Waffle House Customer Shoots and Kills Armed Robber.

[WC1911guy]

The perp's were also in the act of committing a forcible felony which is the third justification for use of deadly force in Ga.

Thanks for adding that. I skipped it based on the obviousness of it but that is certainly another valid legal justification for the use of deadly force.

 

[jdcbolt03]

scattered covered and smothered...

^^^^^ my thoughts exactly

 

[bass406]

This was definately a good shoot and worked out great. I do want to comment of the "Ability, Oppurtunity, and Jeopardy". You will not find a law or case law that reads a person has to have these three to justify using deadly force. This is a guideline that is taught to LEO, but can also be a "hick up" making the decision to use deadly force. If a man has a holstered gun and tells you he is going to kill you, should you wait til he draws it? Are all three "A.O.J." present here? NO. he has made the overt threat, has the means, but has not acted yet. It's articulation. "I shot him because he told me he was going to kill me, and I thought he was going to kill me". It's not what you did it's can you explain why you did what you did.

The CCW holder waited until the perps started making customers get in the floor and taking employees to the back, in my mind, that's when people start getting hurt for no reason. Perps have the money so why push the situation further? Simple, violence and fear. That's why there is an increase in home invasions also. It's about the violence. The shooting was justified, LE agreed.

Opportunity, ability and jeopardy. All must be in place to legally use deadly force against a person in defense of yourself or a third party. All were I place in that situation. The criminal's personal résumé are irrelevant as soon as they choose to commit a violent act against other people.

He got what he deserved both legally and morally IMO based on a Military, PMC and LEO background.

 

[Ken Ford]

SOOOOO, what your saying is that its fine for cops to protect one another against a guy with a pipe by use of deadly force, but its not ok for a CCW holder to protect themselves and others by use of deadly force when having a gun pointed at them?

Did we read ALL of the post?

I have no problem with the justification in either post.

 

[protective measures]

This was definately a good shoot and worked out great. I do want to comment of the "Ability, Oppurtunity, and Jeopardy". You will not find a law or case law that reads a person has to have these three to justify using deadly force. This is a guideline that is taught to LEO, but can also be a "hick up" making the decision to use deadly force. If a man has a holstered gun and tells you he is going to kill you, should you wait til he draws it? Are all three "A.O.J." present here? NO. he has made the overt threat, has the means, but has not acted yet. It's articulation. "I shot him because he told me he was going to kill me, and I thought he was going to kill me". It's not what you did it's can you explain why you did what you did.[/QUOTE

Ga.code says that the attacker must convey through WORDS or actions their intent to cause death or grave bodily harm.
The disadvantage that some schools teaching firearms have is that the Instructors backgrounds are all L.E. or Mil. and they are most familiar w/ different rules of engagement. While some of the better ones recognize that & modify their curriculum, many do not & give poor advice.
There are still L.E. officers in my area telling civilians to drag a perps body inside the house if they shoot them outside the door.
I just had a couples class yesterday where one of the people who attended had a friend in the local Sheriffs office who had advised him to do that.

 

[WC1911guy]

This was definately a good shoot and worked out great. I do want to comment of the "Ability, Oppurtunity, and Jeopardy". You will not find a law or case law that reads a person has to have these three to justify using deadly force. This is a guideline that is taught to LEO, but can also be a "hick up" making the decision to use deadly force. If a man has a holstered gun and tells you he is going to kill you, should you wait til he draws it? Are all three "A.O.J." present here? NO. he has made the overt threat, has the means, but has not acted yet. It's articulation. "I shot him because he told me he was going to kill me, and I thought he was going to kill me". It's not what you did it's can you explain why you did what you did.

All good points. Yes this is strictly LE training and civilians do not have the training and are not held to that standard BUT even in LE, to use your example of an individual with a holstered weapon, jeopardy would have been attached/established based on the perps actions at that point (and including, up to that point). To many other factor to play the "if" game. (number of officers on sight, his previous actions, other lesser uses of force available, location/surroundings, presented mental status, ect &#8230 You are always evaluating and staying 1 step ahead. The use of force scale is a sliding continuum and constantly changing based on the situation. Sounds like you already know this so I'm just writing it for the readers that don't. I think the bottom line is that jeopardy is simply perception and so many factors feed into that perception that it's simply a judgement call. Some will act sooner than others.

Back to the application of force in the original situation, being a civilian and untrained in the standards used by LE he simply waited until he felt himself or others threatened and then acted with what he felt was appropriate force. Had he been an LEO he would have been justified/required to act as soon as the perps began the act of the forceable felony if the firearm was already out (not sure on the facts). It would be a judgment call of course based on a number of factors but either way the CCW holder showed good judgement IMO and I applaud his actions as any number of the innocent people there could have been hurt or killed for no reason other than wanting some Awful Waffle late at night.