Robber fatally shot in Miami Burger King holdup

A robbery at a Burger King in Miami's Upper East Side neighborhood left one person dead and another seriously injured.

BY ROBERT SAMUELS
rsamuels@MiamiHerald.com

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.

Officers divided witnesses into several groups outside the restaurant to gather information about the incident. Employees waiting to start their shift called friends and family members on their cellphones to pass the time because they were not allowed through the police tape.

''I just hope all my people are OK inside,'' said Cynthia Thomas, who has worked at the Burger King for five years. ``It is scary.''

Around them, drivers on busy Biscayne Boulevard gawked at the scene.

The area is a prime destination for residents in the Upper East Side neighborhood -- featuring Soyka's restaurant, Sushi Siam and Andiamo Pizza.

Sorry about the customer, serves the robber right.

The one thing that never happens in peoples fantasies about gunfights is getting shot themselves. If you engage in a gunfight at close range expect to be shot. It is truly the way to bet.

I think in a situation like that with a lot of kids around he would be better off keeping his gun in his pocket. Let the bum robber take the money and keep the kids safe. If he shot someone during the shootout he may have wound up in jail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GCK

I think in a situation like that with a lot of kids around he would be better off keeping his gun in his pocket. Let the bum robber take the money and keep the kids safe. If he shot someone during the shootout he may have wound up in jail.

---

I agree. In fact, in the Texas CHL class they cover this scenario it boils down to not being a hero.:thup:

Hold the pickle,

Hold the lettuce,

CONcealed carries don't upset us,

But if you're not prepared to pay,

You can't expect to have it your way!

Gentlemen, I agree. It is foolish to try to stop an armed robber in a crowded establishment. Also, it unfortunately proves a point I frequently try to make - if you are involved in a shoot out, you better have a weapon effective enough to put your adversary down quickly - if he doesn't go down quickly, you might be going to the hospital or the coroner's office yourself. An underpowered weapon gives me no sense of security. Rick

I assumed that the hold-up man was about to shoot the citizen for looking at him. Common practice where I live particularly if the HU man is an amateur ; a pro would have picked a time when there would be few people in the place so this kind of thing wouldn't happen to him. Not much you can do if it's you or the gunman.

Finally, screw that guy anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GCK

I think in a situation like that with a lot of kids around he would be better off keeping his gun in his pocket. Let the bum robber take the money and keep the kids safe. If he shot someone during the shootout he may have wound up in jail.

---

What indicates the robber wasn't intending to shoot customers-workers on the way out? I'd hate to have a opportunity to end the situation then and there. Instead of hesitating and watching a bunch of people get shot.

Knowing how and when to use your piece is not nearly as important as knowing when NOT to use it. It took two people to escalate that situation into a gunfight. But then this is Monday morning q'backing since we wern't there.JMO, Nick

[COLOR="Sienna"][/CThe 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 two started arguing" -don't get that. The guy had a mask, produced a gun and then the customer tried to, what, talk him out of it? Back home when a bear came into camp yoou didn't argue with the bear, yoou didn't try to educate the bear...you just shot the damn bear.OLOR]

I've read and re read the article. I've also read the posts. I'm going to start by saying that I've been involved in several incidents that were written up in the newspapers and none of the stories were completely accurate. I once heard it said that a reporter is someone who "waits for something to happen so he can write about it wrong."

The story we know is that an armed masked robber comes into a restaurant at the busiest time of the day. He gets involved in a verbal altercation with a customer that results in a gunfight.

My take on this is: A CHL holder is not the police, his/her job is not to confront dangerous people. This is not a case like the Suzanne Hupp Luby's incident where a nutwad comes in shooting. It is not smart to stare down the bad guy and then argue with him. Let the guy take the money and leave.

The only good thing about the outcome is the recidivism rate has been lowered since one more stupid thief won't trouble society again. The CHL holder is badly shot up and he is very fortunate no innocent bystanders were injured or killed. His hinie would truly be in a sling if anyone, especially a child, had been hit by a stray bullet.

As to having enough gun to end a fight quickly. There is no handgun that will guarantee that except with a central nervous system hit in the neck or higher. I know of plenty of incidents where multiple hits from everything, up to and including a .44 magnum didn't incapacitate an assailant quicikly, or at least not quickly enough.

One of the principles in knife defense is that if someone comes at you with a knife you will be cut even if you win. The same thing with gufights with pistols at short range. There is an excellent chance of being shot in a shortrange gunfight even if you win. Just something else to think about.

Unless the robber showed some indication that he was about to shoot, either at the customer or at the clerk, the customer should not have drawn his gun. He could have been killed or could have killed or seriously wounded an innocent person. Even so, and even if he is exonerated by the state, he could still face a wrongful death lawsuit if he was not directly threatened. It could be argued that no one was in danger until the customer argued with the robber and then drew a gun.

Even police officers will not take a chance on opening fire under those circumstances for those reasons.

Jim

This POS holdup man comes in with a ski mask and a gun and announces a robbery.

Why do you assume the armed citizen is wrong? Why don't you assume the POS is wrong for being there to commit a crime, for jeopardizing little kids and innocent $7 an hour employees; that the honest guy is completely in the right and justified in wasting the POS?

Y'all are too influenced by left-wing liberal, factually mistaken, wrong-thinking media reporters and their knee jerk tolerance for predatory criminal conduct.

Tell me, where do you buy a ski mask in FL? This dork was intent on committing a violent crime -- he was the sole and proximate cause of his own demise.

And, good riddance. End of rant.

-30-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2571

This POS holdup man comes in with a ski mask and a gun and announces a robbery.

Why do you assume the armed citizen is wrong? Why don't you assume the POS is wrong for being there to commit a crime, for jeopardizing little kids and innocent $7 an hour employees; that the honest guy is completely in the right and justified in wasting the POS?

Y'all are too influenced by left-wing liberal, factually mistaken, wrong-thinking media reporters and their knee jerk tolerance for predatory criminal conduct.

Tell me, where do you buy a ski mask in FL? This dork was intent on committing a violent crime -- he was the sole and proximate cause of his own demise.

And, good riddance. End of rant.

-30-

---

Uh No. Unfortunately, CHL carry is dictated by state law and there is usually some part of the code that covers scenarios such as this. Yes, logic would infer that the perp was looking for trouble, but the law dictates how a CHL holder may handle the situation as there are usually other parties present whose interests under the law must also be considered. For example, children not only are they at risk in this sort of scenario for getting caught in the crossfire, but what of the psychological trauma of watching someone being shot and dying? Would this be something you would want your kid spontaneously experiencing without your guidance beforehand?

I understand your frustration and your rant, but there is a bigger picture to this that has to be understood..

Art, I agree with everything you have stated. However, the point I was attempting to make relative to using a suitably effective handgun for defense is that if you don't use one that is adequately powerful, you run a VERY good chance of being injured or killed in a confrontation with a beligerent armed assailant. If you don't like the odds of a gunfight with a powerful handgun, just figure what the odds are with a pipsqueak handgun. Rick

...and I agree with you in principle Rick, which is why my carry gun is a Model 640 with 110 gr. .357's in it.

I think a person should carry the most powerful pistol he/she can control.

Quote:

---

you better have a weapon effective enough to put your adversary down quickly

---

In other words make sure your packing something better than a cheesy 9mm!!
45 acp will drop em almost every time.

Dan

Jim
If he is found justified by the cops (very likely) then state law prohibits ANY retaliatory legal action by the skumballs family.

The Castle Doctrine laws (at least in FL) are really sweet :)

Dan

I like my 45acp, it throws a lot of Kinetic energy into your target with a 230 grain slug BUT it wont over travel, and will readily stop when it hits something.

Dan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John L. Lucci

For example, children not only are they at risk in this sort of scenario for getting caught in the crossfire, but what of the psychological trauma of watching someone being shot and dying? Would this be something you would want your kid spontaneously experiencing without your guidance beforehand?

---

John, Well thank God I was raised and so gently exposed to the trauma of The WW2 movies containing actual footage of war. The Hollywood Cowboy and Indians/ Bogart-Cagney gangsta flicks. While Korea was in swing, it was play army or any of a dozen style battles in the neighborhood. Once old enough for the draft, there was no amazement for me at home or over in Nam that ones life might be taken at any moment. Traumatized....Heck no, just aware of real life. I get traumatized while I watch the grand kids giggle as they feed newborn mice to their pet snakes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 7.62 NATO

John, Well thank God I was raised and so gently exposed to the trauma of The WW2 movies containing actual footage of war. The Hollywood Cowboy and Indians/ Bogart-Cagney gangsta flicks. While Korea was in swing, it was play army or any of a dozen style battles in the neighborhood. Once old enough for the draft, there was no amazement for me at home or over in Nam that ones life might be taken at any moment. Traumatized....Heck no, just aware of real life. I get traumatized while I watch the grand kids giggle as they feed newborn mice to their pet snakes.

---

I'm only repeating what was given for the rationale in the described scenario in my Texas CHL class. I never said that I agreed with it (although I do follow and understand the logic conveyed).

is to be preferred to death.

This appears, from facts presented, to be nothing but self defense. No law in this country requires you sacrifice your life because injury to a bystander MIGHT occur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2571

is to be preferred to death.

This appears, from facts presented, to be nothing but self defense. No law in this country requires you sacrifice your life because injury to a bystander MIGHT occur.

---

2571 I just read the article again and I really can't say I see it like you do.

Also, the law may not require you to sacrifice your life because of injury to a bystander but it will hold you accountable for your actions. If an innocent bystander is killed or injured, especially in a public place, the law will hold you liable, certainly civilly and possibly criminally. Castle Doctrines will not save you on that one.

Reminds me of a simunition exercise (using blue Glocks that fire mini-paintball rds.) exercise they gave us in a 3-gun match at Tac Pro. This was a "Bank Holdup." A Fort Worth SWAT officer threw down his gun and said "No way!" - opted out. This type of scenario is not often appreciated by "open carry" advocates... By the way I opened fire on the bad guys and while I got one, I had a nice group built under my right armpit by them.

Gentlemen, I can't figure out the details of what occured from the article. All we know is that somehow a gunfight occured between a CPL holder and an armed robber in the middle of a fast food establishment with many bystanders. Multiple shots were exchanged and the only casualties were the CPL holder and the robber. Both particpants were wounded - one fatally. It is impossible to draw many firm conclusions from this sketchy informaion. We can infer that it was probably a less than ideal location to initiate an armed response to a hold-up but we know nothing about the potential motivation for the CPL holder to respond as he did. We do know that this incident bears out three things I have repeatedly stressed over the years - 1) don't expect an armed assailant to run away just because you confront him with a handgun (don't underestimate your opponent); 2) if shooting starts, your only protection is to disable your assailant before he injures of kills you; and 3) don't expect your assailant to be incapacitated by the first shot. Rick

I certainly agree with Rick G. although I do not carry the kind or armament I suspect he does.

In answer to a recent castle doctrine comment. There's no law in the US that would hold you liable for damages incurred in defense of your own life. Such would be contrary to public policies and the very nature of our system of justice. The old common law felony murder was the solution to that problem -- the felons involved were liable for evils they could have logically foreseen. Similarly, the felon would have been liable civilly on the same type of transferred intent theories, not the innocent guy that had to protect himself.

Well, I've said enough. Glad the kids were ok. Glad the ccw holder didn't die. Glad the POS got wasted.