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 ...
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...
Fregards,
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...
You bet.
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.
That's not what I'm indicating. I'm saying that circumstances define areas for the degree of a citizen's ordinary and expected intervention. Assuming the role of a law officer is not, in most cases. Don't overextend my point, which was the practical consequences of shooting an escaping felon perpetrator.
As my last entry here, you might want to look at slightly fuller accounts here and here; as well as long diatribes here and here.
Apparently, the father shot more than once, but the robber was struck once in the foot, not in the leg. The robber had a rap sheet as long as a Charles Dickens' novel. In the last reference above:
"Witnesses say that one of the victims, now known to have been the father of the family, stood up, drew his lawfully carried handgun, and sent bullets in the direction of the robber. One of the bullets reportedly hit Harris in the leg, but he continued through the door and onto his awaiting get-away vehicle."
Here's a more clear-cut way this could/might have wound up:
1 dead, one injured in Miami Burger King shooting (2009FR)
I've gotten involved with this way beyond what I intended. You might desire to get more information on "justifiable homicide" outcomes in FL.
Respectfully --
No disagreement here.
V/R
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.