Burger King diner defeats would-be robber by shooting him

Washington Times ^ | April 8, 2013 | Cheryl K. Chumley

[Magnum44]

FRiend, let me first say that my original comment was in no way anything other than a poke at your use use of the word “retribution” in describing police responsibilities.

I used a dictionary definition of “retribution” and none of the synonyms, IMO, define the role of government/police.

I think your usage of the word is intended to mean the carrying out of their duties, which is fine. But I now have two questions to ask.

1) Are you saying that only police have the right to apprehend a criminal? What is citizens arrest? If a home intruder is told at gunpoint by the owner to lie down on the floor with his hands and feet spread until police arrive, and the perp complies, is the home owner now acting outside of the law? Can a citizen no longer act to stop a crime if he sees one? Ok, that was more than one question but you get the point.

2) Where do you think the authority for police to do more than a citizen is derived from? For me, thanswer comes from here:

Romans 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for she is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.

I am not a Biblical expert, but verse 3 and 4 tell me two things. 1) that I should not have to fear authority if I am doing good, and 2) that that authority is God’s servant.

When the ruler becomes the terror, then he is no longer a servant of God. But now I am digressing toward a peeve of mine...

Fregards,

[Zippo44]

Until the individual who commited the armed robbery is no longer armed, he is a threat to my life. And most courts in rational states see it that way.

You can just sit there and wet your pants if you like.

[imardmd1]

I could go on arguing about this, but time is valuable, and the question of "eye-for-an-eye" is your issue. A victim in the process of losing his rights has a substantial positive defense for actions take to keep and maintain them.

However, after the loss, his personal actions to regain them are curbed, and assigned to officialdom. Furthermore, penalties for unlawful deprivation is also no longer within the purview of the individual.

Beyond question, law enforcement is part of that process.

Being quite familiar with Romans 13, I've personally given law officers pocket copies of The New Testament for the specific purpose of highlighting their commission as ministers of God, as correctly translated in the AV:

"For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil" (Rom. 10:4).

This Scripture clearly supports my point: the ordinary individual citizen does not have a Scriptural authority to exercise the earthly judgment/punishment allocated to the civil authorities which God has permitted to rule in one's locality -- as long as it is done for our good and not for evil.

In this case, for the Burger King incident described, it sounds that very likely the shooter took upon himself a responsibility that was not his, once the assailant was leaving the scene. It certainly sounded like an act of revenge rather than an act of defense. God has arrogated that to His Own sphere of delegation:

"For we know Him that hath said, 'Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense,' saith the Lord. And again, 'The Lord shall judge His people.' " (Heb. 10:30)

(Seeking the righteous application of Biblical knowledge--)

[RedHeeler]

Just wondering, how pious are you in all areas of your life? My God given instinct, says you are liar, by nature and action. Care to discuss your inabilities?

[jimsin]

'A very justified application of Pb-82 cures a lot of society evils.'

HAAHA yep I'M THINKIN YOU ARE ONE OF THE few folks on this outstanding site who actually GOT that one GOYA...there are some sharpies here and you are amongst 'em...good on ya!

AND THEREFORE: YOU have won the 'Jimsin First Prize Chicken Dinner AWARD'. A coveted prize bestowed only on Men like you whose posts represent the highest pinnacle of Conservative Thought. Posts which reach up far and away and above and beyond the call of Conservative Culture....Bless you lad, keep up the good work; we will be looking for even greater contributions from your keyboard going forward.

[imardmd1]

Care to discuss your inabilities?

Nope. Though I've got many, and my Heavenly Father goes over them with me all the time, there's too much other stuff to do to permit discussing them with someone who already has more of his/her own than he/she can handle. Ciao!

[Magnum44]

My issue was not “an eye for an eye”, but I did not intend to argue in any case.

We are looking at the case and the scripture through different lenses. I think you are saying that the ordinary citizen does not have the authority to attempt good by preventing evil, but rather is restricted to only self defense in the case of being victimized.

I agree that vengeance is Gods, not mans, responsibility. I was looking at this through the lens of “where does it say that only government officials can exercise good by defending against or fighting evil”.

I do not subscribe to your interpretation of the Romans passage as saying I have to sit back and wait for a cop in order to apprehend a criminal or prevent further crime. Of course I do have to exercise judgement and restraint in regards to use of lethal force. Maybe I missed something in the article, but I did not see enough detail on what happened to assume that the CCW holder was exercising vengeance when he followed the criminal out. Perhaps he was trying to get a license plate number to report to the police when they arrived and the perp turned and drew on him...

[RedHeeler]

You bet.

[21twelve]

Here in Washington State you can use a firearm anywhere that you are legally able to be to prevent a felony (against you or anyone else that is legally there). That includes shooting at the felon as they are fleeing the crime scene in an effort to get them to stop.

[Lancey Howard]

Are you saying the guy should have let the robber get away? Or are you saying the man should have pulled out his gun while the robber was already holding a gun to the man’s family?

Personally, I would have shot the sonuvabitch in the back of the head. More than once.

[imardmd1]

I think you are saying that the ordinary citizen does not have the authority to attempt good by preventing evil, but rather is restricted to only self defense in the case of being victimized.

That's not what I'm indicating. I'm saying that circumstances define areas for the degree of a citizen's ordinary and expected intervention. Assuming the role of a law officer is not, in most cases. Don't overextend my point, which was the practical consequences of shooting an escaping felon perpetrator.

As my last entry here, you might want to look at slightly fuller accounts here and here; as well as long diatribes here and here.

Apparently, the father shot more than once, but the robber was struck once in the foot, not in the leg. The robber had a rap sheet as long as a Charles Dickens' novel. In the last reference above:

"Witnesses say that one of the victims, now known to have been the father of the family, stood up, drew his lawfully carried handgun, and sent bullets in the direction of the robber. One of the bullets reportedly hit Harris in the leg, but he continued through the door and onto his awaiting get-away vehicle."

Here's a more clear-cut way this could/might have wound up:

1 dead, one injured in Miami Burger King shooting (2009FR)

I've gotten involved with this way beyond what I intended. You might desire to get more information on "justifiable homicide" outcomes in FL.

Respectfully --

[Magnum44]

circumstances define areas for the degree of a citizen's ordinary and expected intervention

No disagreement here.

V/R