This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Health & Fitness

Robbers Don't Deserve to Die

Two years ago two young men entered a Waffle House restaurant and announced that they were robbing the restaurant and everyone in it. One of the robbers, Dante Williams, was the gun man while his accomplice took customers' money and valuables. One of the customers, Justin Harrison, refused to be a victim, and fatally shot Dante Williams with a concealed firearm and then unsuccessfully tried to detain the other robber. In response to the recent release of the surveillance video of the robbery, Dante Williams' family spoke to the media.

Williams' family acknowledged that he was robbing the store with a gun and that the customers would have been scared. Despite acknowledging these facts, the family stated that:

  • Williams was a respectable boy;

Find out what's happening in South Pasadenawith free, real-time updates from Patch.

  • Concealed carry licensees should be required to attend more than 8 hours of instruction;

  • Harrison would have known he did not need to shoot Williams if he had more extensive instruction; and

  • Find out what's happening in South Pasadenawith free, real-time updates from Patch.

  • Williams did not deserve to die.

  • It's important to recognize that Williams' family, like the Waffle House customers, are victims – they lost a loved family member because of Williams' criminal actions. Moreover, as the title of this article suggests, Dante Williams did not deserve to die. Our society does not impose capital punishment for armed robbery. Capital punishment is reserved for truly heinous crimes.

    However, self-defense has nothing to do with deserving to die. Self-defense is about preserving life – the life of innocent victims. Williams' family would know this distinction if they had attended the same 8-hour certification course attended by Harrison. When a person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury, that person may use the amount of force necessary to prevent the impending injury.

    When would a person reasonably believe that he or she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury? Three elements must be present: (1) the victim must reasonably believe the threat has the means to kill or inflict great bodily injury; (2) the victim must reasonably believe the threat has the opportunity to kill or inflict great bodily injury; and (3) the victim must reasonably believe the threat intends to kill or inflict great bodily injury.

    Here, Williams was armed with a gun. Clearly he had the means to kill Harrison or other innocent victims.

    Williams was inside the Waffle House with Harrison and numerous other victims. Again, Williams clearly had the opportunity to kill Harrison or other innocent victims.

    Williams was committing armed robbery. Would you be scared if an armed robber pointed a gun at you? Would you be scared if you knew that victims are injured in approximately one third of robberies? When faced with the potential for death or serious bodily injury, a victim does not have to wait until the threat attacks. The reason for this is easy to deduce – if the victim had to wait until the threat pulls the trigger, the victim could be killed before she could lawfully defend herself. This is why the law only requires a reasonable belief that the threat intends to kill or inflict great bodily injury. In light of the overwhelming evidence that robbery frequently involves injury, Harrison could reasonably believe Williams intended to kill or inflict great bodily injury on one of the victims.

    So, although Williams did not deserve to die, Harrison was justified in protecting his own life.

    Photo credit.


    We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

    The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?

    More from South Pasadena