SC CCW Shoots Restaurant Robber

[C0untZer0]

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]

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]

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/2...ed-ar-3086970/

[Alaska444]

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/165...-armed-robbery

[C0untZer0]

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]

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]

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]

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]

The accomplice is to blame for the death, judicially.

[Baylorattorney]

Originally Posted by garryc

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

Good point.

[SCDeac82]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...urious-stinks/

According to the editorialist:

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

[ndking1126]

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]

Arrest of the second bad guy;
http://www.thestate.com/2012/01/22/2...sc-waffle.html

[Baylorattorney]

Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy

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]

Crime prevention begins with self defense, which is vigilance.

[GaryH]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by sagamore

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.