Soldier foils bank robbery

[fulano]

Saw Sargent Peoples on Fox this morning. Just a great story. The Sargent even had his kids with him.

BG was 6-3. After police arrived they noted that the crook had soiled himself from fear put into him by the Sargent. I couldn't find the interview on Fox's website yet. It will be there. Its very entertaining. Crook was in the wrong place.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/02/so ... k-robbery/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[The Annoyed Man]

I saw this story too. I'm glad it worked out for him, but it was a singularly bad idea. The man was waving a gun around. There was a reasonably high probability of his children going home fatherless that day. His primary responsibility was to get his kids home safely, not to pursue and disarm an armed bank robber. As nobody knew until the BG was disarmed that the gun was a toy, he took the risk of getting himself shot point blank with a .45 (the bank video shows the gunman waving a 1911 pattern pistol around).

[Pug]

Unfortunately.

The guys is a hero, IMHO, simply for his service. There wasno need to risk his life for a fool stealing other people's FDIC insured change...

But I must admit I respect his courage nonetheless.

[flintknapper]

Unfortunately.

The guys is a hero, IMHO, simply for his service. There wasno need to risk his life for a fool stealing other people's FDIC insured change...

But I must admit I respect his courage nonetheless.

As I read these type posts (this and the one above)...I am compelled to offer the following:

Let's just simply leave it up to each individual as whether to "act" or not. All of this... based upon your level of confidence, your training and the totality of the circumstance at hand.

As long as his action would not present a high risk of injury/death to others (not in his charge), then its pretty much up to him to decide.

If you don't want to (can't/won't/disagree) fine...but we shouldn't dictate to others what the "best thing to do" would be.

Every circumstance would be different of course. I will assume the Soldier was confident he could handle the situation. If that was the case....then I applaud him and his actions.

[RoyGBiv]

If you don't want to (can't/won't/disagree) fine...but we shouldn't dictate to others what the "best thing to do" would be.

Every circumstance would be different of course. I will assume the Soldier was confident he could handle the situation. If that was the case....then I applaud him and his actions.

Bravo.. Well said.

[The Annoyed Man]

Unfortunately.

The guys is a hero, IMHO, simply for his service. There wasno need to risk his life for a fool stealing other people's FDIC insured change...

But I must admit I respect his courage nonetheless.

As I read these type posts (this and the one above)...I am compelled to offer the following:

Let's just simply leave it up to each individual as whether to "act" or not. All of this... based upon your level of confidence, your training and the totality of the circumstance at hand.

As long as his action would not present a high risk of injury/death to others (not in his charge), then its pretty much up to him to decide.

If you don't want to (can't/won't/disagree) fine...but we shouldn't dictate to others what the "best thing to do" would be.

Every circumstance would be different of course. I will assume the Soldier was confident he could handle the situation. If that was the case....then I applaud him and his actions.

OK, I'll buy that. Perhaps for individuals who have been very well trained to react with overwhelming physical violence against physical threats, that might be a workable solution. I know that at least a couple of our members have recent service in various parts of the Special Forces community. People like that are suitably trained for these kinds of encounters. Perhaps I should amend what I said to read: "....but it was a singularly bad idea for anyone not properly trained in this type of thing—which would disqualify many but not all members of this board, myself included."

I posted a few months ago words to the effect that we have to be willing to stand in the gap to prevent further degradation of the culture and its attendant consequences. Therefore, although I would generally try to avoid "fighting words" and physical confrontations, I am sometimes compelled to speak out loud and draw attention to boorish behavior and not let people "get away" with it. Similarly, if I came upon a clear cut example of undeserved aggression against a helpless person, I might well involve myself on the helpless person's behalf, if I could do so with a reasonable expectation of going home at the end of the day.

But, there are a lot of "what ifs" in this story. What if the robber's gun had not been a toy? What if, once his car was boxed in, he decided to run back in the bank and take some hostages? (Sgt. Peoples' children were inside the bank.) What if the robber prevailed in the physical confrontation and killed Peoples? I admire his courage, and I am truly glad that he defeated the BG, but I have to ask myself, what would have happened if he had not pursued the BG? First of all, the bank video was of pretty good quality, and there is a fairly good chance that the BG might have been identified and apprehended fairly quickly anyway.

I agree that I shouldn't issue a blanket condemnation, and if I had paused and re-read my post one more time before clicking "Submit," I might have qualified my comments. But, we also have a lot of newbie members here for whom the whole idea of daily carry and the implications of one's duties to the community haven't been fully thought out yet—just as my own had not been when I first joined this forum while waiting for my plastic to arrive. I would not want something that I wrote here to encourage someone to take on a mission for which he may not be prepared, particularly if he has kids at home who would like to keep him around until he's old and fat (like me.)

So, my apologies to Sgt Peoples, and I certainly did not mean to offend anyone, but I do want to discourage ninja behavior in people who don't have the physical/training/mental tools to be ninjas. That's basically what I meant by my original post.

[fulano]

What should an off-duty LEO do in a circumstance such as Sargent Peoples found himself in?

[The Annoyed Man]

What should an off-duty LEO do in a circumstance such as Sargent Peoples found himself in?

I suppose that depends on several factors, one being his agency's policy regarding off-duty actions, another other being whether or not his children are involved (it was the presence of Sgt Peoples' children that elicited my original response), and a third being what his conscience dictates. Most LEOs have more training in handling physical confrontations than most citizens do, and their jobs require them to keep that training current.

[fulano]

What should an off-duty LEO do in a circumstance such as Sargent Peoples found himself in?

I suppose that depends on several factors, one being his agency's policy regarding off-duty actions, another other being whether or not his children are involved (it was the presence of Sgt Peoples' children that elicited my original response), and a third being what his conscience dictates. Most LEOs have more training in handling physical confrontations than most citizens do, and their jobs require them to keep that training current.

Interesting. I didn't know if they are "required" to involve themselves?

There have been several members of my and my wife's family who were LEOs but I never asked them. They are all retired or passed on. I was close to one. He and I were the same age.

I just remember when he was young he carried at least two hand guns all the time and was always looking, accessing and planning even when we were hunting birds! He was the best pistol shot I'd ever seen.

[The Annoyed Man]

I do believe in the "sheepdog" concept. Very much so. I just think that sheepdogs need to also be aware of their other obligations—like to the sheep for whom they are directly responsible (think Sgt Peoples' kids)—when they consider whether or not to take action on behalf of those for whom they are only indirectly responsible, like the Bank of America specifically and the rest of society generally.

Like flintknapper said above,

Let's just simply leave it up to each individual as whether to "act" or not. All of this... based upon your level of confidence, your training and the totality of the circumstance at hand.

As long as his action would not present a high risk of injury/death to others (not in his charge), then its pretty much up to him to decide.

If you don't want to (can't/won't/disagree) fine...but we shouldn't dictate to others what the "best thing to do" would be.

Every circumstance would be different of course. I will assume the Soldier was confident he could handle the situation. If that was the case....then I applaud him and his actions.

I can't find any fault in that, with one exception, and that is the presence of one's own children. You/I/We owe our first priority to the protection of our children. First and foremost, and without question. If you can't place the needs of your own children above everyone else's needs, then perhaps parenthood isn't for you. It isn't so much that Peoples took the action that he did which is heroic in and of itself which I disagree with, it's that he took that heroic action when his own kids were there inside the bank building. If they were my kids, I would have stayed inside with them after the robber left the building. That's just me, and I don't judge anyone for disagreeing with my opinion. This is one of those things that, as flintknapper said, has to be left up to the individual as whether to "act" or not.

[flintknapper]

I do believe in the "sheepdog" concept. Very much so. I just think that sheepdogs need to also be aware of their other obligations—like to the sheep for whom they are directly responsible (think Sgt Peoples' kids)—when they consider whether or not to take action on behalf of those for whom they are only indirectly responsible, like the Bank of America specifically and the rest of society generally.

Like flintknapper said above,

Let's just simply leave it up to each individual as whether to "act" or not. All of this... based upon your level of confidence, your training and the totality of the circumstance at hand.

As long as his action would not present a high risk of injury/death to others (not in his charge), then its pretty much up to him to decide.

If you don't want to (can't/won't/disagree) fine...but we shouldn't dictate to others what the "best thing to do" would be.

Every circumstance would be different of course. I will assume the Soldier was confident he could handle the situation. If that was the case....then I applaud him and his actions.

I can't find any fault in that, with one exception, and that is the presence of one's own children. You/I/We owe our first priority to the protection of our children. First and foremost, and without question. If you can't place the needs of your own children above everyone else's needs, then perhaps parenthood isn't for you. It isn't so much that Peoples took the action that he did which is heroic in and of itself which I disagree with, it's that he took that heroic action when his own kids were there inside the bank building. If they were my kids, I would have stayed inside with them after the robber left the building. That's just me, and I don't judge anyone for disagreeing with my opinion. This is one of those things that, as flintknapper said, has to be left up to the individual as whether to "act" or not.

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

Your points are well taken and would certainly apply as "good advice" for most situations. I honestly believe this Soldier acted even with a bit of anger (not always a good thing) from having had his children threatened.

I will assume he thought he could do something about that....and did.

If something similar were to happen another 10 ten times....would it always turn out well for him, I can't say. I can only say it is HIS decision to make (within the confines of the law) and with respect to any perceived risks.

[Pug]

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. The BG got what he wanted, was sure to be caught (videos and plenty of witnesses), and no one got hurt. Why play the hero when the deed is done. To that end we (both my soldier-son and I) pay taxes to the local authorities to deal with BGs like this fellow.

If something similar were to happen another 10 ten times....would it always turn out well for him, I can't say. I can only say it is HIS decision to make (within the confines of the law) and with respect to any perceived risks.

Whereas I agree with you in that it was his decision to make, I don't have to agree with his decision. I stil believe it was an unnecessary if not fool-hardy act that put his life at unnecessary risk.

[jimandyen]

I am glad there are people like Sgt. Peoples.

I wonder if after his close encounter inside the bank he was able to see that the gun was indeed a fake before he
ran outside for the confrontation.

Is there training for Law Enforcement or Military in pyscology or weapons to:

1.) Recognize if the criminal has the nerve to shoot someone?

2.) See that a weapon is a fake or has the safety on etc.

[teraph]

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. As for training to ID a fake weapon/safety/no mag etc there isn't any training for that either, but by being around weapons one could very easily take it upon themselves to train themselves/their soldiers to do so. Personally, I am training my guys (even though we are all POGs) to ID weapons and their status.

[paulhailes]

In this senecio I see no reason why I would peruse the bg out of the bank, at the same time who am I to question the actions of someone who was actually there and had a much better feel for the situation. In looking at situations like these I think it's important to remember that while something might be possible, like disarming a bg, it's not something I believe I could do reliably, and would not try to unless I had to.