• You are using the old Black Responsive theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

VIDEO - 71yr old stops would-be robbers. My question... did he take it too far?

Status
Not open for further replies.
When one goes out to rob others and takes up a weapon no matter if it is real or not, loaded or broken he does it to put fear in those he wishes to rob and in turn should be treated as such by armed citizens or police until his threat is stopped.
I have read some accounts over the years in which criminals pointed fake guns at cops and were shot for it.
IMO this even goes for those who would imply they were armed by holding a hand in their pocket or exclaiming that they were armed but not brandishing it openly. I would hope I would hold from firing in such a case but I don't believe the criminal has the right to expect that.
 
And even though Henderson seems to be carrying some remorse, he still has a bone to pick with Williams, the elderly man who shot him, for firing while he (Henderson) was on the ground.

“I was down, and I’m not going to continue to shoot you,” he said.

Where does this guy get off after barging in armed, brandishing a gun, and pointing it at innocent people? Now he complains that he was shot and that the old man should've known his intent was supposedly non-violent after he had just pointed a gun at numerous innocent people?

Those punks are lucky they're not dead. it could have gone much worse for them. Once you decide to put a gun in someone's face, all bets are off.
 
What an assailant thinks is irrelevant.

Here is why I think it's relevant

I have said I think the tactic of passing up a shot on a distracted assailant and choosing to close the distance instead, isn't a good one(generally). Someone else posted that it can surprise your attacker, catch them off gaurd, send them running (something like that)

I'm saying that it is relevant what the assailant thinks because if he knows he doesn't have a working firearm - of course he's going to bolt when he gets charged by a gun wielding defender.

If he had a working firearm? The tactic may have gotten Williams shot up.
 
One more time, folks:

We aren't here as a cheering section to pat this guy on the back, and we aren't a jury sitting to convict him. We're just here to learn.

Analyze, discuss actions or lack of them, evaluate probabilities, point out details - but NO MORE simple cheerleading or condemnation, please.
 
I have said I think the tactic of passing up a shot on a distracted assailant and choosing to close the distance instead, isn't a good one(generally).
Well, that's debatable. There's a range of distance where tracking and hitting a moving object with a handgun is most optimal. Somewhere around 7-10 yds the amount of angle correction you have to make balances well vs. the difficulty of hitting the target due to distance.

Move much farther out and it becomes more difficult to aim precisely. But move closer in and the shooter begins to have to move more radically to track the target. Taken to extremes, as you get within 3 yards or so it actually becomes easier to avoid the shooter's muzzle than it would be a few yards farther away, because the shooter starts to have to move his whole body and/or reposition himself to track you. (Especially if you can move toward his strong side. That's the most awkward direction to track.)

And that of course also gets you close to moving "inside" on him where you can physically block or deflect the gun arm and/or grapple with him.

While either is a desperate gamble, in some circumstances moving in may be a safer tactic than trying to run away.
 
Here is why I think it's relevant

I have said I think the tactic of passing up a shot on a distracted assailant and choosing to close the distance instead, isn't a good one(generally). Someone else posted that it can surprise your attacker, catch them off gaurd, send them running (something like that)

I'm saying that it is relevant what the assailant thinks because if he knows he doesn't have a working firearm - of course he's going to bolt when he gets charged by a gun wielding defender.

If he had a working firearm? The tactic may have gotten Williams shot up.

If the bad guy had a working gun, then shooting the distracted, distant robber armed with a contact weapon would have been a really bad choice because then the bad guy with a gun would have just turned and shot Williams. Passing up the shot on the distracted robber was the proper call to make.

So Williams shot the right guy first. The issue is then whether or not closing the distance is a good idea. Being in motion was, but in the grand scheme of the layout, lateral motion may not have been to his advantage depending on where his wife was in the cafe. Running toward her and potentially drawing fire in that direction would increase her danger, the wife being the one other person Williams was likely most concerned about at the time. Williams had only a limited area with which to work.

Watching Williams' moves during the event looked like maybe he was not comfortable with trying to shoot laterally from the direction he was moving. That looks to be the case at the end of the video when he is turning toward the door. If so, then moving laterally and trying to shoot may not have been a realistic option for Williams to use with much chance of success.

Closing the distance makes landing shots on target easier. You are right in that if the bad guy had a working gun, Williams might have gotten hurt because closing the distance also makes it easier for the bad guy to shoot him. From the looks of the video, Williams was firing before the bad guy ever completed his swing through with his gun.

Williams did choose a good time to start his move. At that time, the robber with the gun was not looking toward him. No doubt that Williams decision to move at that time worked so well as he was able to draw his gun and sight on the bad guy while closing distance before the bad guy even knew he was a threat.

Williams read the situation very well and acted accordingly.
 
Closing the distance makes landing shots on target easier.

Yes.

I completely agree. I also agree with those who have said that pressing the attack/counter attack and keeping the robbers on the their heels all the way out the building and away from the door was a good idea, that worked.
 
Another learning moment!?

How many gunfights you think Mr. Williams has been in?
Yup - this is probably his first, but based on the way he handled it, I'd be willing to bet he's played the 'what if' game in his head a number of times!

This should be a teachable moment - every so often, you should stop what you're doing in your everyday life and just think about how you would / should / could react should you suddenly face an attacker as Mr. Williams did.

Playing it out in your mind ahead of time helps avoid those panic moments when something happens that you've never thought about or considered ahead of time.
 
Closing the distance, turning the tables, and keeping the thugs tripping over their own feet looks like a winning tactic to me.
 
Posted by Owen Sparks: Suppose one of them verbally threatened that he was "going to get the shotgun"?
Surely none of our longstanding members would think for even a brief moment that such a statement would justify the use of deadly force.
 
I don't really care about the legal nitpicking and laws of the particular area this happened in. This comes down to right and wrong. He was outnumbered. They showed no sign of surrendering (did not drop weapon, did not put hands up, did not get on the ground). They may have fled briefly...we're talking a matter of feet within a second or 2...he didn't start shooting at them 100 yards down the road, but for how long were they planning to "flee"? Maybe they were going to get to a better position to return fire? If he had not closed the distance and landed some shots they would have been in the position to shoot back into the building, potentially harming him and bystanders. Just because someone is moving from one place to another doesn't mean they aren't dangerous. What if they held someone hostage outside or carjacked and killed a grandmother to escape the situation...then these same people would be saying he should have emptied his magazine into them.

See what the police do to someone that has just been in an armed confrontation and is carrying a weapon. They shoot them. They will shoot them in the back while they're running away...it doesn't matter, they are getting shot. They will shoot them inside a vehicle that is fleeing. They will shoot them as many times as it takes to stop them. Don't believe that? Go look at police shooting videos online and see how many people are shot in the back while running away. More than a few. The only way they aren't shooting that person is if they drop their weapon and surrender. So that's ok for the police but not an armed citizen? I don't think so.

If you were threatening innocent people with a gun you are a threat until you drop that gun and surrender. Don't drop it and give up? You get what's coming to you.
 
I don't really care about the legal nitpicking and laws of the particular area this happened in. This comes down to right and wrong.
You may not. But that's part of what we do here. Try to learn to survive both the fight and what comes after -- by understanding the law and what constitutes lawful self-defense and what may not.

but for how long were they planning to "flee"? Maybe they were going to get to a better position to return fire?
Maybe. But you can only use force to stop what they are doing to you NOW. You can't shoot someone because you think they might regroup and attack you again.

Just because someone is moving from one place to another doesn't mean they aren't dangerous.
Certainly true! The issue would be would a reasonable person believe that the attack was over? That is very subjective and one of the DA's reasons for not pressing charges against Mr. Williams may be that he believes that a jury would look at the tape and believe that that question is too ambiguous to convict him of any wrongdoing.

What if they held someone hostage outside or carjacked and killed a grandmother to escape the situation...then these same people would be saying he should have emptied his magazine into them.
Again though, what they might have done later does not sustain a "self-defense" claim under the law. If he had some way of KNOWING they were putting another person in harm's way, then possibly yes. If he's just guessing that they'll do something violent if they leave, then no.

See what the police do to someone that has just been in an armed confrontation and is carrying a weapon. They shoot them. They will shoot them in the back while they're running away...it doesn't matter, they are getting shot. They will shoot them inside a vehicle that is fleeing. They will shoot them as many times as it takes to stop them. Don't believe that? Go look at police shooting videos online and see how many people are shot in the back while running away. More than a few. The only way they aren't shooting that person is if they drop their weapon and surrender. So that's ok for the police but not an armed citizen? I don't think so.
A police officer is charged with enforcing the law. That absolutely does give them the lawful ability to use force in situations and for reasons that we as non-sworn citizens do not have. That should be pretty obvious. The belief that you can do anything a police officer can do is silly and dangerous.
 
He was outnumbered.
True, and it's a very good thing that he intervened.

Being outnumbered certainly crosses a disparity of force threshold as I understand it, but it doesn't give you license to do anything unlawful. You should only defend yourself/others in a reasonably responsible manner. If we were to dive right off the deep-end extreme with this one, I would put it like this: being outnumbered doesn't give you the leeway to execute your attacker, take them hostage in exchange for ransom, or to rob them of their property. IOW, even when you are completely and utterly justified in your use of lethal force to defend yourself, there are legal, moral, and ethical lines that you cannot cross.

The reason I started this very thread was to further understand this exact aspect of an altercation such as this. I don't know if you remember all those older threads about shooting a fleeing intruder/attacker, but there were at least a few. This thread is somewhat like that, except we have a video of such an event.
They showed no sign of surrendering (did not drop weapon, did not put hands up, did not get on the ground).
They apparently didn't read the criminal handbook on how to officially surrender. Just kidding. Seriously though, I'm not sure what your point is there.
They may have fled briefly...
If you read the article and watch how the video supports it, you'll find that they fled... completely. They left. They later showed up at a hospital with gunshot wounds, and were apprehended there, if what I read is still the correct narrative.
 
If you read the article and watch how the video supports it, you'll find that they fled... completely. They left. They later showed up at a hospital with gunshot wounds, and were apprehended there, if what I read is still the correct narrative.

You misunderstood me. I meant they appeared to flee for a brief moment as shots were fired. The shooting only took place for a matter of seconds. There wasn't even time to completely flee the scene before the shooting ended. They were only a matter of feet away after that last round was fired. What happened after the shooting doesn't matter at all. The outcome could have been completely different if they didn't have bullet wounds. Or maybe it wouldn't have been. We don't know.

You may not. But that's part of what we do here. Try to learn to survive both the fight and what comes after -- by understanding the law and what constitutes lawful self-defense and what may not.

I was saying what I believe is right and wrong, not what the law says is right and wrong. I have a right to not care about nitpicking the law...that doesn't mean no one else here should. I was simply saying that my opinion isn't my opinion of whether he was guilty under the law, it was my opinion of whether or not I would consider him guilty myself. If someone was found innocent in one state for an act because of say for example...the castle doctrine (I am not referring to this case)...does that make someone else guilty somewhere else for doing the exact same thing? In the law's eyes...yes....in yours? I'd guess not but who knows. If a jury found him guilty I would still believe he was innocent. I'm entitled to my belief/opinion on the matter.

A police officer is charged with enforcing the law. That absolutely does give them the lawful ability to use force in situations and for reasons that we as non-sworn citizens do not have. That should be pretty obvious. The belief that you can do anything a police officer can do is silly and dangerous.

LEOs shoot people for the same reason citizens do. To stop a threat. They don't shoot people to enforce a law. They shoot to protect themselves and others. There's not much of a difference unless the police are on the offensive. Both parties put into a defensive mode makes them pretty close. It doesn't have to be self defense to be a legal shooting. If you saw a screaming woman being chased with a knife and shot the attacker, it would most likely be a legal shoot. This man shot attackers that were just pointing a gun at innocent people seconds before. They were just as much as a threat to him and to the public before the shooting and after the shooting. Nothing changed other than they changed their location by a few feet. Also, keep in mind this happened in a matter of seconds and the distance they traveled was an extremely short distance. They were still capable of shooting him or someone else at the time they were shot.

They apparently didn't read the criminal handbook on how to officially surrender. Just kidding. Seriously though, I'm not sure what your point is there.

Everyone knows how to surrender. Ever live in a bad neighborhood or watch COPS on tv? The universal signal is hands in the air. It works around the globe. Not hard to learn and not hard to do, even in a split second. If they had dropped the gun (even easier) or put their hands in the air, that would change this situation entirely. My point is moving towards a door isn't exactly giving up. It's just going from one place to another place, armed and still a threat. If they dropped the gun and put their hands in the air and then he shot them, this would be a different conversation.
 
Oh, and there's been a ton of shootings just like this during convenience store and jewlery store robberies. More than one robber has been shot in the back on his way out the door and no one cared. The only reason this made the national news is because the man was in his 70s, it's on video, and no one died from the shooting (so the news can air it).
 
atomd,

I'm sorry, but you don't have a right to not care about nitpicking the law. I heard somewhere that the USA has 70% of all the lawyers in the world - don't know if this is true or just another lawyer joke, but it's for sure thee are a lot of lawyers out there who will disagree with you. And a certain number of them will be wearing judicial robes, too.

We're not here to tell anyone what they can do and can't do, just to try and help our members get better educated and make wiser choices in very difficult situations. Of course you're free to ignore anything you want, but to paraphrase Ayn Rand, you're not free to ignore the consequences of ignoring anything you want.
 
Posted by atomd: I was saying what I believe is right and wrong, not what the law says is right and wrong. I have a right to not care about nitpicking the law...
Having posted that in a permanent, discoverable medium on a public forum, you had better hop that you are never involved in any kind of shooting in which justification is not clear. Your words could seal your fate.

This man shot attackers that were just pointing a gun at innocent people seconds before. They were just as much as a threat to him and to the public before the shooting and after the shooting. Nothing changed other than they changed their location by a few feet. Also, keep in mind this happened in a matter of seconds and the distance they traveled was an extremely short distance. They were still capable of shooting him or someone else at the time they were shot.
You may be right, but an assessment based on news reports and a video tape is insufficient to support any but the most preliminary kind of judgment.

Oh, and there's been a ton of shootings just like this during convenience store and jewlery store robberies. More than one robber has been shot in the back on his way out the door and no one cared. The only reason this made the national news is because the man was in his 70s, it's on video, and no one died from the shooting (so the news can air it).
The fact that this made the national news is irrelevant. Whether there have been others shot in the back while fleeing is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether a reasonable person in like circumstances and knowing what the shooter knew in this case would have done the same thing. Other shootings do not matter here.
 
Having posted that in a permanent, discoverable medium on a public forum, you had better hop that you are never involved in any kind of shooting in which justification is not clear. Your words could seal your fate.

I think most people would share that opinion. The law does not say what is right and wrong, it says what it legal and illegal. There's a big difference. See my example of the castle doctrine for instance. How can it be "wrong" to do that in one state but "right" to do the same in the other. It isn't. It's right in both areas but it's illegal in one and not the other. By me saying I didn't want to nitpick the law meant that I didn't want to put his actions in a legal sense. I'm not a lawyer. I don't know the laws in the area where that took place. I can't say whether it was legal or illegal. What I can say is that based on what I know and what I've seen, I believe he was right. Legal or illegal.

'm sorry, but you don't have a right to not care about nitpicking the law.

I'm sorry but I do.

Also, if you see my previous post I was saying that to separate my opinion of the situation from my opinion of the legality of the situation.

Ok. enough of this nervous nelly politically correct fence sitting. I'll just end it with something simple. He was right, the thugs were wrong. The end.
 
atomd, you obviously missed my point entirely.

By the way, castle doctrine differences among states do not really make something "illegal in one and not the other". The simply define differently the presumptions regarding evidence that must be produced by the defender to support a defense of justification.

...enough of this nervous nelly politically correct fence sitting.
There's no political correctness issue when it comes to use of force laws. It's about the law and the evidence, and nothing else.
 
the old fellow got close and shot. I am glad he did because of the close proximity of bystanders. Good move.

He did not "pursue" them. Once they were out of the building and down the sidewalk he quit shooting.

I think he did a good job.

Wish he was at the movies last night.
 
atomd said:
...By me saying I didn't want to nitpick the law meant that I didn't want to put his actions in a legal sense. I'm not a lawyer. I don't know the laws in the area where that took place. I can't say whether it was legal or illegal...
But the point of these discussions is to help us understand how to keep on the right side of the law, so be can have the best chance of prevailing both in the street and in the legal aftermath.

Your notions of right and wrong aren't going to help anyone with that real life issue.
 
I doubt that much more can be wrung out of what has become available so far. Should anything new develop, we can discuss it then.
 
Posted for the insight it adds (if any) to what happened...
=======================================

http://www.ocala.com/article/20120713/ARTICLES/120719846/-1/entertainment02?p=1&tc=pg

Officials: Customer at Internet cafe shoots 2 robbers

A Marion County Sheriff's Office crime scene technician takes samples from drops of blood on the sidewalk in front of the Palms Internet Cafe early Saturday morning.

Austin L. Miller/Star-Banner
By Austin L. Miller
Staff writer
Published: Friday, July 13, 2012 at 6:30 a.m.
Last Modified: Saturday, July 14, 2012 at 12:29 a.m.

Two men who attempted to hold up an Internet cafe were shot and injured by a patron of the business Friday night, according to the Marion County Sheriff's Office.

Sheriff's officials said they got a call at 9:54 p.m. about an armed robbery at Palms Internet Cafe, 8444 SW State Road 200. When deputies arrived at the scene, patrons outside the business told them that two men in masks — one armed with a baseball bat and the other with a handgun — had barged into the business. The robbers told the approximately 30 patrons to get on the floor, and they demanded money.

Officials said one of the patrons, Samuel Williams, drew his own handgun and shot at the robbers, according to sheriff's officials.

Both robbers began running toward the front door, and the patron fired several more shots as they fled.

The two men got into a car parked nearby and fled.

Not long afterward, deputies got a call about two men at a Marion Oaks residence who were telling people there that they had been shot while at Scott Carrigan Baseball Park on Southeast 17th Street in Ocala. Police Department officers went to the ball field but found no evidence of a shooting there, according to sheriff's officials.

The two men were transported — one by helicopter — to Shands at the University of Florida in Gainesville. The Sheriff's Office identified them as Davis G. Dawkins and Duwayne Henderson, both 19. Dawkins has a Dunnellon address. His alleged accomplice has an Ocala address, officials said.

Dawkins had a superficial wound in his left arm, but Henderson was shot in two places: his left buttock and his right hip.

Locally, neither of the men have a criminal record, authorities said.

“I feel horrible. It doesn't feel good. It makes you think about life's decisions, and how you should live your life,” Henderson said in an interview with the Star-Banner at the jail on Saturday afternoon.

Hours after his release from the hospital, Henderson, who talked about the pain he feels in his buttock and hip, said the plan was to “barge in, get the money and leave.” He said “he never expected anyone to be armed.”

“The gun was broken and rusty and wasn't loaded. Nobody was going to get hurt,” he said, standing with crutches.

Retrieving the customers' phones was what he said was their “main priority.” That way, he said, the customers could not call law enforcement officials.

Henderson theorizes the reason why he was caught off guard is because, when Dawkins entered the business, he busted a computer monitor with the baseball bat and “glass got into his face.”

“He couldn't warn me,” Henderson said.

With the glass temporarily blinding his friend, Henderson noticed two women were behind the counter and he thought that was “fishy.” Turning around to see what the women were doing, Henderson said he was shot.

“I turned around to run and my leg gave out. That was when I got shot. I hit the ground, and he was still shooting. I thought I was going to die,” Henderson said.

Henderson said that, “by the grace of God,” his “leg came back.”

“I ran,” he said.

Henderson said he and Dawkins drove to a house to see a woman he said “is like a second mother” to him.

At the Marion Oaks residence in the 13000 block of Southwest 47th Terrace, deputies found what they believe was the getaway vehicle, a four-door black Nissan Sentra. The car was towed to the Sheriff's Office for processing.

“I couldn't breathe. I had lost so much blood. I don't know what she did, but she revived me,” he said, likening the experience to coming back from the dead.

The occupants inside the home called law enforcement, he said.

At the scene in Marion Oaks, a deputy and an evidence technician searched a large open grassy area across the street for evidence, which was collected and placed in brown paper bags.

None of the residents or visitors there wanted to talk with a Star-Banner reporter.

At the Internet cafe, investigators collected a .45-caliber handgun they believe was carried by Henderson, which he confirmed in his interview.

Henderson was charged with attempted robbery with a firearm and felony criminal mischief.

Interviewed at the hospital, Dawkins admitted to Detective Erik Dice that he took part in the robbery, according to sheriff's officials. The young man said he had the bat, which had been in his vehicle. Dawkins told the detective he was confronted by two people at the ball field and forced to assist in the robbery.

Officials said Dawkins previously had worked for the cafe but had been fired.

He was arrested for attempted robbery with a firearm and felony criminal mischief and taken to the Marion County Jail. He declined to be interviewed by a reporter.

Henderson said he met Dawkins through a mutual friend about four or five months ago, and that he usually hangs out at Dawkins' Dunnellon residence.

Because Dawkins used to work at the cafe, Henderson said Dawkins told him there was “a lot of money there.” Both of them, he said, gathered the gun and bat for the robbery attempt.

He said he went to Dawkins' place around 8 p.m. Friday night, where the plan was hatched.

Their actions frightened the customers at the Internet cafe.

“It was scary,” said Kristy Kuhn, a customer. “It wasn't my idea of a good Friday night.”

She said she had been sitting in the second row playing a game and heard loud noises and voices yelling, telling them to “put our wallets out and get on the ground,” Kuhn said.

A few seconds after that, she heard gunshots. Kuhn said she hid underneath a desk.

Ruth and Neville Allison, also patrons of the Internet cafe, said they saw the incident unfold.

They said the robbers — one with a gun and the other with what looked like a bat wrapped in white tape — entered from the parking lot.

The robber with the bat smashed one of the computers, the couple said. Then the robbers ordered everybody to get down on the ground and take out their wallets and whatever valuables they had.

Williams — who declined to be interviewed — was sitting in the row nearest the door. He immediately took out his handgun, took aim and started firing, witnesses said.

Neville Allison said the two robbers then tumbled out the door. The robber with the gun may have dropped his weapon, he said. Williams told Dice he was at the Internet cafe with his wife and was afraid the suspects were going to shoot somebody. He told the detective he was scared and that he began shooting at the men.

Early Saturday morning, the business and its parking lot had been roped off with crime scene tape. Numbered evidence markers were outside next to sunglasses, a plastic bag and a blue bag.

Also outside the Internet cafe and in front of neighboring businesses were numerous smaller markers to indicate drops of blood.

Inside the Internet cafe, a chair had been knocked over and a few more of the larger markers could be seen. The manager of the cafe declined to comment.

Though Henderson said he doesn't blame Williams for shooting, he takes exception with Williams shooting at him while he was down.

“I was down, and I'm not going to continue to shoot you,” he said.
 
That does add some things that may be worth digesting, so we'll reopen. Let's stay away from discussion about whether Williams' actions were appropriate or excessive.

Interesting points:

  • The patrons were ordered by the robbers to "get on the ground."
  • Althougth the gun was "broken" and unloaded, Henderson ws charged with attempted robbery with a firearm.
  • The robbers had not expected anyone to be armed.
  • Confirming what the video appeared to show, and althought the term "fleeing" is used in the account, Williams fired while the men were running toward the door.
  • Perps did not have local criminal records.
  • One robber was a former employee who had been fired.

Perhaps some of that is worth reflecting upon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top