PDA

View Full Version : SC CCW Shoots Restaurant Robber


madmag
January 21, 2012, 02:14 PM
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/01/21/2946087/police-robber-killed-in-sc-waffle.html#storylink=rss

I normally don't paste stories like this, but this one happens to be in my state and not all that far from where I live.

I have often had conversations with my wife about what I would do in a restaurant hold-up situation. I have always said I would not do anything unless I felt my family or myself was directly threatened.

Apparently the CCW in the story followed the same rule.

Any opinions either way??

garryc
January 21, 2012, 02:19 PM
The man posed a creditable threat of extreme bodily injury or death. Clean shoot.

madmag
January 21, 2012, 02:28 PM
I am going to watch any local follow-up stories to see about any charges filed. I assume the CCW will not be charged.

We do have a strong Castle law in SC. If no charges are filed by the D.A. then no civil law suit can be filed.

MLeake
January 21, 2012, 02:46 PM
Castle Doctrine would not apply, unless the CCW also owned the business. (Even then, in many states, it only applies to the home; there are some where it extends to owned businesses and vehicles, too.)

Stand-your-ground, or no-duty-to-retreat laws are different animals.

Sounds like a pretty cut-and-dried case of SD, though, and I'd be amazed if any charges are ever filed against the CCW.

Against the accomplice, on the other hand...

armoredman
January 21, 2012, 03:03 PM
Wish for more details, but with the limited information available, sounds like a job well done.

madmag
January 21, 2012, 03:13 PM
Castle Doctrine would not apply

Don't agree....not for SC anyway.


http://www.sled.sc.gov/ProtectionOfPeople.aspx?MenuID=CWP

the person is in a place where he has a right to be,

According to our CCW class a place a person has a right to be can be a restaurant or even on a public street.

MLeake
January 21, 2012, 03:20 PM
The stated intent of the legislation is to codify the common law castle doctrine, which recognizes that a person’s home is his castle, and to extend the doctrine to include an occupied vehicle and the person’s place of business.

Boldface mine.

Like I said, some states include a business that you own, or a vehicle that you are lawfully operating.

A customer in somebody else's business is not covered by Castle Doctrine.

There are other legal ideas that cover whether one has a duty to retreat.

The later language in the bill seemed to bring in some other ideas, from those other legal concepts, that they did not acknowledge in the intro about "Castle Doctrine."

This bill basically combines Castle Doctrine with a general No Duty to Retreat.

Edit: I believe that, as of this time, every US state has a Castle Doctrine with regard to the home, and many include businesses and occupied vehicles.

Duty to retreat varies.

madmag
January 21, 2012, 03:30 PM
A customer in somebody else's business is not covered by Castle Doctrine.


Still disagree. The key wording is including....this means it is not limited to. No where does the SC law say that it is only limited to Home, business or vehicle, it just says including.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=1933

remove the “duty to retreat” if a law-abiding citizen is attacked anywhere that person may lawfully be

Introduced in 2006. Not all castle laws are the same.

Anyway, the real issue is if the CCW will be charged.

C0untZer0
January 21, 2012, 03:43 PM
I've learned that reporters really seldom get it right when reporting these types of incidents. And the information provided is seldom detailed enough to be useful for discussions of tactics, but this also seems to be another case where the bad guy "had the drop" on someone and yet they were able to draw and shoot.

C0untZer0
January 21, 2012, 04:26 PM
I don't think anyone knows what "Castle Doctrine" means anymore - certainly not the legislators.

There should be a difference between justifiable homicide/lawfull use of deadly force and "castle doctrine". But the lines have been blurred by lawmakers inserting the word "castle" into the laws codifiying lawful use of deadly force/ justifiable homocide, no duty to retreat laws and the like.

To me, the key element of a "Castle Doctine" is the presumption that you have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm if someone is forcibly or unlawfully attempting to enter your ______ ( residence, home, business, vehicle, tent, igloo, etc...) or has forcibly or unlawfully entered your _____ and you are justified in using lethal force.

When describing ________ uses the term "residence" which according to SC law means "'Residence' means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

Does that also mean like a guest in a hotel? Does that mean like a "guest" at a restaurant ???

I'm not saying I don't like SC's law - I'm just saying it muddies the "Castle Doctrine" waters.

In Illinois this shooting would only be considered to fall under Castle Doctrine if it happend in a White Castle restaurant.

garryc
January 21, 2012, 04:31 PM
The guy had a natural right to use that level of force, case closed, doctrines be damned.

sserdlihc
January 21, 2012, 04:32 PM
Another great reason why I love living in South Carolina.

bikerbill
January 21, 2012, 04:37 PM
What does the Castle Doctrine have to do with a peaceful customer facing an armed robber? He was licensed to carry, he used his legal weapon to protect his life, the lives of his family and those of his fellow customers. Key to the city delivered, case closed. Another one bites the dust ...

madmag
January 21, 2012, 04:43 PM
Another great reason why I love living in South Carolina.

Same here.

What does the Castle Doctrine have to do with a peaceful customer facing an armed robber?

I agree it's not the main issue, I only mentioned it as added information.

I still want to follow the story and make sure about the outcome for the CCW holder. So far, all of the local news is just repeating the same file story.

sserdlihc
January 21, 2012, 04:49 PM
From the Charlotte Observer:

Lt. Tony Ivey says two men entered the restaurant early Saturday morning and at least one was carrying a handgun. A customer with a concealed weapons permit drew his gun, and fired when one of the suspects pointed the weapon at him.

From WYFF 4 News online

http://www.wyff4.com/news/30267025/detail.html

The crime rate in Spartanburg county has gotten to the point that even the Sheriff, Chuck Wright, is asking residents to get there CCW permits and arm themselves.

According to both stories, the robber pointed his gun at the customer with the CCW. He was well within the letter of the law. IMHO.

Alaska444
January 21, 2012, 04:49 PM
From the very limited information in the report, looks like he became a potential target directly and that is when he responded. Seems pretty classic case of self defense. If they catch the second guy, he will be facing first degree murder charges on top of armed robbery. I hope we get some better information on this case. Sad to see any life lost, but it is the reason that we have CCW in the first place. If only the bad guys have the guns, then we are at their mercy which is not a word they understand.

gunowner1950
January 21, 2012, 05:02 PM
I agree that if the would-be-robber pointed the gun at the person with the CCW permit, I would assume intent to harm, and do the same. I can only speculate that the robber had intent to harm and he paid for that mistake.

hangglider
January 21, 2012, 08:27 PM
I can't see any reasonable jury anywhere determining a shoot in response to a deadly weapon being pointed at you as being not justified. What IS questionable to me is was the response advisable--assuming the report is somewhat accurate--if the robber had the drop on him and it was likely all they wanted was some drug money--and a mass execution of everyone in there was not what they were wanting or prepared to do. Too little info to attempt to second guess, IMO.

garryc
January 21, 2012, 08:31 PM
Sad to see any life lost

The sadness of that life lost happened a good bit of time before the bullet hit him.

Alaska444
January 21, 2012, 09:27 PM
Perhaps so, but if that was completely true, I wouldn't have spent 8 years preaching each month at a maximum security prison. I know I can't say much on TFL or risk an off topic warning, but as long a person has breath, you can only hope for them.

In any case, it sounds like the robber gave this guy little option but to respond. Perhaps he had threatened his family as well. Don't know yet all the details, but technically, anytime you believe that you are in imminent threat of grave bodily harm or death, self defense is justified if they have the opportunity, ability and these actions appear imminent.

I hope we get more information on this case so we don't have to speculate on the circumstances.

orionengnr
January 21, 2012, 10:13 PM
Sad to see any life lostNo, it would have been sad to see innocent life lost.
Life choices have consequences, and too many people have yet to learn that lesson.
I don't think anyone knows what "Castel Doctrine" means anymore
And some don't even know how to spell it... :D

sserdlihc
January 21, 2012, 10:18 PM
Life choices have consequences

and death choices have rewards.

madmag
January 21, 2012, 11:05 PM
Here is the latest.

http://www.wyff4.com/news/30267025/detail.html

We will not be charging this gentleman," Wright said.

kinggabby
January 21, 2012, 11:12 PM
According to our CCW class a place a person has a right to be can be a restaurant or even on a public street. Same for Oklahoma. As long as you are legal to be there with your gun there in duty to retreat. Oklahoma laws you have the right to absolute safety. Home, car or out and about. And also if it is deemed that you are in the right for the shooting . No civil law suits either. Good job for the customer one less bad guy to deal with. Hopefully his friend will learn from this .

madmag
January 21, 2012, 11:19 PM
According to the latest report the CCW customer was attempting to hold the robbers for police. I am not sure I would intervene to hold the robbers if I had not already been threatened. But I do support the customers actions, and apparently so does the sheriff.

C0untZer0
January 21, 2012, 11:25 PM
If they don't apprehend the accomplice that is going to put a dent in my theory that DGUs seldom result in any criminals remaining at large.

kinggabby
January 21, 2012, 11:27 PM
According to the latest report the CCW customer was attempting to hold the robbers for police. I am not sure I would intervene to hold the robbers if I had not already been threatened. But I do support the customers actions, and apparently so does the sheriff. Either way good job. One way you hold them so they be charged with armed robbery to get them off the street or as he did have a gun pointed at you then shoot . Either way once less punk on the street just second method is for good.

Alaska444
January 22, 2012, 12:05 AM
Here is a news report with Sheriff interview/press conference on the shooting. Sounds like the men were terrorizing 10 people in the place when the CCW holder intervened. He had them at gunpoint telling them to drop the weapon and surrender when the kid that was shot went to shoot the CCW holder who responded. Sounds like he was restrained until the two punks pushed it too far.

http://www2.wspa.com/news/2012/jan/21/2/one-suspect-dead-another-run-after-attempted-armed-ar-3086970/

Alaska444
January 22, 2012, 12:23 AM
Here is another news report that adds a bit more information. They were moving the employees into the back room and putting the customers on the floor when the CCW intervened. Very dangerous situation. Sounds like he did the right thing and may have saved someone's life in the process. By the way, the kid killed turned 19 that day.

http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/16570511/deputies-suspect-killed-by-customer-during-waffle-house-armed-robbery

C0untZer0
January 22, 2012, 01:24 AM
Well - since this is about tactics, I don't think it was a good idea to try hold them...

He was being herded into the back - a precursor in the past for a massacre (Brown's Chicken in Palatine IL for example).

IMO the best tactic would have been to draw and shoot. I am glad it turned out well for him, but he put himself and others at risk trying to disarm the gunman by pointing his own gun at him.

MLeake
January 22, 2012, 01:33 AM
I have to agree with CZ on this one, barring some issues we don't know about with lines of sight and bystander positions.

I'm not saying I wouldn't take prisoners, if they surrendered; I am saying that with two on one, and at least one armed with a firearm, I don't feel much compulsion to give a warning.

First, could be bad for me.

Second, could be bad for the other victims, if something bad happens to me.

Needs of the many, plus the needs of the one, equals take the clean shot as I see it.

Baylorattorney
January 22, 2012, 02:22 AM
Thanks for posting. I'm always looking for evidence where concealed carry prevents crime. Many news agencies I feel under report it,so it's important to disseminate this info ourselves as often as possible. Good shoot here.

Baylorattorney
January 22, 2012, 02:24 AM
It is very sad to hear the would be robber turned 19 that day, but this is the world we live and die in. Still it is sad and tragic, but the shooter did right, the dead robber did wrong.

Baylorattorney
January 22, 2012, 02:25 AM
The accomplice is to blame for the death, judicially.

Baylorattorney
January 22, 2012, 02:28 AM
The sadness of that life lost happened a good bit of time before the bullet hit him.

Good point.

SCDeac82
January 22, 2012, 03:15 AM
Pretty sure Castle Doctrine in SC covers home, car & your place of business.

The Spartanburg Sherriff is a big 2A supporter.

Hope it goes well for the CCW gentleman.

JB

Double Naught Spy
January 22, 2012, 08:58 AM
Thanks for posting. I'm always looking for evidence where concealed carry prevents crime.

I am not sure that crime was prevented. The story documents a considerable amount of crime that occurred against the business, each employee, and each patron. That the crimes were not brought to successful completion by the bad guys was prevented, but the crimes definitely occurred.

madmag
January 22, 2012, 09:28 AM
After reading the details, it is apparent the CCW shooter did the right thing. Usually it comes to a bad end when robbers move people to a back room. They probably wanted to eliminate any witnesses.

Sefner
January 22, 2012, 11:55 AM
I am not sure that crime was prevented. The story documents a considerable amount of crime that occurred against the business, each employee, and each patron. That the crimes were not brought to successful completion by the bad guys was prevented, but the crimes definitely occurred.

I agree with DNS here. In fact I would go so far as to say that we should never make the argument the lawful citizens carrying concealed handguns prevents crime. A much better argument would be to say that firearms legally used in self defense stop bad things that are already happening from happening to innocent people. Obviously getting robbed is still a bad thing, but it (and any other nefarious actions that the scumbags might have had in mind) was stopped when the violence was re-directed at non-innocent actors, which is exactly what happens when a lawfully carried firearm is used against criminals. In other words, carrying a concealed firearm does not prevent bad things, it just puts the results of those bad things onto the people who are responsible for them instead of the innocent people.

Also CCW and crime reductions is a very hard thing to statistically prove.

HALL,AUSTIN
January 22, 2012, 12:07 PM
I believe that if a weapon is peresent it will be used, so once a weapon is pointed at me, laws be darned, gun use is now on the table. But I have never had a gun in my face save ignorant occurences while at shooting ranges. That being said I dont know if I would draw and hope to open 6 small cans of whoopass or if I would pee my pants. But seems like a clean shoot to me.

C0untZer0
January 22, 2012, 12:12 PM
In 2006 South Carolina enacted a law called 'Protection of Persons and Property Act'. Twice in the wording of the bill they mention "castle doctrine"

Yes SC's Protection of Persons and Property Act applies to people at their place of business.

Section 16-11-440. (A) A person is presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to himself or another person when using deadly force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury to another person if the person:

(1) against whom the deadly force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if he removes or is attempting to remove another person against his will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(2) who uses deadly force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring or has occurred.

(C) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in another place where he has a right to be, including, but not limited to, his place of business, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or another person or to prevent the commission of a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.


The citizen who used his firearm in this case is not covered by SC's castle doctrine because he was in his place of business - the Waffle House. The citizen who shot Dante Williams does not own the Waffle House.

However, the citizen is covered under Protection of Persons and Property Act by the clause in sub section C which says " A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in another place where he has a right to be.."

The citizen had a right to be there. While I think it should be against the law for a grown man to say "rutti tutti fresh and fruity", it's not, and that's a different restaraunt anyway... so basically the man who shot Dante Williams is covered under South Carolina's Protection of Persons and Property Act, also called South Carolina's castle doctrine.

C0untZer0
January 22, 2012, 12:22 PM
... CCW and crime reductions is a very hard thing to statistically prove.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/19/fast-and-furious-stinks/

According to the editorialist:

More guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens ultimately ensures more dead bad guys

ndking1126
January 22, 2012, 12:45 PM
I graduated college in Spartanburg in 2005 and my parents, sisters and brother in law live in Spartanburg and general area still.. I left that place as soon as possible and can't figure out why my family still lives there. It's a dangerous city. I really liked my college, but that's about it!

But to stay on topic, I do appreciate the laws in the state that favor the person defending himself, not the attacker. I seriously doubt the CCW gets charged with anything, based on the small amount of info we were given.

sagamore
January 22, 2012, 04:34 PM
Arrest of the second bad guy;
http://www.thestate.com/2012/01/22/2123939/man-charged-with-botched-sc-waffle.html

Baylorattorney
January 22, 2012, 04:51 PM
I am not sure that crime was prevented. The story documents a considerable amount of crime that occurred against the business, each employee, and each patron. That the crimes were not brought to successful completion by the bad guys was prevented, but the crimes definitely occurred.

An attempted offense is quite different from an offense. For instance, attempted murder is quite distinct from murder, so no I stand by my contention that crimes were definitely prevented in this case, and the severity of crimes was as well.

Baylorattorney
January 22, 2012, 04:54 PM
Crime prevention begins with self defense, which is vigilance.

GaryH
January 22, 2012, 05:06 PM
Why would the robbers want to herd the employees and patrons into the back room if they were not wanting to eliminate all witnesses?

Alaska444
January 22, 2012, 05:09 PM
Nothing to speak of future crimes these two would most likely gone on to commit as well. Even Jesse James was shot up by a town prepared for him. Put a real damper on his crime spree back in the day. Nothing wrong with all the good guys having a firearm.

Not sure why America spends so much energy idolizing creeps like Jesse James, Billy the Kid, and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid, but we do to our shame. Nothing special about these two creeps that held up the Waffle house either. Time to put the good guy hero back in proper perspective. Time to support CCW across this entire nation and move towards constitutional carry once again.

Thankfully, the situation turned out well with no innocents hurt in this attack. It could have been much worse and I am sure that they would have only been emboldened to do more such holdups where the likelihood of harm to an innocent person would have been quite high.

Time to put his partner away for a good long time.

lefteye
January 22, 2012, 05:22 PM
Crimes committed before the good guy drew his weapon were not prevented. After the good guy drew his weapon he prevented an armed robbery (at a minimum) and perhaps one or more homicides. When I think about it, this may be true of all (or nearly all) lawful and successful self-defense uses of a firearm, i.e., the facts that make the self-defense use of a firearm lawful always (or nearly always) require an unlawful act by the bad guy.

madmag
January 22, 2012, 05:48 PM
Arrest of the second bad guy;

Thanks, I missed that in the local news.

Looks like at 29 years old the second BG had enough sense to run.

BTW, for those that don't know. Here in SC I have never found one single store, restaurant, etc that has a posting against CCW. This includes large chain stores down to mom/pop stores.

Kevin Rohrer
January 23, 2012, 10:24 AM
We discussed this incident at length on The High Road. Everyone agrees there that it was a job well done by the shooter.

Madmag: Is this area a suburb of a major city? It seems like the area has a lot of problems.

Kevin Rohrer
January 23, 2012, 10:32 AM
I am not sure that crime was prevented. The story documents a considerable amount of crime that occurred against the business, each employee, and each patron. That the crimes were not brought to successful completion by the bad guys was prevented, but the crimes definitely occurred.

Let me see here:

1. The robbery was foiled; no good person was injured and no money lost.
2. If the BGs had been planning on executing anyone, that crime was stopped before execution (pun intended)
3. Neither one of them will be committing any other robberies or assorted crimes in the future.

Nope, no crimes were prevented here. :rolleyes:

sserdlihc
January 23, 2012, 11:47 AM
The population of Spartanburg is around 150,000. I live about 25 miles away and only go to spartanburg as on a "have to" basis.

C0untZer0
January 23, 2012, 11:49 AM
Things ended up turning out alright for the shooter.

If the debate is over whether he should have drawn his pistol, I agree he should have drawn. If the debate is over whether he should have shot the gunman Dante Williams - I agree he should have shot him.

But there are a few things here tactically that he could have done better and could have really gone badly.

1) Trying to hold the perpetrators for police.

IMO, he should have just drawn his own firearm and shot. Period.

Dante Williams could have shot him, or could have just "started shooting" and shot other patrons. The accomplice could have done the same thing. An initial report said that the accomplice was unarmed, but a subsequent report says that "two armed men entered the restaurant and tried to rob it." and:
"Deputies arrested Kenneth Jowan Craig, 29, and charged him with armed robbery and possession of a deadly weapon during a violent crime."

2) According to another report, he got into a physical scuffle with the second robber Kenneth Jowan Craig.


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.


http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/165...-armed-robbery

I'm glad that no innocent people were hurt, and the citizen should be commended for a defensive gun use that stopped a crime, but there are some bad tactics that were employed.



.

madmag
January 23, 2012, 02:16 PM
Madmag: Is this area a suburb of a major city? It seems like the area has a lot of problems.

I live in SC but about 70 miles from Spartanburg. I think this was is a city area. It has a reputation for lots of crime.

sagamore
January 23, 2012, 07:50 PM
The location of the attempted robbery was here (LINK (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=wh+chesnee+highway+spartanburg+sc&oe=utf-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=1P8dT6HpGIq8tgeIlNW9Cw&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=3&ved=0CAwQ_AUoAg)).

Double Naught Spy
January 23, 2012, 09:24 PM
Why would the robbers want to herd the employees and patrons into the back room if they were not wanting to eliminate all witnesses?

Crowd control. They can't watch people over a large area so they confine them. This isn't an uncommon tactic.

When I think about it, this may be true of all (or nearly all) lawful and successful self-defense uses of a firearm, i.e., the facts that make the self-defense use of a firearm lawful always (or nearly always) require an unlawful act by the bad guy.

Right. So a robbery was prevented, but attempted robbery occurred. You still have crime being committed. This is why these events don't produce noticeable changes in crime rates, even when the bad guys are killed.

Opinated
January 24, 2012, 12:50 PM
This is the same sheriff that offered 30 women free training for CCW about a month ago after a woman was forced off the road after being followed from a convenience store. She was unarmed and was murdered. That incident was discussed on this forum.

C0untZer0
January 24, 2012, 02:44 PM
Subsection A actually deals with "castles" - residence, dwelling, vehicle etc..

Subsection C just says:

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in another place where he has a right to be, including, but not limited to, his place of business, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or another person or to prevent the commission of a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.

Not sure why they mixed place of business with any other place a person has a right to be but anyway...

You can never tell what a jury is going to do but, in Illinois, most juries would consider being herded into a room as being in immnent peril. There have been too many instances where employees and patrons were herded into a room and killed execution style, including the infamous Palatine Brown's Chicken Massacre.

It may not matter under SC's Protection of Persons and Property Act any way because he also had the right to use deadly force to prevent a violent crime. The authorities aren't splitting hairs in this case, they obviously beleive the law covers the patron. I guess we'd have to see if the relatives of the deceased or the remaining assailant brings a challenge of it to court.


But the whole thing of being herded into a room - in Illinois at least would meet the criteria for resonable belief of impending death.

jimbob86
January 24, 2012, 03:10 PM
The sadness of that life lost happened a good bit of time before the bullet hit him.

Yes and no:

It is sad, but no life was lost. This guy did not lose his life, he threw it away, gambling it for the money in the till. Guess he did not value it much...... that is sad.

madmag
January 24, 2012, 09:09 PM
Crowd control. They can't watch people over a large area so they confine them. This isn't an uncommon tactic.


But the whole thing of being herded into a room - in Illinois at least would meet the criteria for reasonable belief of impending death.

This back room thing is a key issue for me. Once you give into going to the back room you are trusting what the BG's want to do.....I don't like those odds. I will not interfere if robbers go to the counter and leave with the cash, but if they come to my area and demand people to go to a back room then there will be trouble for sure.

hogdogs
January 24, 2012, 09:21 PM
From early on...

I agree that if the would-be-robber pointed the gun at the person with the CCW permit, I would assume intent to harm, and do the same.

It is that waiting until a gun is pointed my way I don't like... I fight dirtier battles... I might have the upper hand in a draw if the armed BG don't know I am drawing as he isn't lookin' right at me...

Feller with a gun? Yepper... I have reason to fear one of his rounds is meant for me!

Brent

C0untZer0
January 24, 2012, 09:46 PM
^ I agree

Since this is a tactics forum I would just say it's bad tactics to wait until the bad guy points a gun at you to shoot, but he wouldn't have been in that situation if he hadn't first made the decision to "hold" the assailants at gun point until LE arrived - another bad tactic.

There is a lot of talk on this thread about castle doctine - but just to separate it for a moment, not to belabor the old cliché "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" but from my point of view - no matter what state I'm in, regardless of what laws are in place, if someone initiates a robbery in an establisment with me in it, I'm going to constantly be making a judgement of what is my risk of bodily harm or death - if he is going to take the money and go or if he's going to do more... and as soon as robbers start herding people into a backroom, the scale just tipped and I am going to look for the BEST opportunity to draw my weapon and stop the aggression. If that means the assailant is looking the other way and I shoot him while his back is turned - so be it.

musher
January 24, 2012, 09:47 PM
This is why these events don't produce noticeable changes in crime rates

source? :confused:

madmag
January 24, 2012, 10:18 PM
This is why these events don't produce noticeable changes in crime rates


source?

Good question. One thing for sure, some of the areas with the strongest gun control are some of the highest gun crime areas in the country.

I think if there is a high incidence of civilians that lawfully CCW, then you will see a reduction in crime in that area. I admit I don' have numbers in hand but I remember a few years ago about an area in Florida that had civilian CCW after high crime rates and the crime went down.

Anyway, the crime rate for that day at that Waffle House was reduced by about 100%.

Sefner
January 25, 2012, 12:10 AM
Anyway, the crime rate for that day at that Waffle House was reduced by about 100%.

No, it wasn't. A violent crime was committed: Attempted armed robbery. That is a crime, it makes the crime rate go up.

source?

Sources:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/116969
Says that studies that say that more concealed guns reduce crime are "suspect".

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/legstud27&div=13&id=&page=
"... no basis for drawing confident conclusions about the impact of right-to-carry laws on violent crime."

http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/IJLE-ConcealedGunLaws-1998.pdf
"... results suggest that shall-issue laws have resulted, if anything, an increase in adult homicide rates"

http://hercules.gcsu.edu/~jswinton/ECON%204990/Criminal%20Deterrence.pdf
"The benefits that a county obtains from its state passing a shail-issue concealed-handgun law are generally stronger than those found in previous work. Spillover effects on neighboring areas are almost always deleterious."
In other words, counties benefit, but it seems that crime just moves elsewhere instead of reducing.

Good question. One thing for sure, some of the areas with the strongest gun control are some of the highest gun crime areas in the country.

Violent crime rate for Anchorage, Alaska (no permit required for concealed carry) in 2005: 735.6 per 100,000. (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_08_ak.html)
Violent crime rate for New York City (no concealed carry allowed) in 2008: 444.4 per 100,000. (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm)

Crime is not as simple as allowing concealed handguns. This brings me back to my original point: we should not try to make the argument that carrying concealed handguns reduces crime. We need to say that it stops crime from happening to law abiding innocent people.

kinggabby
January 25, 2012, 12:36 AM
whether you agree or disagree about this stopping a crime. You can at least agree it helped stop some future crime. If the 19 year old would not have been shot and killed he probably would have went one to commit a future crime. This goes for the guy who was later arrested. So by him being killed and the other arrested that takes 2 criminals off the street.

FrankenMauser
January 25, 2012, 12:38 AM
Sources:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/116969
Says that studies that say that more concealed guns reduce crime are "suspect".

-Your link requires a subscription to read the article.


http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPag...v=13&id=&page=
"... no basis for drawing confident conclusions about the impact of right-to-carry laws on violent crime."

-An analysis of the previous article; written by people loyal to the University of Chicago; with a bias toward getting guns out of the inner city. Your link requires a subscription to read the article.


http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/pa...nLaws-1998.pdf
"... results suggest that shall-issue laws have resulted, if anything, an increase in adult homicide rates"

-Again, written by Chicago authors with a bias toward the Brady bunch, and removing guns from the inner city. Not to mention, it's 14 years old.


http://hercules.gcsu.edu/~jswinton/E...Deterrence.pdf
"The benefits that a county obtains from its state passing a shail-issue concealed-handgun law are generally stronger than those found in previous work. Spillover effects on neighboring areas are almost always deleterious."
In other words, counties benefit, but it seems that crime just moves elsewhere instead of reducing.
-What's the problem? If it gets crime out of my area, why should I care?
You also left out the primary statement in that data: "Except for assaults, these spillover effects are either deleterious or insignificant."
...Not that the "insignificant" spill over effects matter... they're plugging their statistics into an unproven algorithm. None of their conclusions are based on hard data. It's based on estimates that were pumped out of the algorithm.



Violent crime rate for Anchorage, Alaska (no permit required for concealed carry) in 2005: 735.6 per 100,000. (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_08_ak.html)
Violent crime rate for New York City (no concealed carry allowed) in 2008: 444.4 per 100,000. (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm)

That isn't a fair comparison. They're using different data collection and reporting methods. I can find data to support the idea that it's cheaper to live on Mars, than in Manhattan; but that doesn't make it true.

madmag
January 25, 2012, 09:40 AM
Good reply from FrankenMauser. I can only add this:

We need to say that it stops crime from happening to law abiding innocent people.

Ok, works for me.:)

Sefner
January 25, 2012, 10:24 AM
Calling the people who write the studies "biased towards the brady bunch" is an ad hominem pure and simple. You can't toss aside several sources just because they are from Chicago. That's something the Brady Campaign would do. And the "algorithm" is far from unproven. Neighborhood spillover effects are something that have been studied successfully for years (if that's what you're talking about... it's not really an algorithm they are using, it's a statistical model)...

What's the problem? If it gets crime out of my area, why should I care?

Because that's not what we are talking about, we are talking about whether or not shall-issue reduces crime. My hypothesis says "maybe, but it's hard to prove". This paper, by saying that it only moves crime around supports that. If the crime moves, people are still getting robbed, raped, and murdered, just in different locations. It's a sad moral system that puts value on human life based on geographic location.

I've provided sources to back up my points, I await the same from the other side other than discrediting the sources. Sad that the thread has come to that. And you don't need an account to read that abstract that gives the overview of the results. I can get more if needed, there is far from a lack of substance in the literature.

That isn't a fair comparison. They're using different data collection and reporting methods. I can find data to support the idea that it's cheaper to live on Mars, than in Manhattan; but that doesn't make it true.

The comparison is totally fair, you said that places with lax gun laws have lower crime rates and I've produced a result contrary to that. I could also produce a result that supports your conclusion, but that's not my point. My point is that crime is not as simple as "let people carry concealed handguns", there are tons more factors.

That data comes from the same place, the FBI's UCR. Here are the links to Anchorage and New York City, the numbers are the same:
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_08_ak.html
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_08_ny.html

At least try to refute the central point or get data that does instead of simply trying to discredit my data and sources as "the brady bunch"... That's not how this works.

Good reply from FrankenMauser. I can only add this:

We need to say that it stops crime from happening to law abiding innocent people.

Ok, works for me.

The difference in my verbiage is minute but important. We do know that many people have successfully defended themselves with concealed handguns, and that's the stories we need to tell. We need to tell stories like OP's. Stories of the grandma that defends her home from the 3 street thugs. Stories of the young woman who kills the serial rapist after being attacked on the street. Stories of how guns turned the table on violence scumbags. It is hard to say that concealed guns reduce overall crime (and if it were, it doesn't pull on the heartstrings like these stories do). It is very easy to say that concealed guns have saved countless lives from victimhood.

kazanski612
January 25, 2012, 10:51 AM
This should never have turned into "CCW reduces crime" discussion. That's missing the whole point.

None of us will ever be able to reduce crime. But we may be able to one day save a life. Here's to hoping none of us are ever in that position.

Sefner
January 25, 2012, 10:57 AM
This should never have turned into "CCW reduces crime" discussion. That's missing the whole point.

None of us will ever be able to reduce crime. But we may be able to one day save a life. Here's to hoping none of us are ever in that position.

Excellent post!

Back on topic: Do we think it was OK for him to try to hold two attackers at gun point when one has a gun? I think it would be alright at that point (when the gun was pointed at him) to draw and immediately go hot, I'm not so sure attempting negotiations would be the most tactically viable choice...

Young.Gun.612
January 25, 2012, 11:11 AM
Perhaps attempting to subdue them until police arrived was just a CYA method? That way in case an overzealous attorney convinced the family of the deceased to try and press a civil suit it could be in the record that he tried to simply stop them before firing? in order to not appear to be a trigger happy vigilante.

madmag
January 25, 2012, 11:12 AM
First, you can find statistics to support either argument. Like the following interview with John Lott.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

Lott: Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.

Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves.


This should never have turned into "CCW reduces crime" discussion. That's missing the whole point.

As the OP I agree.

The main point was to illustrate a SD shooting that represents a scenario that I have thought of many times. It's not a perfect world. Carrying a firearm can work against you, but I think the odds of it helping are in my favor. If I didn't believe that then I would not carry.

DasGuy
January 25, 2012, 12:36 PM
Somewhat related: http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/16595316/spartanburg-councilman-wants-sheriff-to-drop-weapons-push?utm_source=va&utm_medium=rec&************=content

"Spartanburg Co. councilman wants sheriff to drop weapons push"

Some of the highlights: "The Herald-Journal of Spartanburg reported that Councilman Michael Brown said he thinks Sheriff Chuck Wright's efforts are irresponsible." "...think Wright's efforts promote an environment of lawlessness."

Yep, if the Sheriff hadn't been supporting CCWs, this robbery never would have happened! ;)

C0untZer0
January 25, 2012, 03:49 PM
Do we think it was OK for him to try to hold two attackers at gun point when one has a gun?

No

I don't think that was a sound tactical decision. It could have opened things up to get much worse. It did lead to one of the robbbers pointing a gun at him (drawing a bead on him?).


I think it would be alright at that point (when the gun was pointed at him) to draw and immediately go hot

I think it was unwise to pass up an opportunity to use his firearm on the assialants and wait until the assailant actually pointed his gun at him to fire.

I agree with Brent:

It is that waiting until a gun is pointed my way I don't like...


.

2damnold4this
January 25, 2012, 04:32 PM
http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/pa...nLaws-1998.pdf
"... results suggest that shall-issue laws have resulted, if anything, an increase in adult homicide rates"

Ludwig uses people too young to carry as a control group for a state that has instituted right to carry laws. I don't buy that as young people are often around people who do carry and may get some of the protective benefit. A better control would be a nearby state that has not changed its carry law. I'm surprised Ludwig didn't use the states that didn't change carry laws as a control group as that is what he used when evaluating the effects of the Brady Bill.


Here is a good discussion of the effects of concealed carry on crime. (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=120)

While the effects on crime rates are ambiguous, concealed carry can and does make a big difference to individuals.

madmag
January 25, 2012, 07:00 PM
The crime reduction related to CCW discussion is certainly a worthy subject, but the problem is that it is probably un-ending, at least from a statistical data stand point.

When I started this thread I was thinking more in terms of how we all feel when we choose to CCW on a daily basis. I know when I walk out the door I am not thinking about crime statistics, but more about what I can or would do if confronted by a BG threating myself or my family. Well, now days there is just my wife and myself, my kids are all grown and living in other states.

Anyway, I find it's best to think out actions before they happen rather than waiting until it actually happens. I am not sure I would have done exactly as the CCW person in the Waffle House incident, but it's a real world situation that should be studied.

You go out on a nice daylight trip to eat breakfast and all of a sudden your are defending your life.

Sefner
January 25, 2012, 10:11 PM
You go out on a nice daylight trip to eat breakfast and all of a sudden your are defending your life.

I think this has to be part of the mindset of a concealed carrier... It would definitely help with the guilt that occurs after using your firearm in self defense. I think it was Massad Ayoob (his name be praised) that said that you have to tell yourself after a defensive shooting that (paraphrasing here, I cannot even hope to be as eloquent) "you did not wake up that day and decide to visit violent acts upon innocent people."

Double Naught Spy
January 26, 2012, 04:23 PM
madmag said...
This back room thing is a key issue for me. Once you give into going to the back room you are trusting what the BG's want to do.....I don't like those odds. I will not interfere if robbers go to the counter and leave with the cash, but if they come to my area and demand people to go to a back room then there will be trouble for sure.

Negotiations at the end of a weapon aren't negotiations at all and there is no reason to believe the honesty of a person committing a dishonest act.

I understanding about not interfering with a robber that goes to the counter and leaves with the cash. Of course, you are "trusting" the robber won't start shooting before leaving. It doesn't happen often, of course, and that is why compliance is often a very good thing to do when you (the general public, not you personally) haven't a clue about what to do or haven't thought about your options before the event starts.

The crime reduction related to CCW discussion is certainly a worthy subject, but the problem is that it is probably un-ending, at least from a statistical data stand point.

If you think about it as a CCW person, what is the one or one set of statistics that matters to you at the end of the day? Is it whether or not crime was reduced or is it that you and your loved ones got through another day? I can't think of a single person that I have spoken with who has been involved in ccw use of a gun or any recounting of the events by a ccw person who acted in self defense that ever gave a single thought to crime statistics, crime rates, or how their event fit with any sort of trends. What they all seem to care about is that they, their loved ones, and may be others survived as a result of their actions.

C0untZer0
January 26, 2012, 08:28 PM
I believe that you should be thinking when you're carrying - that goes from not doing things that create or escalate confrontations to how you react in a robbery or car jacking.

I am glad this turned out well. If it hadn't, you can be sure the Brady Campaign would be using it as grist for their agenda pandering mill.

My first thought when trying to hold criminals at gun point - especially when at least one of them is obviously armed woudl be that I'm going to get shot.

I would also be thinking about the dangers to others of precipitating a shootout - that's why if I had the oportunity to simply shoot the assailants while their attention was diverted or even while their backs were turned - I'd take it.