The Aftermath: Judge Doesn’t Waffle on Stand Your Ground

I would not have gone outside and tell him the cops are coming. I would have let the cops do the job. But shooting him in the leg? Pelvic area better

The Veteran, sadly, did only one thing right: involving the police. Following, and interacting with, the offender, was a mistake = looking for trouble instead of avoiding it, provoking the second confrontation. That was an invitation to be had for lunch by the prosecution, as well as the ensuing disaster.

1 Like

And here is the verdict:

A 2021-01-06 23-45-19


Well ya,all certainly know how to beat a dead horse. You think you know what you are going to in a certain situation but the fact is , you have no idea! When the adrenaline starts flowing , you may even be advised of things you don,t even remember doing! So what you take from this is you do the best you can in a bad situation and be the one still breathing the next day.

1 Like

If I called the police I would wait inside for the police to come. I would not have gone outside and told the attacker that I called the police. If came back and attacked me I would have defended myself.

Not being in that situation it would be difficult to know exactly what I may have done. Being a Veteran and having been trained as I have does not prepare you for a situation as to what happened.
In a Fire Fight we are trained differently than in a civilian threat.
I am armed every where I go unless it is forbidden by law. I probably would have stayed in the Waffle House ready for an attack but would not confront the attacker until the police arrived. The local authorities are better at handling this than any citizen who is not in authority.
The reason I am a member of USCCA is to protect me in a situation where I had no choice but to defend myself with deadly force.
I live in Florida and we have Stand Your Ground Law. That being said that does not give you permission to act as a Police Officer. Too easy today to end up losing your good reputation and possibly your life savings.


I probably will get some flack for my statement just as I did in my CCW Class. The veteran was wrong following the person outside.

I find that the many people who carry are those who have somewhat aggressive personalities (Alpha) to begin with. Carrying a gun is an extension of that.

As I said in my CCW class, unless my adversary brandished a weapon first, I would take an ass beating before I would pull a gun on someone.

The case example above does not mention how the altercation began. I wonder how does two people come to physical blows in a Waffle House anyway?
The Only reason I personally would have gotten into an altercation is if someone pulled a weapon first or made rude or vulgar comments about my wife, especially if she was sitting there with me. In the latter case, my reaction would be to protect her honor. However, unless the person pulled a weapon first, I have no reason to pull my gun. If they don’t pull a weapon, the confrontation could very likely turn physical. I still have no reason to pull my gun. IF I got my ass beat, I would accept it like a man. I would NOT pull my gun to protect my “pride” or settle the score. Depending on how hungry I was, I’d leave or sit back down and finish my cheese eggs.

In my opinion, the judge dismissing the case emboldens people with alpha personalities even more.

Peter, no flak here. I commend you for your honest, rational thinking. I would rather comment on your post than on the others who haven’t learned a thing. Alpha personalities indeed. More like Neanderthal personalities.

1 Like

Thank you Michael. I really didn’t expect anyone to agree with me. Taking that CCW Class really bothered me. Even the instructor was promoting protect yourself all all costs. “It’s you or them”. To me, you don’t pull your weapon unless you have strong reason to believe your “life”, not your “pride” is in imminent danger. A fist fight doesn normally take someone’s life. Give or Take the beating and live another day a free man.

Sorry, I clicked on you instead of a different person.

Judge followed the Law, not emotions…

I think what I would have done differently is to ask Management to call the police after the first assault nocking me to the floor. I then would have stayed in place till the police arrived and filed charges against the man for assault.
If the man who assaulted me came at me again before the police got there, I would have neutralized the threat with deadly force. I would not have shot him in the leg. The way people are today, he could come back for revenge at a later date or sue me for wounding him to the point he could not take care of himself.
Bottom Line is that if I am forced to draw down on an assailant that has the intent to do me severe harm or kill me, there are no second chances for them. Deadly Force will be used to protect myself and people around me.


The 3 most important rules to follow in an encounter to remember are:

  1. De-escalate (which obviously failed)

  2. Depart (put distance between you and your opponent) which had already occurred so there was no need to have any further contact with him whatsoever.

  3. Defend (this step is taken when all other options have failed) If his attacker smashed his head into the wall and he feared for his life and/or was trying to prevent further harm from coming to him, by all means use your weapon. In my opinion, if you have to use lethal force then it needs to be just that; lethal. (I know I sound crazy but in all actuality if I feared for my life I’m not going to shoot my attacker in the leg, BUT that’s just me)

As stated in the previous comments, going outside and feeling the need to inform him “the police are on the way” is totally unnecessary. If anything, get his vehicle description and tag information but so so without making contact then return to a place of safety and await the police.


Once the situation was at the climax of being on the floor and the attacker leaving and requesting for Police assistance, there is no reason to go after the attacker. At this point I would be chasing the danger. Had the attacker come back in with the gun or pulled it on the original confrontation then, discharging my fire arm would have been due to the eminent danger. I don’t think the veteran did anything wrong, I just would have not gone after him, since he was no longer a danger to me or anyone in the waffle house in that moment.

1 Like

Definitely would have been smarter to remain inside the establishment and wait for the police. By that point the attacker had withdrawn and was no longer an immediate or eminent threat. In another state (like New Jersey) he would have been seen as the aggressor by following and provoking the other man, regardless if he had the clerk call the police or not. The charges against the veteran could have been avoided, and he could have saved the ammo :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like

The veteran should shot higher if he was in fear of his life, and stay in the building don’t confront the attacker and advise police attacker said he had a firearm.

1 Like

I think it is best to be a good witness and stay out of the way. I know sometimes it is hard to swallow your pride. If the vet had though, he may not have gotten his head smashed. Stay inside and use the people around you for your defense as well.

Welcome to the Community, @AWS! I’m with you, staying inside is the best response in this situation. Every Waffle House I’ve been in has large windows and you can see the majority of the parking lot from them. Watching through the window probably would have been a better idea.

The phrase we train to use is “shoot to stop the threat.” While we know our center body mass shot may kill, our goal is always to stop the threat. We’re not out to kill anyone, just save our own lives. :smiley:


I was only trying to point out the danger in using the word “punish”. In the heat of an after action discussion with the Police that word ends up in a report and you might have a lot of explaining to do to the DA or lawyer the perp hires to sue you. Better safe than sorry. :slight_smile:

1 Like

All good questions. The thing that worries me is the lack of understanding by some, that going out after the perp can be construed as aggression. Where there is debate over motives and actions there can be litigation!