THE MORALITY OF DEFENDING OTHERS ?

Forums: Guns
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Posted on Wed, Mar. 25, 2009
Robber fatally shot in Miami Burger King holdup
BY ROBERT SAMUELS
An afternoon shootout at a busy Burger King restaurant in Miami
left a potential robber dead and the customer who shot him seriously wounded.
The bloody event unfolded about 4 p.m. Tuesday at the restaurant
at Northeast 54th Street and Biscayne Boulevard. It was a time, employees
said, when it is usually crowded with schoolchildren and people getting out
of work early.

The robber entered wearing a ski mask. He approached a clerk,
showed his gun and demanded money, said Miami police spokesman Jeff Giordano.

A customer eyed him and the two started arguing.
The customer had a concealed-weapons permit and his gun -- and the two exchanged gunfire.

The robber crumpled to the floor and was pronounced dead at the scene.

The customer, with several gunshot wounds, was in serious but
stable condition at Jackson Memorial Hospital's Ryder Trauma Center.

#####################################

It sounds like the wounded customer
was a big supporter of the FIRST Amendment,
as well as the Second.
David

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 3,339 • Replies: 64

From the story, it sounds like he was no hero, and put others in danger for no good reason.

The contents of the till were not worth the risk he introduced to the others in the restaurant in its "defense".

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

From the story, it sounds like he was no hero, and put others in danger for no good reason.

The contents of the till were not worth the risk he introduced to the others in the restaurant in its "defense".

Pretty much what I intended to say. Sounds like he is lucky to be alive, also.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

There is no reason to believe the robber would have taken the money and left without harming anyone. He did, after all, threaten the employee with an, obviously, loaded weapon.

Would you think differently if the armed customer had waited until the robber shot someone?

Acts of criminal violence don't follow some prepared script that provides a defender with the appropriate cue to intervene at the precisely correct moment.

I wonder what the employee and the other customers though of the man's actions?

It certainly is possible that the robber would never have fired his gun if not threatened, but how the hell would anyone know that and why should they assume it?

Perhaps the armed customer felt he was in danger - after all the robber was waving a gun - and wasn't prepared to take the chance that the thug would leave with the money but without harming him.

David seems to assume this guy was a hero and you and edgar seem to assume that he was a Dirty Harry wannabe. Perhaps he was simply a person who felt he was in grave personal danger and availed himself of a means to defend himself.

Pretty tough to know what transpired during such super-charged moments, let alone pass judgment.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

The customer didnt act responsibly. Training would have dictated that he handle the situation entirely differently. Face it, he was a cowboy with little sense and a hot desire to show us his gun.

Knowing when NOT to use a gun takes greater training and restraint than just pulling and firing, especially in a crowd.
If he and the robber were engaging in an argument when the shooting occured, obviously the customer was already escalating the situation .

The outcome has no bearing on the possibilities that could have occured from, say, a stray bullet from either party, or a shot into a gas line on a french fryer causing a fire. The robber was already on a security camera when the gunfight broke out. The security cam will show what went down.

2 Replies

Quote:

David seems to assume

as does finn, but, who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

The customer had a carry permit but apparently neither any training on the "rules of engagement" nor the common sense of same.
Just my opinion .

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

There is no reason to believe the robber would have taken the money and left without harming anyone.

I posit that this is the most likely outcome of a robbery when the robber goes unchallenged. We can look up the statistics if you'd like.

Quote:

Would you think differently if the armed customer had waited until the robber shot someone?

I would have no problem with it at all, if it really did seem like the robber was going to harm someone.

Quote:

David seems to assume this guy was a hero and you and edgar seem to assume that he was a Dirty Harry wannabe. Perhaps he was simply a person who felt he was in grave personal danger and availed himself of a means to defend himself.

If so, I'd have no qualm with it. But the article says he "eyed him and the two started arguing" so it sounds like he sought a confrontation with the robber that may have been avoidable.

Quote:

Pretty tough to know what transpired during such super-charged moments, let alone pass judgment.

I agree. But from the information available, it sounds less like a case for heroism than vigilantism. Because this thread is titled "The morality of defending others?" I am opining to the effect that it was not at all clear that he was acting in defense of those present and could have been placing them in greater danger. But, yes, I do not know if this was or was not the case.

1 Reply

So we are not allowed to pass judgement, but the gun nuts are?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

The security camera should help understand the context as should interview with witnesses. The article is no where near comprehensive enough to make a judgment though.

It certainly is possible the customer was the Dirty Harry Wannabe some of you suppose, but it's also possible that his actions were as reasonable as can be in a highly unreasonable situation.

I would hardly consider the fact that the customer and the gunman were in an argument "obvious" evidence that the customer escalated the conflict.

I don't see how anyone can reach a definitive conclusion that he was a hero or a loose canon.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Edgar you are allowed to pass any judgment that you desire. I don't know how anyone could stop you.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert, look up the statistics if you please, but they are utterly without relevance. Do you mean to suggest that someone in a life threatening situation should base his or her actions on statistical probabilities?

I simply do not believe that such a brief account of a highly complex incident is enough to reach the conclusion which have been expressed in this thread.

I have no idea what your opinion is on gun control, but I do know edgars, and I do know david's.

It seems to me, at least in their cases, that their bias on the issue has strongly influenced their assessment of the case in point.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

How quickly you change from a firmer position to one of "we dont have enough data".
Training in deadly force is almost like the Hippo Oath."Above all else, do no harm". I think that there was certainly enough information preented to conclude that the customer was acting like Charlie Bronson.

2 Replies

It seems to me this case has more to do with the third amendment, than the first.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
The customer didnt act responsibly.
Training would have dictated that he handle the situation entirely differently.

Yeah, I guess that 's the philosophy
that liberals and other authoritarians choose to take.
As a LIBERTARIAN, fully conscious of my freedom,
I know that TRAINING gives me the OPPORTUNITY
to understand other possible options n choices that I can take if I wanna.
(Like spelling paradigmatically, if for some perverted reason, I wanted to do THAT.)

When I drive home a 2 AM, seeing that it is completely OBVIOUS that I am alone
on the road, in all directions, I don 't stop and wait for traffic to clear at the stop sign,
but I was TRAINED to do so before I got my driver 's license.
I am not a SLAVE to my training; from your post, I gotta think: maybe u r.

Quote:
If he and the robber were engaging in an argument when the shooting occured,
obviously the customer was already escalating the situation .

This is AMERICA! We have a RIGHT to mouth off;
the customer exercised that right, knowing full well the risks.
Liberals think that we have a duty of politeness to robbers ??
Note, incidentally, that the story does not assert that anyone
was restrained nor confined from leaving.

From a tactical standpoint, he probably woud have been better off
approaching the bad guy more closely, while he was addressing
his commericial victim frontally; it sounds like his flanks were open.
A lateral thoracic wound can be fatal, for obvious reasons.

The "make my day" scenario can be kinda fun, tho possibly come at
a hi cost in terms of legal consequences, tortiously n criminally,
even if u win all litigation. Defense counsel can be expensive.

I don 't know what I 'd have done; depends on my mood,
but if the robber turned his attention to the customers,
I 'd have actively defended my property.

David

1 Reply

if ya wanna.

Why is it all about your rights and not the innocent bystanders?

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

if ya wanna.

Why is it all about your rights and not the innocent bystanders?

U raise an interesting point.
Assuming, with no evidence,*
that the other customers will be safer if I am docile enuf,
in the meekest of surrenders of my property:
HAVE I A DUTY to their well being to sacrifice my property?
If so: whence does that duty originate?

Shoud Wells Fargo Armed Guards abandon their submachineguns
and revolvers and carry the cash in a state of HELPLESSNESS?

* like the Luby 's Restaurant in Texas
where a malefactor crashed his truck
thru the front and shot up many, many customers.

Was there another fast food restaurant in NY
where all of the UNARMED workers who had meekly surrendered
were bound n shot from behind seriatim probably without their consent.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

How quickly you change from a firmer position to one of "we dont have enough data".
Training in deadly force is almost like the Hippo Oath. "Above all else, do no harm".
I think that there was certainly enough information preented to conclude that
the customer was acting like Charlie Bronson.

Truthfully: I gotta say,
I believe that America woud be a happier and better place*
if a lot MORE citizens adopted the philosophy of Bronson 's character in those movies.

*That does not apply to violent criminals, police n prison guards
who might be confronted with significant personnel layoffs
for less need of their services.

The question is: woud taxpayers be willing to put up with reductions of tax rates?

David

0 Replies

If people were more vigelant in seeking out the causes of violence and learning preventave measures instead of allowing the cowboy mentality to prevail, we could save many more lives than lurking like a Bronson Hollywood character, ready to provoke and kill.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

If people were more vigelant in seeking out the causes of violence
and learning preventave measures
instead of allowing the cowboy mentality to prevail,
we could save many more lives than lurking like a Bronson
Hollywood character, ready to provoke and kill.

That 'd not work; no chance.
I suspect that u know better, but I don 't know u, so I coud be rong.

Predatory violence, as a way of making a living
has prevailed upon my favorite planet since b4 the first dinosaur hatched.

THAT is the cause of violence: Mother Nature,
who is well represented in human citizens as well as in animals.

U may believe that greater vigilance in people may stop it;
from that, I dissent.

As to "ALLOWING THE COWBOY MENTALITY TO PREVAIL"
I wonder how u intend to interfere in that, Ed.
During the Korean War, American troops found many pocket diaries
in the possession of communist thought police (their commisars).
We were informed that if a commisar believed that a soldier
was being less than candid, he was in a lot of trouble.
Did u have something like that in mind?

One former Red Chinese soldier who was liberated
and wrote a book about his experiences mentioned that
thay had been ordered NOT to think about sex:
instead thay were supposed to think about the COMMUNIST PARTY.

I prefer the Cowboy Mentality, Ed -- just my opinion.
U can have yours too.

David

1 Reply

THE MORALITY OF DEFENDING OTHERS ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know