Burger King diner defeats would-be robber by shooting him!

[CaseyJones]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/8/burger-king-diner-defeats-would-be-robber-shooting/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS


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 family’s 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.

more at link ^

[ItsTime]

Democrats in NH are trying to make this illegal.

[Czolgosz]

The only important thing here is; was the gun registered and the owner legally allowed to own it?

Yes, /sarc.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Really, there's a lot of things potentially wrong with this. When they say "exiting," was the alleged robber running out the door? Or was he running toward the shooter on his way to the door?

Was he shot in the front of the leg or the back of the leg?

Was this the person who was robbed? Or was someone else robbed, and the robber was running past them?

Also, don't shoot anyone in the leg.

[Christian Liberty]

Really, there's a lot of things potentially wrong with this. When they say "exiting," was the alleged robber running out the door? Or was he running toward the shooter on his way to the door?


Don't care. Kill him before we end up having to deal with things like trials where innocent people end up getting convicted. Someone who threatened anyone with a gun is fair game as far as I'm concerned.


Also, don't shoot anyone in the leg.

You'll get in legal trouble but it should not be illegal to shoot someone in the leg in order to stop them from running off with your property.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Don't care. Kill him before we end up having to deal with things like trials where innocent people end up getting convicted. Someone who threatened anyone with a gun is fair game as far as I'm concerned.


Trials mostly protect the innocent, not the guilty. And if they're so obviously guilty that they shouldn't have a trial and should be shot, then why would it bother you for a slam dunk trial? On one hand, you say you're worried about an innocent conviction. Next sentence, you advocate execution without a trial. Which is it?


I'll stick by my last post, that my questions matter.

[kathy88]

The robber was exiting when the father, who feared for his and his family’s life, CBS said, took out his own gun and shot the suspect in the leg.

Sounds like what happens EVERY time a cop shoots someone lately. Poorly worded.

[PaulConventionWV]

Don't care. Kill him before we end up having to deal with things like trials where innocent people end up getting convicted. Someone who threatened anyone with a gun is fair game as far as I'm concerned.



You'll get in legal trouble but it should not be illegal to shoot someone in the leg in order to stop them from running off with your property.

That's not the law. You can't just shoot someone out of spite when they're running away from you. That's called murder, and it's not liberty. I think you're making innocent conviction a bigger problem than it really is. You think we should be allowed to commit murder just to avoid a trial in which there may be a slim chance of innocent conviction? Like I said, that's not justice.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

That's not the law. You can't just shoot someone out of spite when they're running away from you. That's called murder, and it's not liberty. I think you're making innocent conviction a bigger problem than it really is. You think we should be allowed to commit murder just to avoid a trial in which there may be a slim chance of innocent conviction? Like I said, that's not justice.

Bullshit. It doesn't make it Okay to rob somebody if you start running away. "Don't shoot bro, I'm running!" You don't get a protective shield once you decide to stop robbing people and run back to your vehicle. You deal with the consequences.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Bullshit. It doesn't make it Okay to rob somebody if you start running away. "Don't shoot bro, I'm running!" You don't get a protective shield once you decide to stop robbing people and run back to your vehicle. You deal with the consequences.


It doesn't make it ok. You are right that people deal with the unpleasant consequences of their actions. That's life.

But you own your own ethics/morality. If you want to shoot someone running away from you (clearly not a tactical retreat), then you should be willing to admit that you are shooting this person for what you perceive to be an injustice already committed, and not pretending it is self defense.

I could be talked into either being appropriate under certain circumstances, but let's call shit what it is. The article did not answer the questions we need to know about this case to have a decent philosophical conversation regarding the two.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

It doesn't make it ok. You are right that people deal with the unpleasant consequences of their actions. That's life.

But you own your own ethics/morality. If you want to shoot someone running away from you (clearly not a tactical retreat), then you should be willing to admit that you are shooting this person for what you perceive to be an injustice already committed, and not pretending it is self defense.

I could be talked into either being appropriate under certain circumstances, but let's call shit what it is. The article did not answer the questions we need to know about this case to have a decent philosophical conversation regarding the two.

It doesn't matter, a criminal doesn't get protection. The guy didn't want to wait to find out if the robber was going to shoot him or his son.

But according to the legal system, you'd have to let the criminal shoot you in the chest before you could fight back, because lawmakers don't give a shit about you.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

It doesn't matter, a criminal doesn't get protection. The guy didn't want to wait to find out if the robber was going to shoot him or his son.


Will you please explain the facts omitted from the article?




But according to the legal system, you'd have to let the criminal shoot you in the chest before you could fight back, because lawmakers don't give a shit about you.


That's not where I'm coming from. And now you're just making shit up. Your first statement is untrue. Your second statement is true. Neither of those apply to this case, unless you know more about the situation than the rest of us. Post those links up. Don't keep us in the dark.

[TonySutton]

He thought he pulled the taser... easy mistake

[PaulConventionWV]

It doesn't matter, a criminal doesn't get protection. The guy didn't want to wait to find out if the robber was going to shoot him or his son.

But according to the legal system, you'd have to let the criminal shoot you in the chest before you could fight back, because lawmakers don't give a shit about you.

So you're saying the appropriate sentence for theft is always death without a trial if possible? In other words, anyone who has their purse stolen automatically gets the right to play judge, jury, and executioner?

And no, that's not how the legal system works. You are allowed to defend yourself. From what I gathered from the article, the guy and his family was at no risk of being shot when he shot the robber.

[Cutlerzzz]

Using the deep frier as his weapon would have won him more style points in my book.

[AFPVet]

Don't care. Kill him before we end up having to deal with things like trials where innocent people end up getting convicted. Someone who threatened anyone with a gun is fair game as far as I'm concerned.



You'll get in legal trouble but it should not be illegal to shoot someone in the leg in order to stop them from running off with your property.

It used to be that you could shoot a fleeing felon in my state, but that changed like 30 years ago.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

It used to be that you could shoot a fleeing felon in my state, but that changed like 30 years ago.


So 30 years ago, it makes sense to shoot people who are running away from you?


I suspect this is not true of you, AFP, but I suspect a lot of conversations like this involve people who don't carry a sidearm on a regular basis.

Private citizens (COPS) should not be shooting people running from them, anymore than law enforcement should.

"Caught someone raping my daughter and shooting them as they climb out the window" is one thing.

The reason I have an issue here is twofold... If the shooter was not a potential victim of the crime, he shouldn't be shooting at people on their way out. He should have prevented the crime. I don't give him points for shooting at people running away.

[AFPVet]

So 30 years ago, it makes sense to shoot people who are running away from you?


I suspect this is not true of you, AFP, but I suspect a lot of conversations like this involve people who don't carry a sidearm on a regular basis.

Private citizens (COPS) should not be shooting people running from them, anymore than law enforcement should.

"Caught someone raping my daughter and shooting them as they climb out the window" is one thing.

The reason I have an issue here is twofold... If the shooter was not a potential victim of the crime, he shouldn't be shooting at people on their way out. He should have prevented the crime. I don't give him points for shooting at people running away.

Right... the only exception is that if the fleeing felon still has the means to inflict serious bodily injury or death, you may fire at a fleeing felon. The reason why the stopped saying it was 'ok' to shoot an unarmed fleeing felon was because they no longer posed a threat to anyone else. What would historically happen is that cops or private citizens would say 'stop' and they would continue to run with the stolen merchandise—so they would shoot the fleeing felon.

My personal belief, being a former cop, is that you should let the fleeing felon be captured rather than putting them down. Be careful though... if they are running away WITH THE GUN, they may be tactically retreating for cover/concealment before giving you a go.

Here's some caselaw on the matter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

[PaulConventionWV]

Right... the only exception is that if the fleeing felon still has the means to inflict serious bodily injury or death, you may fire at a fleeing felon. The reason why the stopped saying it was 'ok' to shoot an unarmed fleeing felon was because they no longer posed a threat to anyone else. What would historically happen is that cops or private citizens would say 'stop' and they would continue to run with the stolen merchandise—so they would shoot the fleeing felon.

My personal belief, being a former cop, is that you should let the fleeing felon be captured rather than putting them down. Be careful though... if they are running away WITH THE GUN, they may be tactically retreating for cover/concealment before giving you a go.

Here's some caselaw on the matter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

If they try to turn around and shoot you, you should be ready for that, but you should not shoot them until they turn around to shoot you. Hold your ground until they are out of sight, or chase them down, but don't just shoot them. I honestly don't know if chasing them down is even a good idea, but you have every right to as long as you don't violate their right to a trial.

[LibForestPaul]

So you're saying the appropriate sentence for theft is always death without a trial if possible? In other words, anyone who has their purse stolen automatically gets the right to play judge, jury, and executioner?

And no, that's not how the legal system works. You are allowed to defend yourself. From what I gathered from the article, the guy and his family was at no risk of being shot when he shot the robber.
Fleeing an armed robbery means you are no longer a threat?