SC CCW Shoots Restaurant Robber

M

madmag

New member
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/20...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??
 
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.
 
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...
 
Might want to read your own cite...

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.
Click to expand...

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


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
Click to expand...

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

Anyway, the real issue is if the CCW will be charged.
 
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.
 
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:
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 ...
 
sserdlihc said:
Another great reason why I love living in South Carolina.
Click to expand...

Same here.

bikerbill said:
What does the Castle Doctrine have to do with a peaceful customer facing an armed robber?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top