Here is REAL scenario. What would YOU have done?

[ig88250]

The story can be found Here. Now - we don't have all the information, and hindsight is 20/20 - but what would you have done?

It seems entirely possible that NO ONE would of gotten hurt had the customer not done anything.

No matter what your thoughts are this illustrates two points:

1. You can kill the perp and still die (or be seriously injured) yourself. Making the first shot a kill shot is critical and can only be achieved with LOTS of practice.

2. Not all defense scenarios are so cut and dry. Your decision to use deadly force could cause collateral damage - including your own life.

What do you guys think?

[hogdogs]

Google Miami burger king shooting...
Articles abound. seems a good shoot according to most but one political party site acts as if this is proof we need gun control And a poster says "I wonder if they allow guns in there store...":barf:
Brent

[jgcoastie]

Well, for starters, I hope the good guy makes a full and speedy recovery.
Important parts of following statutes are bolded...


- Florida Statute 776.012

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony...

(emphasis added by me, the statute continues, but that's the important part)

- Florida Statute 776.031

776.031 Use of force in defense of others.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

(emphasis added by me)

- Florida Statute 776.032

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.--

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

(emphasis added by me)

Looks like the good guy is standing on solid legal ground and everything should work out in his favor...

If I were in that situation, I can't say definitively one way or the other, but I most likely would have acted similarly if I felt the danger to myself or others warranted the use of deadly force...

We can all sit here and play armchair quarterback, but aside from getting himself shot, I think the good guy did the right thing.

[jgcoastie]

This case should bear fair warning to all CCWP holders and those who are lucky enough to live in Vermont or Alaska.

1. Know the law. Looks like this guy did and as soon as he recovers from his injuries, looks like he won't be facing any jail time or penalties.

2. Know your weapon and practice practice practice... If any of us find ourselves in such a situation; a definitive fight-stopping/preventing shot is what is required to prevent injury to ourselves or those around us. If you can't put your shots in an area that will end the fight, you need a lot of range time and probably a defensive fire training course.

Stay safe and know the important stuff.

[Whiteboy67]

Was it right for him to draw the weapon though? It's kind of like the whole bank robbery situation. We need more details, did the robber show intent to harm or anything like that? Or did the guy want to be a hero and pulled his gun? Seems like he made it more dangerous by doing so.

[Wildalaska]

Ditto more facts needed

Good shoot doesnt always mean good shoot

WildmorefactsaretheonlywaytotellAlaska TM

[AZAK]

Was it right for him to draw the weapon though? It's kind of like the whole bank robbery situation. We need more details, did the robber show intent to harm or anything like that? Or did the guy want to be a hero and pulled his gun? Seems like he made it more dangerous by doing so.

Emphasis by AZAK
From the available telling at this point,

First bolded question:
Definitely not, using a gun while committing a felony only exacerbates the situation.

Second bolded question:
In Florida, not Aspen at the top of the chair lift, wearing a ski mask and demanding money from the cashier, while in possession of a loaded gun might be consuetude as "intent to harm".

Third bolded question:
Yes, demanding money from the cashier while wearing a ski mask in Florida with a gun is dangerous; one lesson that he failed to learn.

Let us remember who was, as in past tense, the criminal here.

[hogdogs]

Point a gun at my family, myself or another seemingly honest citizen and I would have to think intent to use it is high... If you just want to impose fear just yell... BOO... GIMME DA LOOT!!! real loud and you may have a chance!
Brent

[Double Naught Spy]

Seems like he made it more dangerous by doing so.

This sort of observation is sort of silly, sort of like the folks that believe that it is irresponsible to "escalate" a lethal force situation with a firearm.

If the robber is using a lethal force instrament to make threats (implied or stated), it is already a lethal force situation. Technically, anything that you do outside of full compliance will escalate the situation and hence make "it more dangerous by doing so."

Defending against lethal threats is dangerous. That is the bottom line.

If everyone is afraid of escalation or making a situation more dangerous, then you might as well lay down your guns right now because you can't fight lethal force otherwise.

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

Sounds like the customer was doing that "communicate" thing. I am not big on the notion of communicating with the bad guy AFTER he has already threatened lethal force and has the intent (threat), opportunity (gun and potential victim(s)), and ability (no doubt he can pull the trigger and hit people within range of the gun). As in this case, it captures the robber's attention, thereby making it harder to effect a good defense against the robber. If the robber sees you going for a weapon, he may be prompted to go ahead and shoot you...and apparently did.

[dabigguns357]

I agree with double,why would you want to argue with someone who is robbing the place.Swift commands to drop whatever weapon they have.Then he allowed the robber to turn the gun on him,not good.How many times have we heard,don't loss the element of suprise.

I wouldn't just start slinging lead but don't just stand and argue either.

[KChen986]

I think, given the proper state of mind (which, would be hard to do in a situation like this--I know my adrenaline would be through the roof), I would have taken cover, presented only my firearm, head and hands, and ordered the BG to drop his weapon.

Of course, this could have just as easily turned in to a 'bad shoot' if a bystander was struck and killed. Hard to say what the exact 'right' choice would have been.

[SquidWarrior]

This story hits close to home for me. I spent a good part of my life growing up in that area of Miami and I have eaten at that Burger King a few times. As with any situation, you cant say what you would do until you are there. If the VC leveled his weapon off at anybody, deadly force is just and authorized. Thank god he was there and he did the right thing. I wish him a speedy recovery.

[#18indycolts]

Making the first shot a kill shot is critical and can only be achieved with LOTS of practice.

and even then its not automatic.

Your decision to use deadly force could cause collateral damage

+1

[Housezealot]

I wonder about that all the time, I guess id depends if the place was crowded as all hell and i didn't have a perfectly clean shot I wouldn't risk my freedom and a bystanders life, but if I had a clean shot........

[csmsss]

The only quibble I have with what the CCW holder did was that he argued with the robber. He had the element of surprise up until that point and surrendered it for unknown reasons. He would have been better off shooting the robber immediately - very possibly the robber wouldn't have been able to return fire. Instead, the CCW sustained life threatening wounds.

Regarding the OP's "kill shot" idea, well - that's just Hollywoodspeak. There is no single shot that will produce a guaranteed drop 'em dead right there killing - not even a shot to the brain, and killing isn't the objective in the first place - stopping the threat is.

[jg0001]

1. Know the law. Looks like this guy did and as soon as he recovers from his injuries, looks like he won't be facing any jail time or penalties.

I still don't get these types of responses. Why should the law have anything to do with it in this life or death scenario.

Either (a) he didn't feel threatened, nor feel anyone else was threatened, and should not have escalated the incident or (b) he DID feel there was an imminent threat and/or was extremely uncertain about such threat and any INACTION could have led to a loss of life. Neither one of these relates to what the law might say, both of them relate to what is a correct course of action, given available facts.

Wouldn't you prevent a loss of life, possibly your own, regardless of whether or not it was legal, so long as it was moral and ethical? What if you were carrying in a place you were not supposed to be (say a Burger King within 500 feet of an elementary school -- assume for this discussion that the law at present in that location would not permit a legal carry), and the same scenario took place. If the legality of it changes, would your answer about what he should do really change? If so, then this life or death decision just became entirely too arbitrary. If the law said he couldn't shoot in a public place but the bad guy seemed like he was going to start dropping employees, should he just stand there and watch in order to avoid legal issues later on?

I can get the knowing the law to the extent it helps navigate uncertain waters and to the extent it is in line with what is ethically and morally correct. Beyond that, no one needs to be a witness against him or herself and should be acquiring the assistance of a properly trained and experienced defense attorney before speaking to the police.

[Brian Pfleuger]

The only guarantee of a stop that will not result in a gun fight is a CNS shot.

These are difficult enough under ideal conditions, like shooting at paper with no one shooting back or threatening to shoot back.

This is why it is my position that shooting should only commence when you have some reason to believe that your inaction will cause more harm that your action. In other words, the mere presence of a gun does not always justify shooting. We should look at any situation as a "what will do the least harm" question. Sometimes that means being a good witness, sometimes it means shooting the BGs. There is no blanket answer and we always have to be aware that any action we take could get us killed, whether that action be compliance or shooting.

[jgcoastie]

What if you were carrying in a place you were not supposed to be (say a Burger King within 500 feet of an elementary school -- assume for this discussion that the law at present in that location would not permit a legal carry)

-jg001

You answered that question... With this statement...

I can get the knowing the law to the extent it helps navigate uncertain waters

If it's not legal for you to carry somewhere, either don't go (I'm assuming there are more BK's around than just the one within 500' of a school) or leave your weapon locked in a safe in your vehicle. Regardless of any hypothetical situation you can come up with...

If it is not legal to carry in a particular location, you should not be carrying there. To do so and be placed in a situation such as this gives the anti's more fuel for the "vigilante justice" argument. I tend to avoid places of business that do not allow firearms on the premises... I want my gun with me at all times, but I also know the law and wish to obey it to the fullest extent...

It amazes me how people can show a total disregard for the law in some cases... The scenario you just provided is illegal.

I thought we were all law-abiding citizens here???

[hogdogs]

In other words, the mere presence of a gun does not always justify shooting. We should look at any situation as a "what will do the least harm" question.

Exactly... The mere presence of a gun is not justification to shoot. Like at the gun range or gun store etc... The blatant use of a gun in a hold up is plenty of justification to shoot but it may not be safe... possibly an innocent bystander behind the BG or such.
Brent

[csmsss]

The only guarantee of a stop that will not result in a gun fight is a CNS shot.

Even that isn't guaranteed. Plenty of people have sustained CNS gunshot wounds and kept going for quite a while. A wound to the brain stem would probably result in an instant stop, but that's an awfully small target, even if you knew exactly where to shoot to hit it.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Plenty of people have sustained CNS gunshot wounds and kept going for quite a while.

Possibly, but not in the context that I am using the word. When I say "CNS" I mean brain or upper spinal column. "Insta-kill" or at least instant incapacitation.

[rzach]

the argument my have been that the shooter wanted him to empty his pockets where he keeps his gun

he probably did not want to be invoked i would to see the tapes

[Maromero]

Well this is news to me (in my neck of the woods) but I would have done absolutely nothing. Risking my life and inocent patrons for the contents of a cash register belonging to a multinational corporation?

[pax]

It seems entirely possible that NO ONE would of gotten hurt had the customer not done anything.

Hindsight isn't 20/20, despite the old saw. All we know is what did happen. We don't know what might have happened if things had been done differently.

What might have happened:

• robber got the money and left without incident; no one harmed
  
• robber got the money and forced clerk & witnesses into a freezer, but the people are found before they freeze to death so no one is harmed (in which case all the commenters say, "Thank goodness the employees did the right thing," but see below!)
  
• robber got the money, then herded clerk & witnesses into a freezer where he then proceeded to shoot each one in the head -- or slit their throats (not so many news reports say, "Thank goodness the employees cooperated" after such cases!)

So yeah, it's entirely possible nobody would've gotten hurt if he'd just cooperated. It's also possible everyone would have been dead if he had.

We'll never know.

pax

[ZeSpectre]

Well this is news to me (in my neck of the woods) but I would have done absolutely nothing. Risking my life and innocent patrons for the contents of a cash register belonging to a multinational corporation?

Resisting strong arm robbery is SELF DEFENSE not defense of property!

It seems to me (and I've posted on this before) that a lot of people can't distinguish between simple theft (illegal removal of property) and robbery by force (coercion via threat to life).

With simple theft (aka burglary) the criminal takes something but never directly threatens you (or may never even have any contact with you at all). For example, you come back to your car to discover a window smashed and stuff stolen. You and the criminal never had any direct contact. In a similar fashion you may arrive just in time to see the criminal run off into the distance. Again, no direct threat/contact. This is theft.

However

Robbery by force involves the criminal directly approaching you and making some sort of threat. That threat is almost always a variation of the hoary old chestnut of "your money or your life". In that case a self-defense response is NOT you protecting "property", it is you protecting your life and well-being which the criminal just directly threatened in an attempt to make you submit.

Each individual must evaluate each situation and decide on the best course of action, but in scenario 2 if means, motive, and opportunity are all met then lethal force may be an appropriate response.

Every time I hear the argument "just give them what they want and they'll go away" I'm astonished at the notion that I, or anyone else, should believe that about someone who was already far enough into criminal behavior to threaten violence and injury in order to rob me in the first place.

If they are far enough outside of the normal social boundaries to perform the bold, face-to-face action of robbery by force, then I tend to believe they'll do whatever else they please as well regardless of any "deal" they claim to be offering me.

Or more specific to this particular robbery. If someone comes into a place of business, makes some sort of demand, and "backs up" that demand with what a reasonable person would consider to be a legitimate threat (such as pointing a firearm) the entire event has ceased to be about property and is now about the threat to yourself and others.

Does this mean you should "just act"?

Hell NO! One should ALWAYS try to review the situation at least a little to determine what all of the options are. Additionally this is also one of those classic scenarios where you MUST remember that the perp may not be alone.

Even if you are able to deal with the obvious threat it is critically important to remain alert and aware of your entire surroundings in case the bad guy has backup present (just outside, in a car, or even in another part of the restaurant/club/stop n shop, etc. That's why it's so important to avoid acting too fast. You must assess the ENTIRE situation as much as possible before taking action and you MUST assume that the criminal has partners.