Two masked men had entered the restaurant with the intention of robbing it, and at least one of them was armed, authorities said.Well, first of all, they always say "the bad guy pointed the gun me." I don't believe it. What often happens is the "good guy" shoots too quickly and afterwards decides to make the part up about pointing the gun in order to justify what he's done.
A customer, who is a concealed weapons permit holder, thwarted the robbery by pulling his gun and attempting to hold the men until deputies arrived. When one of the men pointed his gun at the customer, the patron fired, killing the teenager.
And in Spartanburg, South Carolina, what do you think the other customers are going to say? Do you think they'll tend to defend the dead black kid? I don't.
The problem with most DGUs is exactly this. Even the shooter is not sure if it was really necessary, at least in most cases. If he's honest about it, he must admit it's not possible to know the intentions of the armed robber. Blowing the guy away at the first opportunity and afterwards calling him names like "goblin" and "scumbag" is not the right behavior.
I picture these concealed carry guys in diners and shopping centers like their hunting counterparts in the woods. A black teenager waving a gun around is like a 10-point buck that suddenly appears 100 yards away. The only problem is the cops won't let them take a trophy for their wall at home.
What's your opinion? What percentage of legitimate DGUs do you think are really legitimate, read necessary?
Please leave a comment.
mikeb302000 said...
ReplyDelete"Well, first of all, they always say "the bad guy pointed the gun me." I don't believe it. What often happens is the "good guy" shoots too quickly and afterwards decides to make the part up about pointing the gun in order to justify what he's done."
Yeah, mikeb, it's a conspiracy. The dozen customers, the employees, the sheriff's deputies, the sheriff himself, all covering up the murder of this young man who was just sitting around minding his own business.
"If he's honest about it, he must admit it's not possible to know the intentions of the armed robber."
No doubt, robber could have been just wanting to scare the citizen but as the Sheriff said "The way you get shot by a concealed weapons permit holder is you point a gun at him,"
And instead if this was just another incident where the robber killed a customer, DogGone would have posted this commenting something about it being a gun owner gone wild.
ReplyDeleteThe good citizen shot too quickly? How so? Two thugs come in, one of them armed, to rob the joint. That's all we need to know. I don't care whether the robbers were black or white or green with yellow spots. They crossed the line, and they were stopped.
ReplyDeleteLet's also note that the good citizen didn't shoot in the first moment. He tried to get the robbers to give up. Note also that the good citizen didn't hit anyone else, despite Dog Gone's claims that concealed carry license holders are a menace to the public.
Any answers to Mikeb's question, "What percentage of legitimate DGUs do you think are really legitimate, read necessary?" depend on one's definition of "necessary". Mikeb's and dog gone's commentary seem to indicate that a defensive gun use is not necessary until after the criminal has already started shooting at the victims ... or if the criminal has a knife and has stabbed a victim several times and even then it is iffy.
ReplyDeleteMy definition of necessary is when a criminal possesses a weapon during an assault/robbery ... or if there are multiple criminals involved in an assault/robbery.
The criminal's actions have already justified a citizen to use force. To suggest otherwise goes against 100s of years of common law and undermines society. That said, if/when an armed citizen would actually draw and/or shoot depends on too many factors to list in this blog. Whatever the circumstances, they are legally and morally justified to act if they choose.
Mike, we know how you like to “read into” the story regarding details that were missing from the report. But in this case, you are either ignoring, or “reading into” the exact opposite of what we know.
ReplyDeleteMikeB: “Blowing the guy away at the first opportunity and afterwards calling him names like "goblin" and "scumbag" is not the right behavior.”
From the report: Sheriff Chuck Wright said he does not plan to charge the customer, who he says is “very upset” about the shooting.
Oh, I get it. You interpreted this to mean he was “upset” that the other "scumbag goblin" got away. Was that how you read that? The report was also clear that the CCW holder showed restraint, and only acted when they started moving people into the back. Not exactly “first opportunity”.
I would like to add to Anonymous' criteria for responding with force. Anonymous said,
ReplyDelete"My definition of necessary is when a criminal possesses a weapon during an assault/robbery ... or if there are multiple criminals involved in an assault/robbery."
I would add that if the criminal assaulting/robbing the victim was unarmed but had a substantial physical advantage over the victim, then the victim would also be justified to respond with force.
Mike- What is a DGU? I'm only going to bring up race because it's in your post. I read the article, there is no mention of the Patron's race. Is it not possible he is black.
ReplyDeleteOne more thing. This tragedy could have easily been avoided two separate ways.
1- The patron not carrying a concealed weapon.
2- The offenders having more respect for human life, not to mention the law.
I think #2 is a better option.
Do you think the offender obtained his firearm legally? Why are people not discussing that?
J.O.B., DGU stands for Defensive Gun Use.
ReplyDeleteWhat I object to is the cavalier attitude often displayed by gun owners about killing bad guys. I didn't say this is what happened at the Waffle House, but it does come accross in the comments too often.
This event was a tragedy, properly speaking, since the robber had a character flaw that led him to a bad end. This ain't Aeschylus, but it surely was to be expected.
ReplyDeleteMike- I understand your comments about the "Cavalier" attitude. But, it is a good chance that the patron was saddened by this event and may even require some therapy. It's an even better chance that he will continue to carry, especially now. I would.
ReplyDeleteThe gravity of what FatWhiteMan said didn't hit me until this evening. He's right. No matter how an event plays out, the gun grabbers are going to cry foul.
ReplyDeleteSince an event involving a firearm is always "wrong" (unless the only individual with a firearm was a law enforcement officer), I cannot help but conclude that MikeB and friends want to totally eliminate all firearms in the hands of all citizens.
To back up my statement about an event with a firearm always being "wrong", here's what MikeB and friends will assert:
(1) If the criminal has the gun, the criminal acquired the gun from an irresponsible law abiding citizen so the citizen is at fault.
(2) If the citizen has the gun, they really didn't need to shoot the criminal because they could have used non-lethal force so the citizen is at fault.
(3) Or, if the citizen has the gun, they should not have shot at the criminal because they could have missed and injured a bystander so the citizen is at fault.
(4) Or, if the citizen has the gun, they should not have shot because they had the wrong attitude and the citizen is at fault.
(5) Or, if the citizen had the gun, they should not have used it because the criminal could have taken it away from the citizen so the citizen is at fault.
Wrong, Capn, I've posted legitimage DGUs right here on this blog. I don't deny they exist, nor do I deny that there are truly responsible gun owners. It's the numbers I dispute.
DeleteCapn Crunch,
ReplyDeleteAdd to this the fact that Dog Gone has proposed exactly the kind of restrictions that exist in Washington, D.C. As can be seen in the Washington Times series, "Emily Gets A Gun," the rules are so difficult that no ordinary person has the time, money, or fortitude to work through them.
The security cameras clearly showed what happened. Why all the fiction for a gang member that could have hurt or killed innocent people.
ReplyDelete