He shouldn't have felt threatened...

[Gravekeeper]

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.

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.

Again, statistics. You can keep coming up with all the boogeyman scenarios you want but the statistics simply don't support them. If they did, America would be awash in an ocean of gunfire and blood.

As for remembering things differently that is very, very common and happens to police officers too.

Sorry, no. There is a huge difference between forgetting how many shots you fired and forgetting whether you calmly tried to talk the robbers down or just stood up and executed one on the spot.

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.

No, it indicates they're willing to intimidate someone to get what they want. That's the entire purpose of bringing a weapon to a robbery. Again, the hero vigilante scenario is one of the worst things you can do in an armed robbery situation. Which is why every single source on the subject from bank security to police says to stay calm, follow instructions and give them whatever it takes to get them to leave the scene as soon as you can. The sooner they leave the scene the safer it is for everyone involved.

If I have a 99.7% chance of survival if I just get on the floor vs seeing whether or not I can survive a potential crossfire then yeah, I'm not going to be impressed if some CCW holder stands up and starts shooting because he thinks he's protecting me.

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.

Statistics. Statistics are to say. No matter how many boogeyman what ifs you come up with, reality says otherwise. Has a well known liberal bias, etc.

[Barracuda]

You have to define how you feel threatened and what is a valid threat.

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.

It's hard to claim self defense when you're in the aggressive role.

Did he get his CWP from Uncle Jimbo and his "It's Coming Right For Us!!!!" school of hunting?

Let's ask a hypothetical. Would you even be questioning this guy's actions if he had been a police officer? Because an armed civilian has absolutely the same right to self defense as any cop.

[crashhelmet]

Let's ask a hypothetical. Would you even be questioning this guy's actions if he had been a police officer? Because an armed civilian has absolutely the same right to self defense as any cop.

If it was a cop, they wouldn't be thinking "self defense." They'd be thinking "I need to do my job, stop this crime, and protect these citizens."

A civilian going down that thought process ventures into vigilantism.

Furthermore, the cop wouldn't stand up and shoot one of the robbers in the back of the head. They'd identify themselves as a Law Enforcement Officer and try to talk the robbers down.

[Jester]

I do not want to get into the typical gun rights vs. public safety debate here, but before I make my comments, I feel I should mention my views on such things so that you know where I'm coming from. Again, this is to give context to my comments, not to invite debate on the larger issue that is a hot debate point currently.

I am in favor of people having the right to have guns, and am a proponent of the Second Amendment's provisions allowing such. However, I strongly believe that the USA needs better, more reasonable, and more intelligent gun laws and regulations. Gun rights advocates often point out that cars kill more people than guns. Cars can certainly be dangerous. Because of this, we require people to be trained, licensed, and insured to legally operate motor vehicles. I believe we should require the same or similar for something as dangerous and potentially lethal as a firearm. Training by an expert or professional, licensing, and insurance against mishaps all seem like an intelligent way to allow responsible citizens to have their legally obtained guns, while making it difficult for irresponsible people to get their hands on same. Not impossible, mind you. Just more difficult. Part of the underlying problem with the recent spate of mass shootings is the ease with which the shooter(s) were able to obtain their weapons. Reasonable gun laws and regulations would not eliminate such shootings, of course, but it would make it harder for those people to perpetrate them, and perhaps a few of them would get the help they needed. Or perhaps just kill themselves in some other way without involving the rest of us, thus removing them from this world they hate so much without so much innocent blood being spilled.

So yeah, I'm in favor of better gun laws. I also happen to like guns. I've owned one in the past. I don't currently, but I've considered buying one. I'd have no issue going through intelligent background checks, safety training, etc., if I chose to get one. And I have gone shooting with my friends, and followed their instructions with the guns, because they are far more experienced than I am with such things. This past weekend I shot my first .45, along with a 9mm Glock and a .22 rifle. Last time I went with them, I fired a shotgun for the first time. It was fun. It was also done at a range, where such things are appropriate. Rather than say, at a mall or restaurant.

So, one thing I've heard many times about guns is that you should not point a loaded gun at someone unless you are willing to fire them. The flip side of that is that if someone is pointing a gun at you, it is reasonable to believe that they are willing to shoot you. They may not intend to do so, but once they have loaded the gun and taken it into a place to aid in a robbery and pointed it at people, it seems reasonable to assume that they are probably willing to fire it.

I have never been shot at, thankfully. I have, however, had a gun pointed at me. Twice. The second time, when my girlfriend and I were robbed at gun point in Los Angeles, we were both fearful for our lives and safety. The only reason I was not fearful of the same the first time I had a gun pointed at me was because I did not know I'd had a gun pointed at me until after the fact, when one of my friends alerted me to that fun little nugget of information. (Ah, those crazy teenage years!) But yes, having a gun pointed at you by people you don't know and whose intentions you don't know (or even whose intentions you DO know) can be a very frightening experience.

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

Anyone who points a loaded gun at someone else is a potential killer. Even if it's an accidental killing and there was no intent, it is still a killing, and someone is still dead.

Also, as the people in the restaurant did not know the robbers and had no way of knowing their intentions, it would be impossible for them to know whether or not the robbers were potential killers.

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.

No, they weren't. But these were actions that happened AFTER the two armed men walked into the restaurant and pointed their guns at innocent people. No one there had any way of knowing ahead of time if the robbers were there to kill them or merely rob them. The actions you cite as proof of the robbers' intentions come after the fact. Also, there are other possibilities you overlook. For example, maybe the dead robber did intend to kill people but his friend did not. Or that the friend had violent intentions, but having seen the first guy gunned down, quickly changed his mind about firing at a man who had already fired his gun.

But again, their intentions were not only unknown to the diners, but irrelevant. Once you've walked into a public place and pointed loaded weapons at people, you have made those people feel threatened and you have put them in harm's way.

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%?

Not everyone knows the statistics. I myself don't know if your cited stats are correct or merely an approximation. But even knowing such stats does not change the the fact that people will feel threatened if they have guns pointed at them.
Nor does anyone know the mind or intents of people who are pointing guns at them.
Also, not everyone is willing to sit there and let their fate be decided by the laws of statistical averages.
And let's not forget, with all the recent shootings in the news, many people are worried about gun violence. So if you take a gun into a public place and point it at people, you take the chance that people are going to react unfavorably to your actions. And that someone you're pointing a gun at may be aware of the rent shootings, may have a gun themselves, and may use it in response to your unlawful and rather unfriendly actions.

Mind you, I am not saying whether or not the shooter here was right or wrong. I don't know what I would do in that situation, as the only times I've had guns pointed at me, I did not have a gun myself. But for anyone to say that the people in hasn't be restaurant should not have felt threatened by two men waving guns around and demanding their possessions is absolutely ludicrous. Of course their going to feel threatened. You'd have to know nothing about guns to not feel threatened by this scenario. So while I sympathize with the dead robber's family, I do not agree with their statements. The word "disingenuous" was used to describe those statements by someone here, and I would have to agree with that assessment.

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.

I don't know about you, but I for one do not want stupid or desperate people pointing guns at me. I would definitely feel threatened. It is a threatening situation. And the only people who chose to be in such a situation are the people committing armed robbery.

And stupid and desperate people often to stupid and desperate things. Which may include shooting at people who they are robbing with loaded guns. It is not unreasonable to believe that such a thing may happen, even if it is statistically rare. Not everyone is willing to put their fate completely in the hands of such people.

The shooter doesn't even turn towards them till he makes the desicion to get up and shoot robber #1 dead on the spot...

Correction: he made the decision to SHOOT the robber. This is undeniable. Whether or not he decided to KILL him we do not know, just as we do not know what the robbers intended. For all you know, he may have been aiming for the robber's arm or leg to disable him, and was just a very poor shot.

So if he HAD shot back and killed the CWP, same penalty anyhow.

Except that one more person would have been dead.

The reason many armed robbery laws give such large penalties to the perpetrators is because of the potential for loss of life in such situations. While I believe actual loss of life should be punished more severely than potential loss of life, I can understand the logic behind that particular part of the South Carolina law.

[BrenDAnn]

There was one rather well known recent case (four or so years ago now I think) in the area that proves this wrong. The robber not only robbed two c-stores at gunpoint, but also shot and killed two clerks even though they did, indeed, comply with his requests. So, yes, the guy in the OP SHOULD have felt threatened. I damn sure would!

[crashhelmet]

Correction: he made the decision to SHOOT the robber. This is undeniable. Whether or not he decided to KILL him we do not know, just as we do not know what the robbers intended. For all you know, he may have been aiming for the robber's arm or leg to disable him, and was just a very poor shot.

When he DECIDED to SHOOT the robber, he shot the robber from point blank range, in the back of the head. If he didn't know he was going to KILL him, he needs to take a few more gun safety classes, watch some action movies, or at least play a few video games like Call of Duty or Halo and realize what a HEADSHOT means.

[s_stabeler]

I thought it was the family of the deceased who claimed that the robber was shot in the back of the head, and it had been shown they were lying through their teeth? (I thought he had more or less got up and shot at the robbers?) It's true enough that if it was execution style, then a self-defense argument becomes ridiculous.

but the point remains: an armed robbery is a situation where a average person would reasonably believe their life was in immediate danger. The statistics don't actually matter- what matters is if, in the same situation, the average person would be scared of their life. an armed robbery RELIES on that fear for your life.

[Jester]

When he DECIDED to SHOOT the robber, he shot the robber from point blank range, in the back of the head. If he didn't know he was going to KILL him, he needs to take a few more gun safety classes, watch some action movies, or at least play a few video games like Call of Duty or Halo and realize what a HEADSHOT means.

I have not seen anything that ascertained that this was true.

If he did shoot the robber in the back of the head execution style, then I agree, he did decide to kill him rather than shoot him. If you have valid sources that state this (not just the family of the deceased), please cite them, and if they show me to be in error, I will retract this part of my argument.

[siead_lietrathua]

I have not seen anything that ascertained that this was true.

If he did shoot the robber in the back of the head execution style, then I agree, he did decide to kill him rather than shoot him. If you have valid sources that state this (not just the family of the deceased), please cite them, and if they show me to be in error, I will retract this part of my argument.

you don't have to retract anything.

http://www.inquisitr.com/1240447/dante-williams-killed/

williams was shot in the chest and head as he walked towards harrison
not in the back of the head as he was leaving.
harrison fired multiple shots from a yard or two of distance. not point-blank aimed at the head.
the only people saying he was shot in the back of the head is the family.
the video shows he was shot as he approaches harrison

so can we stop saying he was shot in the back of the head already? because it's fucking incorrect!

[smileyeagle1021]

Statistics. Statistics are to say. No matter how many boogeyman what ifs you come up with, reality says otherwise. Has a well known liberal bias, etc.

To quote Mark Twain, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
"Boogeyman" or not, anyone with literally ANY knowledge of guns knows that you only point a gun at something or someone you are willing to kill... if someone points a gun at me, I don't give a damn what the statistics say the odds of my life ending are, I know that person is willing to kill me and I will respond appropriately, and this is one area where reality has a conservative bias, basic biology says when it comes down to kill or be killed, choose the first.
I am about as far from a gun nut as you can get, I think that open carry proponents are slightly insane, and I strongly support gun control laws that require training, licensing, background checks, and limitations on the firearms themselves (eg, clip size limitations). But, I see absolutely nothing wrong with someone who is involved in an armed robbery who is legally carrying a concealed weapon to defend their lives and the lives of other patrons.

[protege]

"Boogeyman" or not, anyone with literally ANY knowledge of guns knows that you only point a gun at something or someone you are willing to kill... if someone points a gun at me, I don't give a damn what the statistics say the odds of my life ending are, I know that person is willing to kill me and I will respond appropriately, and this is one area where reality has a conservative bias, basic biology says when it comes down to kill or be killed, choose the first.

I hear ya, Smiley. If someone has a gun pointed at me, I'm going to assume that they mean to kill me. I *will* defend myself. Same with someone forcing their way into my home. I'll assume that they're going to hurt or possibly kill me. Again, I will do what I have to, to remove the threat. If that means the perp gets a crowbar upside the head, I'm OK with that.

[Greenday]

I hear ya, Smiley. If someone has a gun pointed at me, I'm going to assume that they mean to kill me. I *will* defend myself. Same with someone forcing their way into my home. I'll assume that they're going to hurt or possibly kill me. Again, I will do what I have to, to remove the threat. If that means the perp gets a crowbar upside the head, I'm OK with that.

The odds say there's a chance I might get shot. So I'd rather shoot my attacker than get shot myself.

[Jester]

If someone comes into my house uninvited, no matter what their intentions may be, there is going to be a problem. They may only intend to steal from me, and would never harm a fly....but once they violate the sanctity of my home, I'm reaching for something. And by "something" I mean either one of my two baseball bats or one of my many, many knives. And no, I'm not a "knife nut." I have one dagger, two pocket knives, one butterfly knife, and a whole shitload of kitchen knives. Not to mention a few heavy skillets that would hurt going upside someone's head.

So unless you're naked, you want sex with me, and your name is Keira Knightley, it is not a wise idea to enter my house uninvited.

[Canarr]

So unless you're naked, you want sex with me, and your name is Keira Knightley, it is not a wise idea to enter my house uninvited.

What happened to Anna Paquin? Did you two have a falling-out?

Seriously: I don't think anyone really supports the family's claim that the robbery victims shouldn't have felt threatened - someone brandishing a gun is threatening, period. But that's not how I understood GK's point.

What I understood - and, coming from a German rather than a US background, I agree with - was, that feeling threatened should not be sufficient cause to allow for self-defense with lethal intent. I am aware that, in several US states, it does; I just feel that it shouldn't.

Why? For one, I don't believe that robbing a store or burglaring a home should carry a death penalty; for two, looking at this from the perspective of being a possible customer in such a store or restaurant, I wouldn't want some guy with a gun, who may or may not have decent training in safely using it, deciding that he is going to be a hero and save us all. Because with the robbers, there is only a chance that there might be shooting; with some customer opening fire, there's a guarantee. And in such a case, I'd take the chance over the guarantee, myself.

[Jetfire]

I may be wrong, but I believe in Canada, we have different laws for Robbery vs Robbery with a Weapon, the later carries a heavier sentence. I believe the thinking is, that if you have a weapon you are more threatening than without, so the crime is rightfully worse.

Whenever a weapon is involved, whether it is a gun, a knife, a bat, or whatever, than the people being robbed ARE being threatened, plain and simple. The robber has come up to them and shown a weapon that could do them harm, with the implication that if they do not obey they WILL be harmed with it.

Usually when threatened that way, people will go along with it until the robber leaves. Sometimes, (sometimes stupidly) someone will resist and people will get injured. Certainly, robbing a store shouldn't carry a death sentence; but by bringing a weapon that could kill someone, the robber has heightened the threat level to the point that grievous injury and/or death may happen one way or another.