Police: Suspect Fired at Burger King Employees During Attempted Armed Robbery

No one was hurt in Sunday night incident.

said a man fired at least one shot at employees at a , 11740 S. Route 59, during an apparent attempted armed robbery late Sunday night.

Det. Sgt. Kevin McQuaid said the suspect was wearing a black ski mask when he entered the restaurant shortly before 10 p.m. Sunday. He walked directly to the kitchen area in the rear of the restaurant, firing at least one shot with a black semi-automatic handgun in the direction of employees before fleeing the scene on foot, police said.

The bullet did not find a target, and no one was injured in the incident, McQuaid said.

Police are describing the crime as an attempted armed robbery and aggravated assault but said the suspect did not steal anything, nor did he demand money or other items from the staff. In fact, he didn’t say a word to employees, police said.

“We’re kind of theorizing [robbery is] what he was there for,” McQuaid said, adding police don’t believe the shooting was targeting a specific person.

“I don’t believe he was targeting a certain employee, but we’re not ruling it out,” he said.

No patrons were in the restaurant at the time of the incident, McQuaid said.

Although surveillance video shows the man exiting the Burger King and fleeing west on foot, there is no footage of him leaving the restaurant’s parking lot.

“Once you leave the parking lot, it gets pretty dark,” McQuaid said. “He disappeared into the night ... He left the scene on foot, but we don't know if he had a car parked in the area.”

A K9 was used in an attempt to track the suspect, but was not able to locate him.

The suspect is described as a black male between 5’5” and 5’8” with a medium build. He was wearing a black hooded sweatshirt and black ski mask.

Police are asking anyone who has information to call McQuaid at 815-267-7209 or Det. Carianne Siegel at 815-439-7653

Tim July 17, 2012 at 02:41 PM
I see your aversion to facts and evidence precludes you from supplying any of your own. How many firearm arrests have the plainfield police made during these seat belt enforcements again? Right - 0. Why is the typical 'defense' of this behavior taking the extreme position of arguing that it was presented that it should be abolished? Again, nobody said to give up enforcement, just to re-prioritize. Devoting a significant amount of resources to an insignificant problem, it not an efficient use of resources, among other problems. I don't have to 'beat my chest', I simply avoid Plainfield(notice how I said I was in the passenger seat, not driving) whenever I can, and do my shopping and socializing in other towns that aren't on an insane mission to pull over and ticket everyone driving in town. I've heard from, and meet up with, people that feel the exact same way when I am in these other towns. I wonder when they will figure out that mysterious reason why business's in downtown keep closing up.
B July 17, 2012 at 03:12 PM
I drove back from Florida to my home in Plainfield a few weeks ago. The first police officer I saw monitoring speeding/seat belts during my 15 hour drive was the Plainfield PD on route 30 coming into Plainfield from 55. Maybe it was just coincidence, but the thought stuck. That and all the states surrounding IL except for WI have speed limits higher than 65. But that's another topic!
Stephane Carlson July 17, 2012 at 03:43 PM
Mr. Night...well said. YES, if Plainfield allows ride-alongs, DO IT! I used to gripe about the same stuff I see on here (not about plainfield, but about police presence in general) until I went to school and studied it for 4 years. THEN, I interned at a police department. 40 hours per week for 4 months gives you a much different perspective of what really happens, from EVERY ASPECT, and how certain decisions are made. Does everybody think that officers just drive around where they want, when they want? Find out what REALLY happens at roll-call. Sure, you can listen to a police scanner, but there's much more to it than what flies over the radio. MUCH more. Those of you who think you can do better without any prior experience or training, have at it. Better yet, you test for a police department and be sent to the academy. Until then, let them do their job. You know, the ONLY time I had a police encounter with PPD was before I even moved into the village. I was passing through and was speeding on 59. I received a ticket, rightfully so. I have never once griped about it. Irony: it was after my first day of interning...after my very first ride-along. That was 6.5 years ago. Homework for everyone else....look up "proactive policing." There's much more to it than "looking for bad guys." Give the men and women credit for protecting you and your family. No matter where you're at, being an officer is ALWAYS a dangerous job. This isn't "Minority Report."
Firemanfred1921 July 17, 2012 at 03:47 PM
@Tracy resident - your fire district recently purchased a new lawn mower that cost you the taxpayer over $10,000 and a telehandler at a cost of over $22,000. These two items have nothing to do with fire suppression.
Stephane Carlson July 17, 2012 at 03:51 PM
Do you take all back roads from Florida to home? I went to college in Muncie, Indiana. I always took the back roads back and forth. You think Plainfield is bad?! Don't even get me started. I've only lived here for 4 years, but I've never encountered more than 2 random stops, total, around big "drinking" holidays.
Old Lee July 17, 2012 at 03:59 PM
There have been several independent studies done on Preventive Patrols and Traffic Enforcement reducing crime trends. The two listed studies below have been widely analyzed over the years. The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment http://www.policefoundation.org/pdf/kcppe.pdf “The general public has been convinced that routine (police) preventive patrol is an essential element of effective policing.” However, “One thing the experiment did not show is that a visible police presence can have no impact on crime in selected circumstances. The experiment did show that routine preventive patrol in marked police cars has little value in preventing crime or making citizens feel safe.” NHTSA A Trend Analysis TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT in the United States http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/TrendAnalysis/14_conclusions.htm#Recommendations “While motorists are responsible for driving safely, law enforcement agencies are the only means of ensuring that traffic laws are obeyed.”
Kensington neighbor July 17, 2012 at 04:11 PM
Mr.Knight have definetly made an accurate statement on this topic. Timothy McVey was apprehended on a traffic stop for a minor violation. The weakest point in any criminal organization is transportation of their ( narcotics, currency, weapons) I don't think the point of a seatbelt enforcement is get guns off the street TIM, there is something called 4th amend. Rights where police can't just search people's cars for whatever reason, I would love to see what movie or show you got that cops are taking guns off the street on seatbelt enforcements. police have always and will always enforce traffic, it's a large part of their job duties and people will always complain about this part of their job. A police officers job is very hard to evaluate on a daily or monthly basis, they do so other things than enforce violations, but the general public seems to always criticize sourly on traffic violations. I personally know how many officers are working the streets each day/night, I'm sure people that live here don't and think the police are everywhere, like enforcing the car in the fire lane for 3min while their husband or wife gets something. Open you eyes people.....
Miguel Sanchez July 17, 2012 at 04:20 PM
Brandon: Really......Seriously..........
Raptor July 17, 2012 at 04:31 PM
B, come on.......you think people are going to believe that false statement. I went to college 15 yrs ago in Milwaukee, that stretch of road is a speed trap for 20 miles. Florida is famous for speed traps due to the amount of vacation travel and snow birds living there. Nice try on sparking up another whine feet about the PPD. this column should be about how we (public, citizens) can help with getting information to help solve this crime. The police are not super humans and sometimes need the publics help solving crimes
Plainfield Ind July 17, 2012 at 04:39 PM
There's something called the 4th amendment but that is slowly going out the window. Just go to the airport and you've lost your protection under the constitution.
Tim July 17, 2012 at 04:41 PM
That big drinking day, known as Valentines Day? http://www.plainfield-il.org/police/documents/12P-004ValentinesBuckleUpCampaign.pdf Or Pearl Harbor Day? http://www.plainfield-il.org/police/documents/11P-089Route30TrafficEnforcementResults.pdf How about the all the drinking that goes on when we celebrate the abdication of King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy on May 9th? What a party that was! http://www.plainfield-il.org/police/documents/11P-028Route59EnforcementBlitz.pdf It turns out, the only month they DON'T do this, is January. I guess when its cold out, they don't want to damage their precious makeovers in the cold dry air by going outside. Concerned about safety? Naaah, it's cold outside! Look for yourself at the resources being expended on this; http://www.plainfield-il.org/police/pressreleases.php They have been doing 'railroad duty' for almost 3 years(at least, since that's as far back as the records go), with not a single report issued to even the village(much less the state) on how to actually IMPROVE the crossing. This is why people are getting tired of this. It is obviously not about safety. "But they are doing it too, in this other state" is not a valid reason to rationalize or continue this behavior. It is just as much a waste of resources there as it is here.
Jerome July 17, 2012 at 04:49 PM
Be proactive and protect yourself, property or employees. The police will only show up in time to draw the chalk line around your body. It's not their fault it's just the way it works.
Ernie Knight July 17, 2012 at 04:52 PM
Tim, It appears that you need to reread your scientific evidence. Nowhere in the article that you posted is there any investigation of "violent crime rates when police resources are instead used for simple traffic violations." The study was on the effects of mandatory seat belt LAWS, not enforcement. And it was to determine their effect on traffic fatalities. You have misinterpreted the data.
Ernie Knight July 17, 2012 at 05:07 PM
OK, Tim. So you want a large police presence to deter shootings in fast food restaurants which cannot possibly be predicted, rather than a large police presence to enforce traffic laws to save lives. Now I get you.
B July 17, 2012 at 05:46 PM
Sorry, it's the truth. I was in Florida and southern Alabama sans interstate and then back roads after getting off 57 downstate. Nothing. You can choose not to believe it, but I was the one speeding through there. :)
Tim July 17, 2012 at 06:13 PM
The press releases put out by the PPD contradict your individual perceptions. It would seem that no, they don't actually do that many other things. http://www.plainfield-il.org/police/pressreleases.php If you took the time to actually read the comment, you would have read my comment that traffic stops DON'T take guns off the street. That was a claim made by someone else, to justify this ridiculous waste of resources, and it is not a true statement.
Tim Not July 17, 2012 at 09:11 PM
Tim, I read the whole paper you referenced: The study was looking for an indication of how seat belt enforcement affected traffic fatalities. Its clear conclusion was that seat belt enforcement reduced "occupant fatalities per vehicle mile traveled", and had no significant effect on "nonoccupant fatalities per vehicle mile traveled." The table you referenced had coefficients for the regressed equation between "nonoccupant fatalities per vehicle mile traveled" (as the INDEPENDENT variable) and several DEPENDENT variables; one of the control variables was "violent crimes". The two rows of coefficients associated with "violent crime" are showing how "nonoccupant fatalities" varied with the logarithm of "violent crimes" and how the logarithm of "nonoccupant fatalities" varied with the logarithm of "violent crimes". The authors have corrected the data for "state fixed effects" and measurement errors (the "State FE" and "IV" columns respectively). Those coefficients are all small and positive. However, the thing to note is that NOT ONE of them has even one asterisk beside it. In the footnote, you can see that the authors are using the asterisks to denote the statistically significant relationships. The conclusion to draw from the page you reference is that any change in "nonoccupant traffic accident fatalities" was uncorrelated with the number of violent crimes committed (continued)
Tim Not July 17, 2012 at 09:12 PM
in the same period. Can you explain how you got from that data to the conclusion that the incidence of "violent crime" increased with seat belt enforcement? I don't see any evidence in the paper of even any CORRELATION between those variables, much less any speculation about any CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP. In fact, the paper shows no significant correlation between violent crimes and ANYTHING. What your source DOES say CLEARLY is that seat belt enforcement saves occupant lives, and it argues for PRIMARY enforcement rather than SECONDARY enforcement. Conclusion: The policeman you saw hiding in the bushes was SAVING LIVES, and that his doing so would have had no discernible statistically significant effect on violent crime. As such, it seems to me that your reference argues against you. You DID read the paper, didn't you? Am I missing something?
CMT July 18, 2012 at 01:10 AM
It seems like whenever there is a crime it always goes back to blaming the police. How about blaming the criminals, How about blaming the people that are raised with no morals and no respect for anyone or anything. The police can not be everywhere at once. Traffic enforcement that you may find to be so terrible does help keep people safe and alive. And yes, traffic stops do often lead to drug arrests, DUI arrests, weapons and other charges. An officer may smell something which gives them the right to search. A person with a gun may be acting weird or reaching around, again giving them the right to search. And, if you are the type or person that likes to speed and realizes that Plainfield is not the town to speed through than good, I think a service was done for our community. Maybe you do not see the actual "patrol" that goes on but rest assured, it does happen. We are lucky that this town does not have the level of crime the surrounding towns have, and our heroin problem has not hit epidemic proportions, yet. As for the problems happening around BK and CiCi's ... if you started seeing a car sitting there day after day you would most likely complain about that too. The location was just coincidence. Personally I think there is more to the BK story, I do not think it was a robbery attempt. I am anxious to see where that story goes.
T-Bone July 18, 2012 at 02:04 AM
I don't think anyone is saying stop traffic enforcement but you cant tell me if the Cop was in the driveway next to Buger King radaring cars that are actually speeding on the 59 this idiot with the gun would not have thought twice before he shot at the employees! That is what I'm talking about. Placement of the officers on duty in a visible area when not on a call will and can deter crime. Do we know when this is going to happen, no but an officer in the bushes on Lockport is not helping deter anything!
Stephane Carlson July 18, 2012 at 05:18 AM
I'm not sure how many are on a specific shift at once, but here's a hypothetical. Say there are 15 officers around town at any given time, plus perhaps a couple of supervisors, one to remain at post. Several calls are placed by residents...domestic, noise, party, well-being, etc. Dispatch sends them out...10 left. One ofc has a traffic stop north side for possible DUI. Additional backup sent per protocol. Another south side for accident write up; 7 left driving around. 2 calls made possible theft/fraud; complainants arrive at station to speak with officers. 5 left. DUI arrested, officer booking and reporting. Will be off call for couple hours. Then, Ambulance requests police assistance. 4 left. Now there's a loud party with under age drinking suspected. 1-2 officers en route. Others still writing reports at post. Reports finished, calls cleared, begin cycle again. Residents request police presence at specific location for dangerous drivers. Supervisor assigns detail. Tell me now, how many patrol cars do you think really remain free? That's probably an easy day/night. Hell, bump roll to 20 and that's still easily under 10 to cover 24 square miles. And keep in mind meal and bathroom breaks. And more than one arrest...more time for reports, etc.
Truth Hurts July 18, 2012 at 02:49 PM
Let's just say there is usually ONLY 4-6 officers working......that the facts
Neighboring PD July 18, 2012 at 03:58 PM
There is about 50-51 Plainfield Officers in the Village. I do know they have around 5-6 officers assigned to each day/night shift, saying everyone is there ( sick time, vacation, personal time, training, etc) there Is a minimum staffing level set at 4 officers, which means they can not go below 4 officers working in the Village at each shift. 4 officers for 41,000 people, including taking calls, patrolling neighborhoods, patrolling businesses and being proactive......
T-Bone July 18, 2012 at 10:25 PM
I was refering to Tim saying one was hiding in the bushes on Lockport St. No matter how many are working a shift (5 or 20) that is not going to deter anyone. So you can go round and round with different ideas or excuses for the PPD, but like Jesse Jackson once said, "Stay Out the Bushes!"
OTB July 19, 2012 at 03:50 AM
I agree with staying out of the bushes. But all the articles I've read on this Page refer to the seatbelt and RR details are the officers on foot, NOT your every day patrol officer. You can't complete as much patrol work with 5 officers when one of them is a supervisor
Hugo July 19, 2012 at 06:05 PM
Hugo July 19, 2012 at 06:06 PM
>>an officer in the bushes on Lockport is not helping deter anything! That's where the bars are, though. Fights at closing and DUIs etc. There's plenty to deter.
Joey Cantore July 19, 2012 at 08:34 PM
I have a good friend who lives in the area of fox river and ottawa. They have there share of burglary, DUI, criminal damage, drunks wandering around downtown, juvenile calls and theft in that area....I'm guessing if there are officers in the area of Fox Rivet and Lockport street for seat belt enforcement, some of this would not be occurring.
Hugo July 20, 2012 at 01:29 PM
It's funny. By T-bone's definition, the police are already doing a good job preventing robberies. One could make the case that the police are preventing robberies for 360 days of the year, and for 99.9% of our businesses based on what they are already doing. I recall one or two cell phone stores, and Cicis a couple times. Funny how he defines "often". Of course, he doesn't realize his basically flawed reasoning of thinking he can prove that something was prevented. I might as well put the burden on him to prove that bigfoot DOESN'T exist.
T-Bone July 21, 2012 at 12:24 PM
Well Hugo, I'm not sure if Bigfoot exists but we all can tell Big Mouth exists! You prove it every time you post! First you are for Police on Lockport then against it and now for it again! You sound like a yes man that everyone hates at work. Yes to whatever your boss says even if is against your morals. But then again I guess you have to have morals to go against them!


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something