Armed Citizen Kills Miami Robber
by Big Dog on Mar 25, 2009 at 01:25 General
A criminal walked into a Burger King in Miami and tried to rob the place at gunpoint. One of the patrons had a concealed carry permit and, more importantly, he had the weapon allowed by the permit.
The law abiding citizen drew his weapon and he and the criminal exchanged gunfire. The criminal is dead and the law abiding citizen is in serious but stable condition with several gunshot wounds.
The idea is to shoot before the other guy so that you do not get shot.
But I was not there and when these things happen they happen so fast that sometimes you end up getting injured.
I am glad the law abiding citizen was able to exercise his Second Amendment right because Florida, unlike the tyranny known as Maryland, allows law abiding citizens to carry weapons.
I also bet there are a few folks who were there that are happy as well. If that had happened in Maryland then either the criminal would have made off with the money or he would have shot someone and then made off with the money. The people here are sheep sent out to slaughter in a world dominated by criminals who have free reign.
I hope the law abiding citizen makes a full recovery and I am glad the criminal is dead. The actions of the law abiding citizen saved the state a lot of money on the trial.
More importantly, he might have saved the lives of some of the patrons of the Burger King.
Though they could have shot that plastic Burger King dude. He is just creepy…
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: burger king, concealed carry, dead criminal, gn control, miami, shootout
Dog, I can’t find a single zinger about Spanish being the official language of south Florida Burger Kings in your post. What are you, getting soft on them immigrants?
FYI: Miami is in the Eastern Time Zone. Same time as your beloved Maryland.
I have nothing against immigrants. I have everything against ILLEGAL immigrants. That is the distinction the small minded, lawless lefties seem to miss.
HE IS CREEPY – I hate that guy! I hope this guy makes a full recovery and one can only hope that ex-criminal has some family he can sue the stuffing out of for his pain and suffering.
No doubt this hero saved lives and I think people would think twice about pulling a gun on others if they were not sure if they were packing heat or not!
Let me just say that I don’t understand how you can automatically justify escalating from a robbery to a firefight in a food court full of families that could have easily gotten others hurt or killed and made a bad situation a full blown tragedy. I would do anything to protect my family but sometimes that means showing restraint as opposed to being a cowboy.
I’m sure the rabid gun nuts on this site will shoot me full of holes for saying that though because apparently every robbery means kill or be killed and letting the guy have what he wants to see if he’ll go on his way without hurting anyone was just a cowards way out. I mean, you got this gun in your coat, might as well use it, right?
If you read the article you see that they looked at each other and an argument ensued and then gunfire. No word if the guy had already drawn his gun. Would you feel the same way if it were an off duty cop? How about if your wife was working behind the counter and no one did anything and waited to see if he took what he wanted without hurting anyone and then shot her dead. How would you feel if the guy with the gun said, well I just figured I’d wait to see what he was going to do.
We were not there so we do not know if the place was crowded or if it was reckless or not. We do know no one else was hurt.
Suppose this guy was successful and left the store without hurting anyone and tried to carjack someone who resisted and then he killed her. Suppose it turned out to be your wife or mother. I recall a scene in the first Spiderman movie where Parker could have stopped a robber but did not and the robber killed his uncle.
But how you feel is summed up when you insult LAW ABIDING CITIZENS who believe in the Second Amendment as rabid gun nuts. You have disdain for those of us who believe in the right to defend ourselves and the right to keep and bear arms. You would rather sit back and be a sheep sent to slaughter.
At least while you were putting flowers on your wife’s grave you could take solace in knowing that the criminal was not put out or anything.
We could “what if” all day. I certainly see Adams point though. What if the criminal, or the “hero” caught a kid in the crossfire? Also do we have a right to shoot anyone we see breaking the law? If I had a conceal and carry permit, does that mean I could shoot a person speeding really fast, or driving drunk, in their car because they might kill someone down the road?
I agree however, that we really don’t know enough about this specific situation to properly assess it. I seems though that you have already assessed that the “hero” was certainly right in what they did.
I think the criminal shot first. They got in an argument and the criminal shot.
If you pull a gun to stop a crime you have to be ready to use it. The criminal probably shot first and the LAW ABIDING CITIZEN shot back.
Yes, a kid could have been shot even if the LAC did not pull a gun.
Don’t kid yourself or any of us into thinking your view of gun ownership in the US is in any way the mainstream American view or even the court set precedent for reading of the 2nd Amendment.
I don’t find your what-ifs involving my wife too amusing. You may want to live in a society that values shooting first and asking questions later and going by what-ifs to justify actions but those of us in the non-gun-nut world feel a little different.
And nobody here is suggesting this customer wasn’t law abiding so you can stop your all caps screaming as if we don’t get that already. All you have is a series of what-ifs to suggest it was OK for this customer to escalate this beyond a simple robbery and further risk lives in what the news article described as a “crowded” place. You say the criminal shot first but there is nothing in any article I’ve seen suggesting who shot first. I would argue it doesn’t matter who shot first but rather there shouldn’t have been an argument to start with. Call me a sheep or whatever you feel like. The truth is Burger King can replace any material thing this criminal could have taken from the store. We can’t replace people.
Adam, (please take the Marxist monkey pig family with you, if you don’t mind)
I hope you take your family to the mexican border and stay there the rest of your lifes. You deserve this and nothing more.
[…] Big Dog we have this about a law abiding, legally carrying citizen, stopping a criminal in the act in a Burger King, now […]
That’s right gottdamnit shoot that gottdamn criminal! Shoot’em..
My views on gun ownership and the Second Amendment come from the people who wrote the thing. Don’t think for one moment that you and your so called progressive agitators have the true meaning of the Amendment.
Read what the people who wrote it had to say. I know you will have to have someone explain it because you guys seem to think the thing is a moving target. The SCOTUS, BTW, ruled on the individual right to ownership in the Dred Scott case.
It is not so funny when the argument is turned into someone YOU love.
As far as what if, your entire argument to begin this was a what if without saying the words. You said people COULD have been hurt, it COULD have been a full blown tragedy but it wasn’t so it is a moot point.
Don’t know who shot first and I don’t care. The criminal is dead.
I know, that breaks your heart and that is the problem in this country. Too many limp wristed bed wetters crying about criminals and making the good guys criminals.
I know it is tough for you to understand because you would submit to the criminals. There are sheepdogs and there are sheep. Stay in the pasture and let the dogs do their jobs.
You would be praising it if it were an off duty cop who did this.
With all due respect, I think the wait and see what they are going to do attitude has contributed to some of the problems in our society. Yes, BK can replace what is taken but does that mean we should sit idly by and allow someone to commit a crime right in front of us? IMHO, that is why one plane went down in PA and not at the capital – those people weren’t willing to “wait and see” what the hijackers had in mind before acting.
I see the point Adam is making and I even understand it. I just don’t agree with it. I believe I have a right to defend what is mine and that includes my life and my family and my property. Without equivocation or explanation. No, I’m not going to shoot anybody roaming around looking like they are doing something wrong. But if faced with a situation where I can wait and see if the guy with the gun just robs me or rapes me and kills me, I will not hesitate to kill him on the spot.
Not to mention all the money this guy saved the taxpayers, we won’t be paying for that criminal’s housing and food. Gotta save money any way we can now…
The question was if you had the right to just shoot the guy for brandishing a weapon. If he came into your house would you be obligated to wait and see what he does or could you shoot him?
I know what I would do…
I would shoot the guy.
If I were in a restaurant full of bystanders that may get hurt or killed in a gunfight, the answer may not be so easy. It would depend on the specific circumstances, which none of us really know in the incident of which we are speaking. Adam never claimed that the “hero” wasn’t justified in doing what he did, only that you were a bit quick to say that he definitely was. I tend to agree with him on that point.
I don’t recall saying he was definitely justified, at least not in the post. As we have all said, we don’t know what the situation was but since only these two were injured the guy must have assessed it and figured people were safe.
I really don’t know. Maybe he pulled the gun and said drop it and the guy did not. I definitely think he was justified in pulling the weapon. I know that what I would do would be based on the circumstances. I would never shoot with an innocent in my line of fire unless the other guy was shooting at people and then I would not take the shot unless it was clear.
The whole issue was based on what ifs and since only these two were hurt Adam was making a big what if argument.
His assertion that we are rabid gun nuts does not bolster his credibility in the argument. Then again, he has never understood the Second Amendment in any context other than the moonbat interpretation.
All I did was bring up an alternative idea given the lack of real details that maybe it was more foolish and reactionary than it was heroic to provoke gunfire in a crowded food court. You can call me a coward or accuse me of feeling bad for the criminal or being anti-gun but really all that is just a silly distraction.
The truth is in this topic there are normal people and there are gun nuts like you.
I’m not arguing there is no individual right of gun ownership, that’s just your straw man attack. At the same time let’s not pretend your views on guns stop there. You take “infringe” to the furthest points you can stretch it to assume the founders intended people to be able to carry any kind of gun any where at any time. That is simply not the reality of how the 2nd has been interpreted in the history of our nation. I don’t care what you think you’ve seen or read.
Of course truth doesn’t stop you from imagining every gun law as simply an attack on individual ownership rights. Anti-Anti-gun hysteria is just another tenet of the Conservative hyper-paranoia during a Democratic administration. Your views on guns are not mainstream but that’s OK because it’s hard to measure truth inside all of this conspiracy and paranoia you promote lately.
I take infringe to mean obstacles designed to keep law abiding citizens from carrying a weapon. Your argument that I would have people carrying everything is ridiculous. There are already laws against people having automatic weapons (though criminals have them) without proper licensing. I feel that having a reason like you have to prove through police reports that you have been threatened or you have to carry large sums of money for business to be an infringement on the right. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything like that and nowhere in the writings of the people who wrote it does it say anything like that.
There are 20,000 gun laws in this nation and gun crime is not reduced because of them. States with strict gun control have the highest gun related crimes.
The Democrats want to outlaw guns. Obama is Alinsky and he believes in the rules for radicals. Everything he is doing is right out of that book.
Tell me what good reason there is to deny law abiding citizens the right to buy guns or to carry them. Your idea of reasonable infringes upon those who obey the law and leaves us at the hands of those who do not.
Yes, there was an alternative but it did not play out that way so it is a moot point. I don’t know what happened but will not fault the good guy for what he did.
As for how the Second Amendment has been interpreted, each ruling allowed individual ownership and carry. No ruling said people were not allowed to carry them and the Founders specifically said that people should keep and bear (carry) them. I know you don’t care about what the people who wrote it meant. That is why the 14th has been misinterpreted to allow children born of illegals to be citizens. The guys who wrote the 14th specifically said they would not be. How do you get anything different from their words?
Same things with the 2nd. What the Founders wrote is what they wanted. People like you have watered that down for decades and given us the mess we have today.