in a civilized society. If the penalty for the crime itself is not death in court, why should it be death on the scene?

Again, statistically speaking, this guy endangered everyone present and basically just lucked out that no one else was hurt.

I have a problem with a situation where a victim of a violent act (and, yes, robbing someone while waving a gun, regardless of whether they've fired yet is a violent action) chooses to defend himself and gets raked over the coals for it.

He did not choose to defend himself he choose to be a vigilante. He provoked the robber and then shot the robber dead on the spot when the robber noticed. Then he lied to the cops about it.

His original statement to the police said that he tried to talk to the robbersand calm the situation down and only opened fire when robber #1 pointed a gun at him. When in truth, he didn't say anything to them and the robber was just walking towards him with the gun at his side when he stood up and shot him dead on the spot. The fatal round even hit the guy in the back of the head.

He changed his story when the video was recently released which is why this has popped up again in the news 2 year after the fact.

[TheHuckster]

A restaurant is not a warzone and a robber is not an enemy combatant. There has to be some reasonable line in a civilized society. If the penalty for the crime itself is not death in court, why should it be death on the scene?

Because by the time he had been sentenced in court, the threat of getting gunned down by the man is gone. If you wanted to make a better analogy, this is more like a standoff at the restaurant against cops, not a court of law.

He did not choose to defend himself he choose to be a vigilante. He provoked the robber and then shot the robber dead on the spot when the robber noticed. Then he lied to the cops about it.

His original statement to the police said that he tried to talk to the robbersand calm the situation down and only opened fire when robber #1 pointed a gun at him. When in truth, he didn't say anything to them and the robber was just walking towards him with the gun at his side when he stood up and shot him dead on the spot. The fatal round even hit the guy in the back of the head.

He changed his story when the video was recently released which is why this has popped up again in the news 2 year after the fact.

Fine. I'll concede that he took a risky action and perhaps might need to be reevaluated for that conceal permit or perhaps given probation for his actions. However, he shouldn't be tried for anything more than that.

Also, is there any footage of what was said during this whole incident? Everyone is claming that the videos seem to contradict what people claimed was said during the altercation, but thanks to the crappy video, you can't even lip read much less try to claim "wait, now that I see this freeze-framed video, it's clear that guy DIDN'T say that!"

[Gravekeeper]

Because by the time he had been sentenced in court, the threat of getting gunned down by the man is gone. If you wanted to make a better analogy, this is more like a standoff at the restaurant against cops, not a court of law.

No, its not a stand off. He ambushed robber #1 and killed him instantly and is lucky as shit robber #2 didn't open fire especially given that he fired on robber #2 as well. A police officer in the same scenario would not be legally permitted to take the course of action that the CWP took. So why does a civilian get a free pass?

Also, is there any footage of what was said during this whole incident?

We don't need the video, the shooter himself changed his story after being confronted with the video. But if you like, go ahead and watch it. The shooter doesn't even turn towards them till he makes the desicion to get up and shoot robber #1 dead on the spot barely 2 seconds after he comes back around the corner. After that, robber #2 tries to wrestle with him because he is still shooting at robber #2 ( that round struck the ceiling ). Then robber #2 flees.

The CWP holder originally told the police:

A customer with a concealed weapon permit had a gun on him and asked the suspect to put his gun down and wait for deputies, who in turn pointed his gun at the customer, according to deputies. Investigators said the customer then shot the suspect, who fell to the floor, then the second suspect tried to leave. They said the customer tried to stop him, leading to a struggle and the suspect went for the customer's gun.

The customer fired one shot and the second suspect fled on foot, according to deputies.

This is what he says now after being shown the video:

"They're yelling 'everybody get down, get down' and I'm not getting on the floor. I am not going to be a victim," Harrison said. Harrison said while the men terrorized other customers and staff he was deciding when to act.

"This was the only time," Harrison said. "If I am going to fight it was that one time. He was approaching me and I saw that as him engaging me."

He then stands up and blows robber #1 away as he comes back around the corner. The only reason he hasn't been charged with anything is because its South Carolina. Anywhere else without dubious stand your ground laws and this would be considered vigilantism.

On a side note, robber #2 was sentenced to 30 years, which is the minimum penalty for homicide in South Carolina. So if he HAD shot back and killed the CWP, same penalty anyhow.

[Cia]

Sorry Gravekeeper but the robbers entered the establishment with their guns out and ready, which in all intense purposes means they are ready to shoot anybody who does and doesn't comply with their demands.

Can't see it on the video but I bet they had their fingers on the triggers. All it takes is for a child to cry, a woman to scream, someone to drop a dish or cup and your startle reflex kicks in and next thing you know you've pulled the trigger (which is why you are always taught to keep your finger straight and off the trigger at handgun safety courses). I don't know what the odds are if once the robbers see that they've killed someone 'accidently' that they either book it or shoot the witnesses.

If the guy had got on the ground it would've been a bitch to shoot from that angle. Plus if he had complied there still is no proof that the robbers wouldn't have shot the people in the restaurant anyways.

As for remembering things differently that is very, very common and happens to police officers too. In my hubby's hometown the local sheriff walked out of his trailer and had some guy shoot a shotgun at him. When everything was over the sheriff was asked how many times he pulled the trigger of his own gun, he said two or three times - he emptied his clip. Time speeds up, slows down, you get tunnel vision and a merriad of other things happen. So the CCW holder remembering things differently doesn't indicate to me that he's lying - no matter how much Prosecutors like to insist that it does.

When I see robbers bringing a gun with them to me that indicates that they are willing to shoot someone to get what they want and I will be happy if someone has a CCW and the where with all to protect him/herself and the other victims. Yeah, it's still probably 50/50 chance you might die but at least you have more of a chance to live.

If the CCW holder had been a plain clothes cop he would've done the same thing except with "FREEZE, POLICE" added. And who's to say the robbers wouldn't have tried to shoot their way out anyhow.

To put it plainly - I don't trust the mindset of anyone who robs with a weapon.

The robber's family doesn't have a leg to stand on, should shut up and leave the CCW holder alone.

[Canarr]

Sorry Gravekeeper but the robbers entered the establishment with their guns out and ready, which in all intense purposes means they are ready to shoot anybody who does and doesn't comply with their demands.

Can't see it on the video but I bet they had their fingers on the triggers. All it takes is for a child to cry, a woman to scream, someone to drop a dish or cup and your startle reflex kicks in and next thing you know you've pulled the trigger (which is why you are always taught to keep your finger straight and off the trigger at handgun safety courses).

I'd say you'd lose your bet - simply for the fact that the second robber didn't shoot anyone (or anything) when the other guy shot his partner.

Actually, your point kinda goes against resisting; if you think that any kind of loud, sudden noise might startle a robber into shooting, how, exactly, can you support opening fire at them with a handgun? Especially if there's two of them?