SC CCW Shoots Restaurant Robber

madmag · January 21, 2012, 02:14 PM

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/201...#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

Quote:

Originally Posted by MLeake

Castle Doctrine would not apply

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

http://www.sled.sc.gov/ProtectionOfP...spx?MenuID=CWP

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by sserdlihc

Another great reason why I love living in South Carolina.

Same here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bikerbill

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:

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

Sad to see any life lost

No, it would have been sad to see innocent life lost.
Life choices have consequences, and too many people have yet to learn that lesson.

Quote:

I don't think anyone knows what "Castel Doctrine" means anymore

And some don't even know how to spell it...

sserdlihc · January 21, 2012, 10:18 PM

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

kinggabby · January 21, 2012, 11:12 PM

Quote:

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.

January 21, 2012, 02:14 PM	#1
madmag Senior Member Join Date: February 7, 2007 Location: The South Posts: 4,239	SC CCW Shoots Restaurant Robber http://www.charlotteobserver.com/201...#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??

January 21, 2012, 03:43 PM	#9
C0untZer0 Junior member Join Date: April 21, 2011 Location: Illinois Posts: 4,555	Another instance where Bad Guy has the drop on you? 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.

January 21, 2012, 04:26 PM	#10
C0untZer0 Junior member Join Date: April 21, 2011 Location: Illinois Posts: 4,555	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. Last edited by C0untZer0; January 23, 2012 at 11:26 AM.

January 21, 2012, 04:32 PM	#12
sserdlihc Senior Member Join Date: December 10, 2008 Location: S.C. Posts: 1,454	Another great reason why I love living in South Carolina. __________________ Familiarity breeds contempt, while rarity wins admiration. Aupleius If someone doesn't like you, that's their problem! Milton Childress

January 21, 2012, 04:37 PM	#13
bikerbill Senior Member Join Date: September 19, 2007 Location: Lago Vista TX Posts: 2,425	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 ... __________________ "The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants." Albert Camus

January 21, 2012, 02:19 PM	#2
garryc Senior Member Join Date: November 12, 2005 Posts: 2,536	The man posed a creditable threat of extreme bodily injury or death. Clean shoot.

January 21, 2012, 02:28 PM	#3
madmag Senior Member Join Date: February 7, 2007 Location: The South Posts: 4,239	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.

January 21, 2012, 02:46 PM	#4
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	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...

January 21, 2012, 03:03 PM	#5
armoredman Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 5,297	Wish for more details, but with the limited information available, sounds like a job well done.

January 21, 2012, 04:31 PM	#11
garryc Senior Member Join Date: November 12, 2005 Posts: 2,536	The guy had a natural right to use that level of force, case closed, doctrines be damned.

January 21, 2012, 04:49 PM	#16
Alaska444 Junior member Join Date: April 3, 2010 Posts: 1,231	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.

January 21, 2012, 05:02 PM	#17
gunowner1950 Junior Member Join Date: January 21, 2012 Location: Florida Posts: 1	SC CCW Shoots Restaurant Robber 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.

January 21, 2012, 08:27 PM	#18
hangglider Junior member Join Date: December 24, 2011 Posts: 212	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.

January 21, 2012, 09:27 PM	#20
Alaska444 Junior member Join Date: April 3, 2010 Posts: 1,231	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.

January 21, 2012, 11:19 PM	#25
madmag Senior Member Join Date: February 7, 2007 Location: The South Posts: 4,239	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.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search