He shouldn't have felt threatened...

[crashhelmet]

we were talking about whether williams was shot while walking towards harrison, VS the idea that he was shot in the back of the head while leaving. so, the video shows (gun raised or not) that williams was not shot in the back while leaving. unless he was moonwalking towards harrison, he couldn't be shot in the back of his head.
which was my point. that saying he was shot in the BACK of the head is wrong.

Again, do you have a copy of the video? Can you provide the rest of us with a link? How do you know what is right and what is wrong in the details of this case?

The shooter was sitting near the door, in a position where the robbers would have to pass him to leave the building. In fact, he would be the last patron they would pass before leaving the building. You can see that in the brief sections of the video we have available to us.

There are a few ways he could've been shot in the back of the head that don't involve moonwalking.

Possibility #1 - The deceased walked past him towards the door, making himself completely vulnerable to the shooter.

Possibility #2 - He was shot from a near-perpendicular angle, causing the bullet to hit him in the back of the head before spinning him around for the second shot to hit him in the chest.

Possibility #3 - The deceased turned his back prior to passing the shooter, again making himself completely vulnerable.

You have to remember that just about everything that the shooter said about the incident in his initial report was later reported to be a lie, proven by the video.

[siead_lietrathua]

Again, do you have a copy of the video? Can you provide the rest of us with a link? How do you know what is right and what is wrong in the details of this case?

the quote you yourself posted said "The video shows Williams, gun by his side, walk back toward Harrison, who stands up and fires several shots killing Williams almost instantly."

not towards the door. towards harrison. harrison stood up while williams was walking towards him and shot.
ffs, you're arguing against your own quote at this point.

and how so YOU know the details any better? it's a 2-year old case with very little footage out and no readily-available coroner's report. i'm making no more (and frankly, far LESS) assumptions than you are about the details. i'm repeating quotes available from the officers involved in the case. i'm not making stuff up about bullet-induced-pirouettes.

[crashhelmet]

the quote you yourself posted said "The video shows Williams, gun by his side, walk back toward Harrison, who stands up and fires several shots killing Williams almost instantly."

not towards the door. towards harrison. harrison stood up while williams was walking towards him and shot.
ffs, you're arguing against your own quote at this point.

and how so YOU know the details any better? it's a 2-year old case with very little footage out and no readily-available coroner's report. i'm making no more (and frankly, far LESS) assumptions than you are about the details. i'm repeating quotes available from the officers involved in the case. i'm not making stuff up about bullet-induced-pirouettes.

You quote me, I'll quote me...
"The shooter was sitting near the door, in a position where the robbers would have to pass him to leave the building. In fact, he would be the last patron they would pass before leaving the building. You can see that in the brief sections of the video we have available to us."

So I am not arguing against my own quote.

I'm going by the revealed facts of this case that have not been disputed.

There is a bullet hole in the back of the deceased's head and another in his chest.

So unless you want to throw some JFK-esque magic bullet theory here, the undisputed facts of this case state that he was shot in the back of the head

[s_stabeler]

can I make a suggestion that we drop this now? It's pretty clear that crashhelmet believes it was not self-defense, and siead_lietrathua believes it was, and I doubt either side are going to change their mind.

[siead_lietrathua]

can I make a suggestion that we drop this now? It's pretty clear that crashhelmet believes it was not self-defense, and siead_lietrathua believes it was, and I doubt either side are going to change their mind.

yeah i'm done at this point. i think i might break my laptop if i keep head-desking lol.

[Jester]

There is a bullet hole in the back of the deceased's head and another in his chest.

So unless you want to throw some JFK-esque magic bullet theory here, the undisputed facts of this case state that he was shot in the back of the head

Just a quick point of fact here: it is possible, without any magic bullet, for someone to have a bullet hole in the back of the head without that person getting shot from behind. No pirouettes, no hocus locus, no weird angles. It's called an exit wound. If someone is shot from the front and the bullet exits the back of their head, they have a bullet hole in the back of their head.

Now, I am NOT saying that is what happened here. I am only pointing out the minor flaw in your overall statement above.

But, as others have pointed out, since we have neither the coroner's report nor the full video, it is impossible for any of us to say whether or not the deceased was shot from the front or the back.

That being said, I have no major issue with it either way. The deceased came into a diner with an accomplice, both pointing guns at people in order to rob them of their valuables by force and by intimidation (the threat that the deceased's family claims no one should have felt). Not having any way to know for certain what robbers were planning to do with said guns (perhaps they planned on leaving no witnesses), a patron used his own gun to end the threat.

While we can argue whether or not his actions were right or wrong, this whole incident should make one thing very clear: not only should you not point a gun at someone if you are other prepared to pull the trigger, you should not point a gun at someone without being aware that they may also have a gun and may shoot you, whatever your plans may be. Such is the risk you take when committing armed robbery.

[Gravekeeper]

This is still going on?

I have been robbed at gun point when I was a teenager. I'm not dead. What did I do? I stayed calmed, gave them what they wanted and basically kept them calm too. I talked my way out of it.

Oddly enough I am not dead nor did I require return fire to survive the situation. So am I an unreasonable person? Should I have risked death to stab him in the balls with my keys? If I had had a gun, should I have shot him? Knowing full well that would likely end with him dead, me dead, or both after his friends reacted to me shooting him.

No, because honestly that's stupid.

Again, literally every authority on this subject says to do what I did. Because it is your best chance for survival. You can't brush away the statistics and try and use "Average reasonable person" as the benchmark for lethal force. If you've ever worked in any sort of remotely organized store its part of your training on how to handle an armed robbery.

This isn't a matter of "average" reasonable person, because the people that think this is reasonable are those that agree with the shooter's position. Those who disagree obviously do not think this is the reasonable average. It is not an objective measure because what's "reasonable" in this scenario is going to vary wildly based on location and culture.

Thus I defer to the experts. Who say don't fucking do this, it increases the chance of you or someone else being seriously harmed or killed. -.-

[Jester]

I don't disagree with you, GK. In most situations, it is best to stay calm and follow instructions.

In most situations. But there are situations, especially recently, which don't hold true to this. Where people stayed calm, did as they were told, as the experts advise...and were killed anyway.

Is this the norm? No. Would I go for a weapon in such a situation? Probably not. My mouth has gotten me out of more hairy situations than any weapon ever could.

But returning to the title of this thread, the people in the diner had every reason to feel threatened, despite the claims of the dead man's family that they should not have. And while I may not agree completely with the shooter's actions, I don't disagree with them, either. He saw a threat and acted in what he felt was the best way. It would not be the best way for you, perhaps not for me, and statistically it may have been unwise. But life is not always about statistics.

I don't have a problem with the shooter's actions, even if I may not have done the same thing myself. Sometimes it is best to take a chance and act, even if it may not seem or even be safe. A great recent example would be the young man who subdued the shooter at the school in Seattle. It was an unwise move, but he gambled and the result was no one else ended up dead.

You may say it's not the same situation, and you would be correct. In the first case, the criminals had robbery as their mission, in the second, murder. The problem is, the people in harm's way in each situation saw people with guns and did not know what the gunmen's intention's were.

[Gravekeeper]

You may say it's not the same situation, and you would be correct. In the first case, the criminals had robbery as their mission, in the second, murder. The problem is, the people in harm's way in each situation saw people with guns and did not know what the gunmen's intention's were.

Robbers make their intentions pretty clear though. If two guys had just walked in with guns and not said a word, okay yeah what the fuck is going on. But they walked in, told everyone to get down and hand over their valuables. That makes it pretty clear what they want.

The demand always immediately follows the threat. If there's a threat only, then something is definitely wrong.

But returning to the title of this thread, the people in the diner had every reason to feel threatened, despite the claims of the dead man's family that they should not have.

I pointed this out already, but the family did not claim he should not have felt threatened. The only source that says that is the pro gun agenda site in the op. If you actually go through to the article the family says the complete opposite:

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.

And while I may not agree completely with the shooter's actions, I don't disagree with them, either. He saw a threat and acted in what he felt was the best way. It would not be the best way for you, perhaps not for me, and statistically it may have been unwise. But life is not always about statistics.

I don't agree with them, but I have a bigger problem with the fact the shooter lied to police about what happened and this is apparently okay because it was only a "bad guy" that died as a result.

[Jester]

Robbers make their intentions pretty clear though. If two guys had just walked in with guns and not said a word, okay yeah what the fuck is going on. But they walked in, told everyone to get down and hand over their valuables. That makes it pretty clear what they want.

The demand always immediately follows the threat. If there's a threat only, then something is definitely wrong.

A few problems with this.

1. Criminals never lie? Just because someone says they are only there to rob the place doesn't mean that that is the truth. Criminals, like anyone else, may not always be truthful, and in fact, probably have more incentive to lie than the average person.

2. If the intention was to kill everyone at some point in the crime, what would be the best way to get people to cooperate with them? Right...tell everyone that they're NOT going to hurt anyone, as long as people cooperate. From a purely cold and calculating point of view, if I wanted to rob people and then kill them all, I would get then to do what I said by telling them they'd be alright. After all, if you tell people you are going to kill them all, what motivation do they have to follow your directions?

3. If someone is pointing a gun at you and engaged in a criminal activity, and you may be able to identify them later, it's not unreasonable to think that they may want to eliminate that potential for identification. Easiest and most effective way to do so is by eliminated the witnesses.

4. Forgetting for a moment that criminals may actually lie to their victims about their intentions, if someone is pointing a gun at people in a threatening manner--which is to say pointing a gun at people at all, since that is a threatening act in and of itself--many people are going to feel threatened, and feel like they are in danger, no matter what the criminals say their intentions are. Rational thought goes out the window in such situations for many people.

My basic problem with what you're saying is that you expect normal people in an abnormal situation--having guns pointed at them in a threatening manner--to calmly apprise the situation and realize that the criminals are there merely to rob them of their valuables, and not kill or injure them, merely because the criminals say so. That's asking a lot.

For the record, Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy, along with various other serial killers, told many of their victims that they'd be just fine as long as they listened to instructions. Said victims often listened and did what they were told. The end result was not very favorable to them.

I pointed this out already, but the family did not claim he should not have felt threatened. The only source that says that is the pro gun agenda site in the op. If you actually go through to the article the family says the complete opposite:

I must have missed that. My bad.

I don't agree with them, but I have a bigger problem with the fact the shooter lied to police about what happened and this is apparently okay because it was only a "bad guy" that died as a result.

I can't argue with you on that.

[Gravekeeper]

My basic problem with what you're saying is that you expect normal people in an abnormal situation--having guns pointed at them in a threatening manner--to calmly apprise the situation and realize that the criminals are there merely to rob them of their valuables, and not kill or injure them, merely because the criminals say so. That's asking a lot.

But that once again brings us back around to statistics. You're outlining the possibility of the worst case scenario, when the worst case scenario is incredibly rare. And more importantly, if a situation is not the worst case scenario, it can become one if someone treats it as the worst case scenario and does something rash.

Yes, its an abnormal situation, but the key to getting through any emergency situation is always step one: try to stay calm. Yes, not everyone can do that. But they should be trying. However, step two shouldn't be "do something rash". Criminals are human beings too and, in the case of an armed robbery, can be just as tense as you are. Which is the inherent problem. If both sides are nervous, one rash move can lead to disaster.

For the record, Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy, along with various other serial killers, told many of their victims that they'd be just fine as long as they listened to instructions. Said victims often listened and did what they were told. The end result was not very favorable to them.

For the record, you have a better chance of being struck by lightning then being killed by a serial killer. Also, considering victims of serial killers are predominately young, female and often prostitutes, you personally probably have a better chance of being killed by a meteor strike. ;p

[TheHuckster]

But that once again brings us back around to statistics. You're outlining the possibility of the worst case scenario, when the worst case scenario is incredibly rare. And more importantly, if a situation is not the worst case scenario, it can become one if someone treats it as the worst case scenario and does something rash.

We're really going in circles here... yes, that has been established. I get the statistics. Statistics mean jack shit when something like this happens to you. When one is caught in a situation like this they don't have the luxury of Googling "odds of getting shot after heeding robbers' demands" at that time so if you don't have that number offhand, those facts mean absolutely NOTHING.

[Gravekeeper]

Statistics mean jack shit when something like this happens to you. When one is caught in a situation like this they don't have the luxury of Googling "odds of getting shot after heeding robbers' demands" at that time so if you don't have that number offhand, those facts mean absolutely NOTHING.

Staying calm in an emergency situation is the first, foremost and most basic tenant of dealing with any emergency situation. When I had a gun to my head, Google didn't even exist yet and I was a stupid teenager. Dealing with gang members that were trying to find a friend of mine to presumably send to the hospital or simply murder outright. Had I reacted the way you seemingly want me too, I probably wouldn't be here. Or at least I would have some awesome scars. =p

Stay calm is what they tell you for everything. Its part of employee training to deal with armed robberies. Its the first thing they teach you in any first aid class. Its in farkin' animated public service announcements aimed at 6 year olds between Saturday morning cartoons. And the reason is very simple: You will make the situation worse and possibly place yourself or others in greater danger.

You don't need to Google to tell you staying calm and thinking about it for a moment will tell you that hey, since your country isn't a blood splattered war zone on a daily basis maybe you should assess the situation before assuming every other person you see on the street is a mass murdering serial killing rapist kidnapper terrorist.

Conversely, you can keep stocking your backyard bomb shelter with canned goods for the "inevitable" collapse of civilization. With any luck you will never be in the situation we're talking about and end up getting yourself beaten, stabbed or shot.

[TheHuckster]

Staying calm in an emergency situation is the first, foremost and most basic tenant of dealing with any emergency situation. When I had a gun to my head, Google didn't even exist yet and I was a stupid teenager. Dealing with gang members that were trying to find a friend of mine to presumably send to the hospital or simply murder outright. Had I reacted the way you seemingly want me too, I probably wouldn't be here. Or at least I would have some awesome scars. =p

Don't get me wrong. I don't think what this guy did was "right" or even smart. I wouldn't recommend doing what he did to anyone, and I agree that staying calm is the correct course of action. So, no, I don't want you to react the way he did.

My issue is with the notion that he deserves a criminal charge or even civil justice for his actions. That's it. At the very most, he probably should be revoked of his license to carry and be put on probation. Had his actions actually lead to innocent bystanders and victims killed, then I would agree with a bigger indictment, but that didn't happen.

[Gravekeeper]

My issue is with the notion that he deserves a criminal charge or even civil justice for his actions.

The problem is that he lied to police to bolster his justification for opening fire. Had the incident occurred the way he described it I would be more inclined to agree with you despite what I think about this kind of thing. However, what he told police appears to be orchestrated to justify a claim of self defense with lethal force. When the video evidence shows a different course of events.

Although on a side note, I'm really surprised the full footage hasn't found its way onto the Internet.