Good Samaratan, CCW, takes out Bad Guy FL

Status
Not open for further replies.
sure am glad that I will NEVER have to depend on you people.

I thought not depending on "US people" was the whole point of getting a permit.

I'm really begining to wonder how many people got their permit looking to be a hero.

We can speculate all day long on what the robber might have done had the good sam not have interfered. Likely bailed with less than 100$ that BK would have absorbed with out a blink.

But what we know for a fact is that the robber's choices cost him his life (He chose it) and Sam's are going to follow him for the rest of his life.

I will bet my ass that BK is going to disavow his actions and not pay one thin dime of his medical bills. If Sam had surgery( how could he not?) his medical bills will very likely run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. He will likely be in debt over this for the rest of his life.

How many of you are willing to shoulder that to be a hero?

I don't expect to be able to change anyone's opinion on this but none of you are going to convince me that unless he was in immediate danger he was an idiot for getting involved.
 
A lot of the responses here sure do send mixed signals. I keep seeing opinions that it is not smart to get involved when a robbery is taking place. I keep seeing opinions that criminals are not intimidated by the possibility that people are carrying.

If it is smart not to get involved and it is futile to think that criminals are intimidated by armed citizens, then why is it so important for us to be armed? Doesn't the same logic apply (don't try to be a hero) when we are the target of a robbery attempt? Doesn't the same logic apply (criminals are not intimidated) when we try to present ourselves as predators rather than prey? It almost reinforces what the anti-gun people have been saying all along - that it is time for us to quit playing cowboys and accept whatever comes our way with meekness and no resistance because we will be safer in the long run.

(Sigh....) Now that I have spent all of this money and training time arming myself, I find out that I was just California dreaming....
 
You know SOME people do things just because it is the RIGHT thing to do.

HarleyFixer,
There is the problem. Not everyone shares the same concept of what's right. It's very easy from the safety of your home to say that the CCW holder made the RIGHT choice. A bad guy is dead and no one else (except the CCW holder is hurt) and Burger King isn't out whatever cash was in the register.

But one could also argue that it was the WRONG decision because the CCW holder is gravely injured and most likely won't work and earn any money to support himself and his family if he has one for a long time. So besides his physical pain, he may also have put his family in a financial situation they may never recover from. The CCW holder may have been injured to the extent he will never work at his chosen profession again. The decision that you say was right, may have sentenced his family to living in poverty. So given that the vast majority of robberies like that end with no one being injured, was it the RIGHT or the WRONG decision.

No one can know if it was the right decision until they are faced with making it. It's not up to us to say.

mesinge2 intervened in a robbery and things came out well for him. It sounds like he did a good job. You pays yer money and takes yer chances to paraphrase a comic strip.

There aren't any right or wrong answers to this question. Only the person who was there, seeing and hearing what he saw and heard, and knowing his personal skill level and abilities can make tell you if it was right or wrong. But right now, based on what we know, it's not looking like it was the right decision.

mesinge2, did you think about getting shot and the consequences of that before you acted, or did you just act? I ask, because my only experience with this was as a police officer and I knew there were systems in place to take care of me and my family if I was injured or worse. There is a difference in the thought process between someone who is duty bound to respond and someone who isn't.

Southern Rebel,
Doesn't the same logic apply (criminals are not intimidated) when we try to present ourselves as predators rather than prey?

Surely you meant to say not present yourself as food instead of using the word predator. If you want the criminals to think you are a predator, you need a peace officers commission.
 
IF it is smart not to get involved and it is futile to think that criminals are intimidated by armed citizens, then why is it so important for us to be armed?

I don't carry a gun for intimidation I carry it for self defense. There's a thread going on now about an elderly couple who were attacked in a Wal*Mart parking lot in Arkansas. The husband used a handgun to defend himself and his wife when they were directly attacked

See the difference?
 
I see it as a question of doing the right thing or doing the safe thing.

Would the folks at BK have been safer had the good guy stood by and left his piece holstered? Most likely.

Knowing that's it's almost purely hypothetical, I'm still forced to consider the safety of the (now dead) criminal's potential future victims.

Score one for the good guys and pee on BK if they don't step up for the good Samaritan's medical bills and lost wages - now and future related to his wounds.

It;s just my personal opinion, but if I'd been involved as either a customer or employee of the BK in question, I'd see to it that I did everything possible to help the guy with his costs. I'd also include a gift certificate for a nice new case of Cor Bons.
 
You know if more and more citizens would stand up against the criminals and if they know any minute they commit these crimes they can end up with a bullet in their chest, I think more and more criminals will consider a new profession.

God bless the person for his bravery. BTW.. some people say why kill a bad guy over $20? When a junkie or some other type of low life creatures sticks a gun at the head of the guy at the register and people are crying and afraid, you really don't know what the madman is going to do. A clerk got shot to death at a convenience store right outside my old apartment. The guy did everything he was suppose to, but it seems the robber just didn't want to leave any witnesses. Sometimes they get nervous too and their emotions get in their way of rationality.
 
You know if more and more citizens would stand up against the criminals and if they know any minute they commit these crimes they can end up with a bullet in their chest, I think more and more criminals will consider a new profession.

Do you have some proof of that or is it just wishful thinking?
 
And yet we applaud the guy that "defended" his wife from the attempted robbery in the Walmart parking lot? Yes, it did turn out well for him, but it just as easily could have gone south and ended up with his wife being shot. Maybe the smart thing for him to have done was to allow the purse to be taken and not risked getting his wife shot?

I'm not trying to be the devil's advocate here, but rather trying to point out that we look foolish trying to made absolute statements about the actions of another individual when it comes to to resistance - especially when we have the advantage of seeing the end results: one man gets shot, so he was stupid. Another man avoids injury and stops the robbery, so he is a hero. The only basic difference is that we have seen the end results. Anybody can bet safely on a ballgame when you already know the final score!
 
Didn't seem worthwhile to me. Receiving multiple GSWs from foiling a BK robbery.

The "hero" will probably have to face decades of medical treatments & physical therapy probably totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars. He may lose his job and his insurance. He may have legal bills on top of that. May have to file bankruptcy and never recover.

People may be willing to kick-in a few dollars today, but a year from now, 5 years from now, 20 years from now?

We don't know what actually went down, but unless the BG(s) was going thru the steps to execute everyone, I don't think it was worth it.
 
And yet we applaud the guy that "defended" his wife from the attempted robbery in the Walmart parking lot? Yes, it did turn out well for him, but it just as easily could have gone south and ended up with his wife being shot.

It had already gone South, the wife was in a struggle with the robber over the purse. You are trying to compare apples and oranges. The situations were nothing alike.

Maybe the smart thing for him to have done was to allow the purse to be taken and not risked getting his wife shot?

Maybe it would have been, but the husband didn't make that decision, the wife did. The husband acted to save her.

There is no information available to us on the Burger King robbery that tells us what happened. So maybe the CCW holder in Burger King made the right decision as I alluded to in another post, but based on what we know now, it's not looking like the best decison.
 
Look at us.

Regular everyday citizens just trying to make it through life.

Jobs, kids, bills, planning for a somewhat decent retirement, trying to live everyday within the natural (and now mostly un-natural laws).

Not only do we serfs have to deal with the street scum trying to take our lives and property, we also a have to deal with the political scum slowly robbing us of the same every damn day.

I've freaking had it with this planet.

I want off.
 
Further research has shown no correlation between gun laws, either those that restrict the carrying of weapons or those that liberalize it and the crime rate. Gun laws have a negligible effect on the crime rate. Crime rates continue to be controlled by more complex social and economic factors then gun laws. For example, Wisconsin and Tennessee have roughly the same population. Wisconsin has no concealed carry and Tennessee does. Which has the lower crime rate? Clue, it ain't Tennessee. Sort of disproves the notion doesn't it?

I cannot say I agree with this 100%. It is true if you live in some crazy places, like Iraq, gun ownership doesn't equate in less murders than Madison, WI. Then again, try removing the arms of the citizens and soldiers in Iraq and see how the murder rate changes. However, I feel your example is not a fair comparison and the analysis is a bit flawed. I think you need to probe a little deeper and look at the distribution of gun ownership and conceal carry permits throughout the state to determine if people are being proactive with the rights they have. As far as I know a majority of the crime in Tennessee happens in its cities. The cities in the deep south contain a large makeup of minorities and liberals, which contrast deeply to the rural populations of the state. The mentality of these people is much more anti-gun and I have a feeling that gun ownership in the inner cities of Tennessee does not match per capita of people outside the inner city. Wisconsin, except for Milwaukee, is a very rural state and does not have as many minorities. I also question the political views of the rural inhabitants of the state, who obviously have less political power than the people who live in cities. Same goes for the rural state I live in.

Lets take a look at crime rate of Milwaukee and Chattanooga for example:
http://www.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=milwaukee&s1=WI&c2=chattanooga&s2=TN

You claim that Wisconsin has lower crime, but Wisconsin is also a more rural state and a more fair comparison would be to compare Illinois with Tennessee, and than once again the cities and rural areas to one another, than just the entire state to state.

Here you can see, Milwaukee has an equal violent crime rate to Memphis, which has the highest crime rate in the whole state, and a higher violent crime rate than Nashville. For being a rural farming state, I would say the crime rate of the inner cities in Wisconsin to be very alarming.

Milwaukee, WI
Population: 581,005
Murder: 103
Robbery: 3608

Nashville, TN
Population: 560,813
Murder: 80
Robbery: 2425

Memphis, TN
Population: 680,828
Murder: 147
Robbery: 5311

Knoxville, TN
Population: 182,421
Murder: 18
Robbery: 538
 
Last edited:
BTW.. some people say why kill a bad guy over $20?

No one said anything about not killing a bad guy over 20$. The question was about incurring thousands of dollars in medical bills trying to save BK 20$
 
4Freedom wrote: "You know if more and more citizens would stand up against the criminals and if they know any minute they commit these crimes they can end up with a bullet in their chest, I think more and more criminals will consider a new profession."

You're giving criminals a lot of credit for logical thinking I doubt they deserve! Frankly, I think this "good Samaritan" was a fool but to each his own.
 
You're giving criminals a lot of credit for logical thinking I doubt they deserve! Frankly, I think this "good Samaritan" was a fool but to each his own.

Maybe he was a fool, but my theory stands. If you know a bunch of people sitting in the restaurant are good shots and well armed, would you choose to rob that restaurant? Criminals do have brains, even though they are small. Did you ever wonder why criminals don't hold up police stations or army bases? How come they choose liquor stores.. Hmm .. gee I am dumbfounded.

BTW.. one thing many of you are missing is that with this scumbad dead, he cannot go and hurt anyone else. You know many armed robbers will end up one day killing someone. You think this is the last place he was to rob? My father's friend had an armed junkie threaten to blow his wife's head off. So, what if the day before he was just trying to rob $20 from a candy store. When a person sticks guns at people's heads and will kill you for money, this person should not be on the earth. The fact that people like this are on the loose, shows we cannot rely on police or military.

I say, the man is a hero, because he tooks bullets, but very well saved someone else's life. WHy should we be at the mercy of criminals ruling our lives? Why should we wait for the scumbag to go off and kill another person. Also, if you see a person stick a gun to someone's head, you really don't know what the person will do.
 
Miami Police say a Good Samaritan confronted a would-be robber and killed him before he was able to rob a Burger King Restaurant

Sounds to me like he tried to "apprehend the suspect" and got shot for his trouble
 
There have been some really great points in this threat. One point that cannot be argued is that -you had to be there. Who knows what they would have done in this situation. Perhaps, while sitting behind your monitor, you are sure you would have done the same. But when it came time would you hesitate thinking of your family or questioning the lethal nature of the robbers? Perhaps you believe what this sam did was wrong, but seeing through his eyes would you still feel that way? Point is, we don’t know.
What we do know is one criminal and all the suffering that he would have wrought is off the street for good. One good man is hurting and surely asking himself the same questions we are here.

While I set comfortably behind my monitor, I think I would have drawn my gun and been ready if the threat escalated --- but perhaps --- that is what he did too.

As a side – I wonder if things would have been different if Burger Kings posted a sign “Our Customers May Be Armed… Be Nice”
As for BK helping the family: Let’s write and call Burger King and tell them we’re watching and won’t patronize their “great” burgers if they don’t. I for one no longer order from Pizza Hut and remind them of that every now and again.
 
If I was in that situation I wouldn't be concerned about the BK being robbed. It's not my money or worth my life.

But, I *would* be concerned about the robber chosing to shoot me, the clerk, or another innocent party.

The problem is, How do you *know* when you need to take action to save your own, or someone else's, life? Or, when would taking action place you in more risk?

The thing is, there is no way to know absolutely 100%.

As Jeff W. mentioned, if the robber is leading everyone back to the cooler, that's a bad sign. At that point I'd probably fight back, even if unarmed, just to avoid being executed while laying on the BK cooler floor.

If you honestly think you're life is in danger then you need to do what's appropriate. You can only judge that for yourself depending on the exact circumstances at the time.
 
when i did my CCW class, they brought in an attorney to do a Q&A chat on what we can and cannot do. one of the answers was iin just about so many words:

Q: say i am in a liquor store, and its being robbed, am i allowed to shoot the perpetrator?

A: no. you are not law enforcement and you are not allowed to instigate deadly force upon anyone. you can only fire in self defense, so unless the robber has his gun pointed at you, and you can CONVINCE a jury of your peers that you felt that your life was in danger, you cannot shoot him. and if you DO fire a shot, it had best be only on the front side of the individual, or you will be serving time.

I do not know the specifics of your state law, but I know that is not accurate in every single state I am aware of.
In most places you can use force including lethal force to defend another person from lethal force the same way you could use such force to defend yourself.

In most places you could shoot a robber in the back if they are in the process of putting someone else's life in danger. You do not have to be defending yourself. Be sure of anything behind your target though.
If they are not fleeing or trying to get away and are posing a lethal threat to an innocent victim you are within your rights to use lethal force.
You can announce your presence, ask them to give up etc but that is not a requirement and increases your personal risk. It is your call. The situation is clear in a store robbery and unlike some situations on the street what is going on is obvious.
It won't turn out to be a good guy holding someone at gunpoint. It won't be an officer. It won't likely be a boyfriend or husband of the person who will turn on you later because you shot someone they loved (even to save them.)
It is clear.

You have a much better chance of successfuly using force than the clerk would. They have the majority of the robber's attention. They will be less able to defend themselves than a customer who can discreetely draw thier weapon. Even an armed clerk will be worse off than an armed customer.
You don't want to be shot or to get the clerk shot or anyone else. However you also do not want the badguy to hurt or kill anyone.
What you do is your choice.

Sounds to me like he tried to "apprehend the suspect" and got shot for his trouble
Yeah probably would have been safer if he just executed the criminal posing a lethal threat to innocent people with a shot to the head. Perfectly legal in his state.
Instead he tried to give him a chance to do the right thing, putting himself on equal footing with the criminals, giving up his tactical advantage and element of surprise and they exchanged gunfire instead.

To me that is the question. Do you announce yourself putting yourself in more danger for thier benefit or not, not whether you act at all.
With one criminal maybe, but with 2 or more the element of surprise is the only thing in your favor. If you can drop one before the other knows what is going on you may be able to get him before he gets you.
Giving up the element of surprise when outgunned and they are posing a lethal threat to other peoples' lives is a serious tactical mistake. It isn't a wild west movie, badguys don't always drop right away, and I owe nothing to the criminals least of all a fair fight.
I do not want to shoot someone in a robbery, I do not want to deal with killing someone that may have been part of the small minority of guys that could have gone straight later, deal with a court case, court expenses, hospital bills, injuries, any innocent person hurt, or medical bills.

To me it is no different than the person trapped in a fire. Yes I could get burned or injured, pass out from smoke inhalation and die, yes I am not the fire department, yes there is a million excuses to let them burn. I would still try to help, and I may still lose a lot as a result.

That said things happen so fast. The perfect monday morning quarterbacking means nothing. You could expect to help and never make a move before it is over.
You could also choose to do nothing expecting everything to just work out fine, in a split second the gun could shoot the clerk, point to you and fire, eleminating you as a witness, caller of 911 etc. All faster than you can draw a concealed firearm.
This guy acted, and he will suffer for it, but he did what he thought was the right thing at the time, and people should be proud of him.
 
Last edited:
Yeah probably would have been safer if he just executed the criminal

Just so we're clear, I never said that or even implied it.

The word "confront" suggests to me that Sam wasn't in any immediate danger and chose to interject himself into the situation.

It also suggests to me that no one was under an immediate threat of death, if they were opening fire would have been proper not "drop the gun! "

However, that is pure speculation on my part
 
But one could also argue that it was the WRONG decision because the CCW holder is gravely injured and most likely won't work and earn any money to support himself and his family if he has one for a long time. So besides his physical pain, he may also have put his family in a financial situation they may never recover from. The CCW holder may have been injured to the extent he will never work at his chosen profession again. The decision that you say was right, may have sentenced his family to living in poverty. So given that the vast majority of robberies like that end with no one being injured, was it the RIGHT or the WRONG decision.

No one can know if it was the right decision until they are faced with making it. It's not up to us to say.

It just fascinates me how many "Monday morning quarterbacks" and "back seat drivers" KNOW WHAT THEY WOULD DO. Give me a break!!! You may think you know. You may have played it over and over in your mind... but YOU DON'T KNOW!

I am sure in the midst of an armed robbery, we will all be analyzing our insurance policies, living wills, and durable powers of attorney :rolleyes:

He may have been shot multiple times even if if he didn't pull his gun. We don't know this unless we can put ourselves inside the mind of the armed robber. Do we even know who shot first? I think we are all assuming the citizen shot first. Do we know this?

I admit I am disappointed on many fronts from this discussion.
 
You can't compare Illinois with Tennessee because of the difference in population. Illinois has many more people then Tennessee.

However, I feel your example is not a fair comparison and the analysis is a bit flawed. I think you need to probe a little deeper and look at the distribution of gun ownership and conceal carry permits throughout the state to determine if people are being proactive with the rights they have.

How can this be? There are thousands of permit holders in Tennessee, and there are none in Wisconsin. The cities in Wisconsin are populated by minorities and liberals too, but there is still less crime in the state with zero permits then there is in the state where you can get a permit. Obviously all those permits in Tennessee aren't keeping the crime rate down.

The crime rate is determined by many complex social and economic factors. Do you know what the most reliable predictor of the crime rate is? It is the number of males in the population between 14 and 28 years of age. The more males in that age group in a given population the higher the crime rate.

According to the census bureau the population of Tennessee in 2008 was 6,214,888. http://factfinder.census.gov/servle..._name=null&reg=null:null&_keyword=&_industry=

With 1,686,377 living in urban areas of 100,00 or more population

The population of Wisconsin in 2008 was 5,627,967. http://factfinder.census.gov/servle..._name=null&reg=null:null&_keyword=&_industry=

With 898318 or about half as many people living in an urban area of 100,000 or more.

According to the Memphis Commercial Appeal there are 220,000 permit holders in Tennessee. There are no permit holders in Wisconsin.

In 2007 there were 16,296 violent crimes in Wisconsin which breaks down to 290.9 violent crimes per 100,000 of population.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_04.html

In Tennessee there were 46,380 violent crimes which breaks down to 753.3 violent crimes per 100,000 population.

There were 30,0084 more violent crimes in Tennessee then in Wisconsin. That difference is much greater then the difference in the urban/rural makeup between the two states can account for.

So how have the 220,000 Tennessee permit holders lowered the crime rate?

Could it be that there is much more to the crime rate then the ability to carry a gun? Maybe things like the cultural differences between the people living in Tennessee and Wisconsin? Or how about the per capita income and employment levels? Number of people with a high school education? Number of males between 14 and 28 in each state?

Still want to stand by your theory that it's all about arming the population?
 
The crime rate is determined by many complex social and economic factors. Do you know what the most reliable predictor of the crime rate is? It is the number of males in the population between 14 and 28 years of age. The more males in that age group in a given population the higher the crime rate.

Jeff, that is fascinating! Good info. Do you have any data that relates male age and socioeconomic status? The reason I ask is... I live close to Boca Raton, FL... a very affluent suburb of south florida. Lots of the young males come from wealthy, privleged families, but "wanna be" dangerous. They are often more difficult IMO because they feel they have to prove that their money does not make them "soft".

I do home health care and I often feel safer in the "ghetto" because I do not appear to most of those residents as a threat. At the Boca Mall, I feel like a target for the highschool kids to prove their worth. I actually don't "feel" like a target... but to make my point...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top