Another win for the second amendment; another loss for the bad guys:
One man was killed and another seriously wounded in a shootout inside a Miami Burger King on Tuesday, officials said.
Police said a man wearing a ski mask walked into the store at Biscayne Boulevard and 54th Street and demanded money from a clerk.
A customer, who has a concealed weapons permit, pulled a gun, said Officer Jeff Giordano, a Miami police spokesman.
The customer and robber exchanged fire. The robber was shot dead at the scene.
The customer, who had several gunshot wounds, was taken to Ryder Trauma Center in serious but stable condition, said Lt. Ignatius Carroll, a Miami Fire Rescue spokesman.
At about 4 p.m., officials got several 911 calls reporting people shot inside the Burger King.
Again, only criminals, tyrants and cowards have reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
Thanks to Colin for the tip.
Why would you roll the dice on a Burger King? You gotta hit the Steak n Shake or Red Lobster for real cash.
Was it really worth sustaining ’several gunshot wounds’?
Was it really worth sustaining ’several gunshot wounds’?
Left by busyfists on March 25th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Yeah, it might have been. Maybe the guy thought his options were go out fighting for his life or go out face down on a cold floor, like so many have before. I wasn’t there so I don’t know. Do you, busy?
“Was it really worth sustaining ’several gunshot wounds’?”
By taking action, the customer with the concealed carry permit very likely saved the lives of many other people — including the clerk, the other employees, and the other customers who were present.
It takes courage to put yourself on the line to defend other people. When this man put himself on the line in this manner, he was risking his life for the sake of others — all the more reason to show him a little respect.
This also illustrates the reason we should all show respect and gratitude to police officers and those who serve in the military — these men and women are willing to put their lives on the line in order to defend the citizens of this country. (Not to mention the respect and gratitude for our firefighters as well).
Was it really worth sustaining ’several gunshot wounds’?
Some people value other people’s lives over themselves and will protect others at all costs. For the armed citizen I would say yes it was worth it.
I would have let him take all that sweet Burger King money and gone home to my wife and kids. Getting into a shoot-out in a location ‘usually crowded with schoolchildren and people getting out of work early’ is hardly ‘valueing other people’s lives over themselves’.
[Editor --- You're assuming that the robber wasn't going to shoot all the witnesses anyway. There's a pretty good chance that brave citizen allowed a lot of other people to go home and see their families that day who may not have gotten that chance if someone had not intervened on their behalf.
I doubt that you are familiar with the sheep, sheepdog, and wolf analogy. You my friend, are a sheep. I don't hold that against you, nor should you be ashamed of yourself. Most people are sheep. That would-be robber? A wolf. Bent on destroying the sheep. It's what they live for. That man who took those bullets? A classic sheepdog. The only thing he lives for is killing the wolf and protecting sheep.
Rather than mock their bravery on your behalf, the proper response is to thank them on your way out the door to see your wife and family, and to be grateful that there are braver and better men than yourself willing to put themselves between you and the wolves.]
But he didn’t, and now that thief won’t be able to threaten or harm any other people, including your wife and kids.
He’s to be praised, and all others encouraged to do so.
More guns, less crime, is not just a great book, it is the way of the world.
But he didn’t what?
He didn’t do what you would have done.
If he did what I would have done, he’d have less holes in himself and the police would have something to do on a Friday afternoon. Then again, he saved BK a c-note, so that was worth it.
He didn’t, and he saved not only those threatened by this criminal’s actions, but future victims as well.
Wounds heal, his heroic efforts will be remembered, and the streets are just a little bit safer.
It’s a win-win.
How can the streets be safer if an individuals decide to engage in a shoot-out inside a crowded restaurant? If some POS wants to steal $100, let the baby have his bottle, dial 911, and if you must, follow him. Let the police do their job. They are the real heroes, right? The risk is not worth the benefit, and getting shot and potentially not being able to support your dependants is not a win. Well, I guess the government could look after them.
Having been in law enforcement, I praise men like this.
Not only have citizens been saved, but maybe an officer, or more, as well.
The criminal doesn’t care about anybody’s well being, and was already waving a gun around, demonstrating murderous intent. The actions by this citizen were appropriate.
Suzanna Gratia Hupp is one person who deeply regrets not having her gun with her on a fateful Wednesday on October 16, 1991. She was having lunch with her parents in a Luby’s restaurant in Killeen, Texas when a gunman burst in. She has since, on multiple occasions, expressed very deep regret that she chose to abide by Texas law that day when she left her gun behind in her car. Had she kept her gun with her in her purse as she normally carried it, the gunman would have been much less successful in his massacre. Instead, during the interim before the police arrived on the scene, the gunman was free to stalk the patrons and employees like helpless animals — killing 23 innocent people and wounding 20 others.
Included among the victims were both of Ms. Hupp’s parents. As a result of this tragedy, Ms. Hupp testified across the country in favor of concealed-handgun laws and was instrumental in having the laws changed.
Why some people seem to have so much faith in criminals by assuming that the robber would have just taken the money and gone on his merry way without shooting the clerk or any of the other innocent bystanders is beyond me. People are shot during armed robberies all the time without any type of provocation whatsoever — in spite of the fact that they were meek, unobtrusive, and followed the criminal’s orders to a “T”.
Not stated, but I would suggest implied, is that the citizen first confronted the robber before firing, resulting in an “exchange” of gunfire.
I suspect, that the noble citizen got themselves a bit shot up because they tried the “Freeze” or “Drop It” line you see in the movies.
If you aren’t a cop, you don’t have to give the turd a chance to surrender. When in this situation you shoot first, shoot fast, and shoot to kill.
Ole busy is a symptom of our time, huh? so many stories of victims found the next day, hands tied, shot in the head. Not so many stories of Man not a #*ssy, decides not to be a victim.
And Steve B is right, the lesson is skip the conversation part.
If he was going to shoot all the witness’, quite a feat in a location ‘crowded with schoolchildren and people getting out of work early’, why would he wear a ski mask? Granted that the criminals true intentions can not be known, but there are probabilities that can be weighed. I’m all for sheepdogs, not irresponsible ones.
I’m qute certain that anyone in law enforcement feels they can do a better job of enforcing the law than a civilian. I would think that 100% of law enforcment would prefer that civilians not engage in a confrontation, but call them and allow them to do their job.
Thank goodness for Tracy and her story of Ms. Hupp. Now here is an instance where the intent of the criminal is obvious and an armed confrontation was a prudent course of action (if only).
If you all would indulge me in two hypotheticals.
Let’s say the hero shot and killed the criminal in an exchange of fire, but in doing so one of the children that were crowding the location at the time was struck and killed by a stray bullet (be it the hero’s or the criminal’s). Was it the right move then?
Let’s say that the results are swapped and the criminal is wounded and the hero is shot and killed. Was this worth it? Would it have been worth it to the hero’s wife and children?
These are two very possible outcomes in this situation, and it could just have easily played out these ways as it did in reality.
“Bravery and stupidity go hand in hand.” – David Summers
A police department in one of Texas’ largest cities, had an unofficial policy of taking a citizen out for a steak dinner, if they killed a felon in the commission of a crime.
For most people, they should leave it to LE, but not for all, and is the reason states with shall issue laws have lower violent crime rates.
If you aren’t familiar with Dr. Gary Kleck’s and Dr. John Lott’s work, you should avail yourself of their research.
I avoid hypotheticals, as a purple frog might leap out of my ear.
The scenarios you mentioned, are but two of many that could easily show the actions taken by the armed citizen were the correct ones. What matters is he did what he believed best, the criminal is dead, no innocent citizens were harmed, he is recovering from his wounds, and society is a little bit safer tonight.
He’s a hero.
msanchezvegas wrote on 03/26/2009 10:56:41 AM:
“I live most of the time in a country were guns are illegal for decent citizens only the crooks and malandros .. thugs .. have weapons in a city of 4 million they have been 30 thousand deaths in the last 5 years more than many wars combine.. if we were allowed to defend ourselfs maybe they will still be 30 thousand dead but at least it could be 50 percent bad guys and 50 percent of good people … just think about that.. respect is a combination of fear and experience..”
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/southflorida/story/966133.html?pageNum=2&mi_pluck_action=page_nav#Comments_Container
In a situation where the honest citizen is discouraged from protecting himself/herself (along with other innocents) and is resigned to instead wait for the police to show up to “do their job,” criminals do indeed have much less fear of, and respect for, the average law-abiding citizen. In calculating the risks involved before perpetrating a crime, the risks are exponentially lower to the criminal if he can be assured that his potential victims are completely unarmed and defenseless.
Additionally, we all (including the criminals) know that the police can not be everywhere at once and the semi-intelligent criminal will at least case the surrounding area before perpetrating his planned crime to ensure there are no law enforcement officers in the vicinity. Remember, the police are, at best, minutes away from arriving — and all the time that it takes for you to go from being a living victim to a dead victim is but a precious split second.
“I’m qute certain that anyone in law enforcement feels they can do a better job of enforcing the law than a civilian. I would think that 100% of law enforcment would prefer that civilians not engage in a confrontation, but call them and allow them to do their job.” Left by busyfists on March 27th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Anyone who defends themselves and innocent others from the harmful actions of a criminal is engaging in self-defense — not trying to take the law into his/her own hands for the sake of law enforcement. Protecting one’s self and others from harm is natural, instinctual, and, in a sane world, should be perfectly within one’s rights.
No one has suggested to forego calling the police. Yes, our police officers are the ones who can actually enforce the law and they provide an invaluable service to society. However, my most salient point-at-issue here is that I would much rather be proactive and defend my own life — and hopefully be alive when the officers arrive on the scene to do their job enforcing the law. I would not want to be dead just because I chose to simply be reactive and entrust the criminal with making the decision to spare my life. After all, anyone desperate and immoral enough to break the law just to gain a few bucks would have no qualms whatsoever with pulling the trigger.
Yes, there is always a risk involved. But you are taking a risk either way, whether you choose to be proactive or reactive. When you are proactive, you choose to take some responsibility for your own life. You are placing more faith in your own ability to make sound decisions rather than placing your faith in a criminal who has unequivocally demonstrated that he makes unsound decisions.
Tracy
(Forgot to fill in the Name & E-mail Address blanks)
Hey, what happened to the nifty link and font toolbar over the comment box? Anyone else experience the problem of its sporadic availability?
Tracy, the tools are present in my window.
Perhaps a reboot?
Nope. I’ve rebooted a few times and still no toolbar.
Tracy,
Don’t know what to tell you.
The tool bar is staring at me as I clack.
Some kind of computer hoodoo, or something.