In an entirely unforeseeable development, a crazed killer entered a Waffle House and shot four people dead, for no apparent reason. Others were spared when a courageous hero, one James Washington Jr, took the shooter down and wrestled his gun away. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...tennessee-man-who-wrestled-ar-15-away-n868291 The shooter evidently was unaware that Waffle House has a strict no guns policy. They previously kicked out a National Guard member in uniform because he had a holstered sidearm. They reiterated their policy after an armed off duty security guard interrupted an armed robbery and shot the robber dead. Waffle House to Concealed Permit Holder Who Saved the Day: Thanks but No Thanks Live5News/screenshot by AWR Hawkins12 Oct 201514,202 12 Oct, 2015 12 Oct, 2015 On October 10, Breitbart News reported that a concealed carry permit holder witnessed an armed robbery in progress at a Charleston, South Carolina, Waffle House and intervened by shooting and fatally wounding the suspect. The incident occurred around 4:30 a.m. Later in the day, the deceased suspect was identified as 19-year-old Joshua Jermaine Davis, and the citizen with the concealed carry permit was identified as 34-year-old Kenneth Rivers. The Post and Courier reports that Rivers works security with his brother at “an area nightclub” and that Rivers was sitting in his car talking to his brother on the phone when he saw Davis running out of the restaurant with the cash register drawer. He ordered Davis to stop. But instead, the police report said, “Davis raised his gun and fired.” So Rivers returned fire, striking Davis “in the abdomen near the groin.” Police arrived to find Davis lying in the restaurant lobby with a cash register drawer lying by him. An officer responding to the scene praised the actions of the concealed permit holder, and the Post and Courier reported that a Waffle House employee commented on the concealed permit holder’s actions by saying, “He saved us, that’s what he did.” Then came October 12, and Waffle House released a statement in which they reaffirmed their gun-free policies and appeared to overlook the Good Samaritan’s concealed carry permit, focusing instead on his role as security for a nightclub. Live5News published the Waffle House statement: We are very fortunate that no associate or customer were harmed in this tragic incident. It is Waffle House, Inc., policy not to allow firearms with the exception of law enforcement officers, including security guards. It is our understanding that the customer involved was an off duty security guard who was carrying his firearm and the incident occurred outside the restaurant. We are well aware that different people and businesses have varying opinions regarding this issue, and we respect the right of all to have different opinions. However, we continue to believe this is the best policy for the safety of our customers and associates. We are very thankful that no other customers or associates were hurt and will continue to work with local law enforcement as they investigate this matter. It is interesting to note that a Waffle House in Nicholasville, Kentucky, took the same tact after refusing to serve a uniformed National Guard soldier on September 27 because he was wearing a holstered gun on his hip. And instead of apologizing for the incident, the Nicholasville Waffle House released a statement reaffirming their gun-free policy. The statement said: “For many years, we have had a ‘No Firearms’ policy in place in our restaurants. We continue to believe this is the best policy for the safety of our customers and associates.” http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...led-permit-holder-saved-day-thanks-no-thanks/
Apparently, the lunatic shooter had his guns taken away from him and given back to him by his father?? Police knew about this guy as well. Put the father in jail as well.
What law did he violate? Except the law of common sense. I'm not defending him, but was it illegal? This is yet another case of a known psycho being allowed to roam free. Obviously the way to deal with this is to restrict the 2nd A freedoms of law-abiding non-crazy people. Seriously, we seem to have no mechanism as a society for dealing with these people, other than crossing our fingers. I honestly don't know what the answer is.
Well he must have had a cold as well as crazy because the smell of waffles is very calming. Vanilla and maple syrup.,,
Yes, it was. As far as I understood it, the son was forbidden to own firearms, so he gave them to his father. His father then gave them back to the son, violating the law by transferring ownership of a firearm to someone who is forbidden to own them.
I would have to see the facts. Could go either way. Police often take a shortcut by asking the person to voluntarily surrender their firearm, thinking that they are saving some heartburn for both the gun owner and the police by avoiding a court order. Then the guns are turned over to a relative with no formalized restraint/court order/signed agreement by the relative to exercise care that the gun's original owner has access to them. Then when things shit the bed there is not much to hang your hat on for criminal law violation (negligence is there though and the victims attorneys will be all over the father if he has any assets). All of that will come out if there is any reasonable examination of this crime, so we will see. As with the Parkland situation, might not be pretty when they lift up the hood and see what the police/feds did and did not do, but let it all hang out. I mention feds because I believe it was his encounter with the secret service that started triggered questions about his gun ownership. Not sure. Have not followed it much.
Police took away his firearms when he had the White House incident. His father asked if he (the father) could keep them and police let him have them, and told him they couldn't go back to the son. The dad gave them back to the son and the son used them. It's really as simple as that. The dad should be arrested.
Yeh. Just sayin, whether he voluntarily surrendered his firearms to the police and the took them or whether they got a court order comes into play in regard to how you approach it. If there was no court order and signed agreement by the father that he would assure their safekeeping then it is hard to go the route of violating a court order. So you have to go at it from some kind of criminal negligence statute or something.