Skip to comments.Burger King diner defeats would-be robber by shooting him
Posted on 04/09/2013 1:44:21 AM PDT by grundle
A father who was trying to eat with his family at Burger King was able to defeat an armed robber by pulling his own weapon and shooting at him, Miami police said.
It was at the height of lunch time, about 1 p.m., when a would-be robber walked into a Burger King, flashed his gun at one of the family diners, and demanded the diner fork over money and valuables, police said in a CBS report. The robber was exiting when the father, who feared for his and his familys life, CBS said, took out his own gun and shot the suspect in the leg.
The suspect then fled in his Ford F-150. Police later found him 36-year-old Travis Harris and the driver of the truck, 38-year-old Ramon Smalls, at a gas station down the road, CBS said.
The pair was linked to another robbery of a woman that took place earlier that day, CBS said. Mr. Harris was taken to the hospital for treatment and was charged with three counts of armed robbery, police said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Attention, Miami police spokesman.
The hero father did not shoot AT the robber. He simply shot him.
Thank you, that is all.
Another good guy with a GUN story that will not show up anywhere on the LSM.
And has the person who fired the warning shot at the perpetrator been arrested yet for the “unlawful” discharge of a weapon, thereby endangering the rest of the patrons?
Because this is the reasoning now widely applied when some such defensive measure is taken against willful miscreants and criminal acts faced up to at the point of engagement.
If the authorities will go after a kid with a BB gun, a real live sidearm is just the thing to put them over the edge.
After all, what if a child saw this interchange, and thought it was OK to have a pistol? Then he could go around, point his index finger, and happily say “Bang! You’re dead!” or some such antisocial thing, and won’t that set back his emotional development? Next thing you know, he would be biting a Pop-Tart into the shape of a pistol, and escalating to using that instead of just his index finger, and who knows where that could lead to?
(Do I really have to add the “sarcasm” tag?)
In fact, if the holdup is over, no shots were fired so far, and the robber is leaving, you are just asking for big trouble--maybe jail time for yourself. No sarcasm.
Nobody likes a back shooter.
ENTERED THE GREAT FEEDLOT IN THE SKY, HE HAS
Mr. Harris was taken to the hospital for treatment and was charged with three counts of armed robbery...
No, no, no, no, no! Let the vermin walk to the hospital, or crawl as needed.
“taken to the hospital for treatment and was charged with three counts of armed robbery”
That might be a mistake, at least here in NE Fla. the perp is not charged until release from hospital, that way the city is not responsible for medical bills. As I understand it that saves the city alot of $$.
If the robber was leaving AFTER he robbed the diner I predict they will file murder charges against the diner. This is Obamaland where thieves and liars get a free pass and are encouraged after all you know.
> If the robber was leaving AFTER he robbed the diner I predict they will file murder charges against the diner. This is Obamaland where thieves and liars get a free pass and are encouraged after all you know.
Nix that. I thought the guy died. Unlawful discharge of a weapon and new charge invented by the 0 Administration, “terrorizing liberals and faggots with an assault weapon”
One of these things is just like all the others. Note: This is from an earlier arrest - nov 9 2012. now 6 moths later armed robbery. THe so-called criminals justice system and the police surely protected the citizens here. These guys don't ever do just one crime.
A local restaurant just banned guns (”& other weapons”) on its premises. I think I’ll be frequenting my BK a little more often now.
I know what the law is, but the reality is that when someone threatens your life, that feeling doesn’t just evaporate when they turn their back.
From personal experience with a gun pointed at me, I’d say that my natural inclination was to shoot the perp on sight, even several hours after the incident.
The fight or flight mechanism is very base and it is expecting too much of the average citizen to not fire just because the perp turns away.
So, no knives...Aren't sporks a potential weapon?
Can’t happen this way in NY or Chicago can it ?!
Au contraire! I think many of these thieves would benefit from a shot to the back. Your objection to backshooting obviously originated in your viewing of way too many tv westerns in your youth. In actual fact, westerners generally preferred to shoot rattlesnakes and other vermin from the back, minimizing risk to the good guy.
The bad guy still had a gun in his hand and was thus a mortal threat to the shooter and other patrons. I do not know about Florida Law but this would be a “good shoot” in Texas.
A very justified application of Pb-82 cures a lot of society evils.
My family keeps the “Medicine” cabinet well stocked in various dosages.
Not too many DAs in Florida would think twice about where the entry hole was, as long as the perp was armed and you didn’t chase them back to their apartment.
Well, ah, here the shooter was not the one being threatened, and the state might have something to say about that.
Whatever a perpetrator has done to someone else, and is leaving the scene with no threat to you, the reality is that to take up another person's a offenses can leave you with a jail sentence and a big bill to pay. You are not the law at that point.
Shoot him in the act of commiting a felony even though you are not the perp's target? Perhaps. Be ready to shoot if the perp turns back around on you? Sure. Shoot him just on speculation without totally disabling him when he is fleeing? Not wise. And that could convince him/her to eliminate you.
This is not weakness, it is wisdom. Hmm? In this particular case, what would your lawyer tell you to do? More to the point, and very serious, WWJD?
Possibly eternal damnation. What you got?
Has nothing to do with my personal history. It has to do with shooting someone not when he is threatening to someone else, but rather after he has ceases to be a threat to others (and to you) and is leaving the scene.
To shoot him then smacks of sniping at someone not to prevent the robbery, but to take advantage of a situation that will give you an excuse to wound someone just for retribution. That is not your job, it is the job of law enforcement. IMHO
SampleMan: Possibly eternal damnation. What you got?
inardmd1: Would you want Jesus/God to treat you fairly?
I don’t have the powers of the Holy Trinity, therefore, I can only act on my best judgment.
Having had my life threatened in an armed robbery, my personal experience has been that the assailant’s orientation and percentage of task completion doesn’t play any role in a victim’s defensive reaction whatsoever.
When an assailant triggers an innocent person’s natural response, the assailant is responsible for that outcome. If you haven’t stood next to your wife and children while someone is waving a gun around, or looked down the barrel of a pistol inches from your face, I recommend you give it some thought.
Going toward the threat to neutralize it, is the natural reaction of many people. Robbers often revisit the same place/victims and sometimes do so immediately if they feel they have been shorted.
Bottom line, I give the benefit of the doubt to the victims and consider anything on premises within minutes of the attack to be an immediate response.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
George Zimmerman and Mark OMara have found otherwise.
The local DA didn't have an issue with the Zimmerman-Martin case. It was politically pushed from above. But point taken, if you are part white and shoot a black perp, you may have problems.
An armed robber ceases to be a threat when he turns his back and starts to leave?
Sorry - Once he is out of the building, down the street, and out of gunshot range (for him shooting back) is when the threat is over. Not one millisecond before.
With very much due respect, I understand your feeling. But in my position, I regularly carry a concealed deadly weapon, and must continually remind myself of the practical legal consequences of deploying that power of injury and death.
The rule is not to confuse your role as engaged endangered individual with that of post-event judge, jury, and executioner after the fact. To do so might amount to "breaking into jail."
What you feel about it will have little, if any, bearing on how your actions will be judged if you wound, permanently disable, or kill an assailant as the event unfolds.
Defense is permitted, subsequent retributive or vindictive acts are not, AFIK.
Hmmm, was that sarcasm?
According to you, not according to law. Law trumps here, and your response is to be in proportion to the threat.
No, it is not. Neither is it values nor emotion. It is of lawful and practical effects as a consequence.
If and when I shoot, it will be to kill; and there will be two or more, one of which will be reported as the warning shot.
Retribution:Synonyms: payback, reprisal, requital, retaliation, revenge, vengeance
Your statement literally was saying retribution was the job of the police...some police might think so and I was wondering if you were seriously saying that.
I grew up thinking the job of the police was to protect and serve.
Hope no one finds your post before the trial...sounds premeditated...
Unfortunately for you, the DA with have access to your last post.
I grew up thinking the job of the police was to protect and serve.
You might have been encouraged to believe in a bit of a myth. Law enforcement's job is to enforce the law (once a violation has been committed), with the corollary effect of serving and protecting the general population, not specifically you as an individual, IIRC. Part of their function is to protect society from you or me, is it not? When did you get your last speeding ticket?
FRiend, let me first say that my original comment was in no way anything other than a poke at your use use of the word “retribution” in describing police responsibilities.
I used a dictionary definition of “retribution” and none of the synonyms, IMO, define the role of government/police.
I think your usage of the word is intended to mean the carrying out of their duties, which is fine. But I now have two questions to ask.
1) Are you saying that only police have the right to apprehend a criminal? What is citizens arrest? If a home intruder is told at gunpoint by the owner to lie down on the floor with his hands and feet spread until police arrive, and the perp complies, is the home owner now acting outside of the law? Can a citizen no longer act to stop a crime if he sees one? Ok, that was more than one question but you get the point.
2) Where do you think the authority for police to do more than a citizen is derived from? For me, thanswer comes from here:
Romans 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for she is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.
I am not a Biblical expert, but verse 3 and 4 tell me two things. 1) that I should not have to fear authority if I am doing good, and 2) that that authority is God’s servant.
When the ruler becomes the terror, then he is no longer a servant of God. But now I am digressing toward a peeve of mine...
Until the individual who commited the armed robbery is no longer armed, he is a threat to my life. And most courts in rational states see it that way.
You can just sit there and wet your pants if you like.
However, after the loss, his personal actions to regain them are curbed, and assigned to officialdom. Furthermore, penalties for unlawful deprivation is also no longer within the purview of the individual.
Beyond question, law enforcement is part of that process.
Being quite familiar with Romans 13, I've personally given law officers pocket copies of The New Testament for the specific purpose of highlighting their commission as ministers of God, as correctly translated in the AV:
"For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil" (Rom. 10:4).
This Scripture clearly supports my point: the ordinary individual citizen does not have a Scriptural authority to exercise the earthly judgment/punishment allocated to the civil authorities which God has permitted to rule in one's locality -- as long as it is done for our good and not for evil.
In this case, for the Burger King incident described, it sounds that very likely the shooter took upon himself a responsibility that was not his, once the assailant was leaving the scene. It certainly sounded like an act of revenge rather than an act of defense. God has arrogated that to His Own sphere of delegation:
"For we know Him that hath said, 'Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense,' saith the Lord. And again, 'The Lord shall judge His people.' " (Heb. 10:30)
(Seeking the righteous application of Biblical knowledge--)
Just wondering, how pious are you in all areas of your life? My God given instinct, says you are liar, by nature and action. Care to discuss your inabilities?
Nope. Though I've got many, and my Heavenly Father goes over them with me all the time, there's too much other stuff to do to permit discussing them with someone who already has more of his/her own than he/she can handle. Ciao!
My issue was not “an eye for an eye”, but I did not intend to argue in any case.
We are looking at the case and the scripture through different lenses. I think you are saying that the ordinary citizen does not have the authority to attempt good by preventing evil, but rather is restricted to only self defense in the case of being victimized.
I agree that vengeance is Gods, not mans, responsibility. I was looking at this through the lens of “where does it say that only government officials can exercise good by defending against or fighting evil”.
I do not subscribe to your interpretation of the Romans passage as saying I have to sit back and wait for a cop in order to apprehend a criminal or prevent further crime. Of course I do have to exercise judgement and restraint in regards to use of lethal force. Maybe I missed something in the article, but I did not see enough detail on what happened to assume that the CCW holder was exercising vengeance when he followed the criminal out. Perhaps he was trying to get a license plate number to report to the police when they arrived and the perp turned and drew on him...
Here in Washington State you can use a firearm anywhere that you are legally able to be to prevent a felony (against you or anyone else that is legally there). That includes shooting at the felon as they are fleeing the crime scene in an effort to get them to stop.
Are you saying the guy should have let the robber get away? Or are you saying the man should have pulled out his gun while the robber was already holding a gun to the man’s family?
Personally, I would have shot the sonuvabitch in the back of the head. More than once.