Soldier foils bank robbery

[flintknapper]

Mr. Peoples (and all other Soldiers who are also parents would disagree), else they wouldn't be Soldiers (with the attendant risks).

Don't presume to speak for all of us . . . you're opinion is your own. Neither I nor my soldier-son would have acted so carelessly. .

That was not my intent Sir. I think either you misunderstood my point, or I failed to make it clear.

My post was in response to the clearly highlighted text :

If you can't place the needs of your own children above everyone else's needs, then perhaps parenthood isn't for you.

If you think about it, every soldier (subject to combat) puts the needs of others above his own (including his children) . By default...his/her very life is at stake when they go to battle or even when they "sign up" to do so. It could be argued that this constitutes an unnecessary risk as well, or it might be a calculated risk. In either case the decision is yours to make.

I am not promoting the soldier's action as being particularly wise , just defending his right to do so...and trying to separate what he did...from the actions a CHL might (or might not take). I think as members here...we tend to look at things from a single perspective.

[KD5NRH]

There really isn't a lot of training in the military side for the average soldier to recognize if someone is willing to shoot, most of the time its through instinct/training that most make their decisions.

That's because there's an assumption that any armed opponent is going to shoot at some point. Frankly, outside of LE, it's generally the safest assumption to make.

[The Annoyed Man]

Mr. Peoples (and all other Soldiers who are also parents would disagree), else they wouldn't be Soldiers (with the attendant risks).

Don't presume to speak for all of us . . . you're opinion is your own. Neither I nor my soldier-son would have acted so carelessly. .

That was not my intent Sir. I think either you misunderstood my point, or I failed to make it clear.

My post was in response to the clearly highlighted text :

If you can't place the needs of your own children above everyone else's needs, then perhaps parenthood isn't for you.

If you think about it, every soldier (subject to combat) puts the needs of others above his own (including his children) . By default...his/her very life is at stake when they go to battle or even when they "sign up" to do so. It could be argued that this constitutes an unnecessary risk as well, or it might be a calculated risk. In either case the decision is yours to make.

I am not promoting the soldier's action as being particularly wise , just defending his right to do so...and trying to separate what he did...from the actions a CHL might (or might not take). I think as members here...we tend to look at things from a single perspective.

Flint, I don't argue your point, but I think you're misunderstanding mine (the part you highlighted). From my perspective, it's not that Sgt Peoples chased the bad guy down, although that certainly would not have been my choice, it's that he might have put his own children at risk by doing so if things hadn't gone his way. His children were in that bank building. He blocked the BG from fleeing and caught him. What if he had blocked the bad guy from fleeing, and the bad guy instead ran back into the bank to grab himself some hostages.........where Sgt Peoples' children still were? That is my problem with it.

I think it is laudable that he wanted to do the right thing, when apparently nobody else felt empowered to do so. I think it is great that he caught the bad guy and stopped his depredations. I just think that it was a mistake to leave his kids unguarded in the bank and run out after the bad guy. If I were in his shoes, even if I were in his shoes and with his training and conditioning (which I'm not), I would have stayed by my kids and tried to get them out of the building, away from any possible danger. Peoples chose not to do that, and that is where I disagree with his choice. But I don't think he's a fool or an idiot, and I admire his pluck. I would have just chosen differently, for the reason I stated.

Does that make sense?

[flintknapper]

Flint, I don't argue your point, but I think you're misunderstanding mine (the part you highlighted).

TAM, I don't think I misunderstood your point, or I hope not. I recognize and appreciate your position (basically that a child's safety comes first and foremost). However, in the course your post...you pretty much suggest than anyone not adhering to the same (presumably under all circumstances) is NOT a worthy parent!

If you can't place the needs of your own children above everyone else's needs, then perhaps parenthood isn't for you.

I think that is unfair at best.

I do NOT suggest that everyone do what Sgt. Peoples did ....but as alluded to in my earlier post, the good Sgt. probably felt confident in his actions. As is turns out...he took measures to lessen the chance that his children would be harmed...and only AFTER the threat had left the building...did the Sgt. chose to engage.

We can write pages of "what ifs" and hypothesize over what could have happened, but I would wager the Sgt. is a man who can think on his feet, assess threat levels and respond as he sees fit.

Just so everyone will know who this man is:

http://www2.tbo.com/news/news/2011/jun/ ... ar-234982/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think he felt well qualified to handle a "street punk" and did. I also don't think he felt his children were any longer in danger.

[The Annoyed Man]

Flint, I don't argue your point, but I think you're misunderstanding mine (the part you highlighted).

TAM, I don't think I misunderstood your point, or I hope not. I recognize and appreciate your position (basically that a child's safety comes first and foremost). However, in the course your post...you pretty much suggest than anyone not adhering to the same (presumably under all circumstances) is NOT a worthy parent!

If you can't place the needs of your own children above everyone else's needs, then perhaps parenthood isn't for you.

I think that is unfair at best.

That's what I meant by "misunderstood." I was speaking in the context of the posted story, and it was posted absent followup knowledge about the steps he took to protect his kids. The initial reports, including the ones I saw myself on FoxNews, did not include those details, and my response was based on what I knew at the time. Can't we agree that the safety of one's children should come first? That's all I meant, and I did not say Sgt Peoples wasn't a worthy parent. I merely said, based on the information posted at the time, that I would have made a different choice.

Anyway, none of this is worth arguing about, so I'm not going to.