TexasCHLforum.com

lawrnk wrote:I worked for a bomb disposal company for 5 years in Stafford, TX.
...What was not mentioned here also was the possibility of an accomplice behind the CHL. I'm glad it worked out for this CHL. I simply might have done it differently.

Agreed.

"I might have done it differently" is a world different from calling it a poor decision.

I might have done it differently too, but I cannot call this a poor decision based on the reported facts, and likely context of a typical bank.

Frankly, if I thought he was serious, I would have turned off his lights, leaving me free to deal with any accomplice which is something I would EXPECT in a bank or other high end (and maybe low end) armed robber. As far as I am concerned the middle aged lady with the big purse is a likely accomplice -- so is the woman with the baby carriage by the door.

If he didn't seem to be a real threat (no switch, t-shirt with no bulges, etc. whatever) then he still might have an accomplice and having a
conversation with the guy seems a poor tactic. Get him down; get him nullified; get your back to a safe wall or bank counter; and watch everybody else.

What would you have done differently?

lawrnk wrote:If they threaten me personally, I'll defend myself. But yes, the CHL made a poor decision.

A threat to detonate a bomb in the room you are in is a threat to you, but let's work through it logically:

1) You are certain bad guy does NOT have a bomb

2) You are certain bad guy has a bomb
a) He does not have a detonator in his hands (yet)

b) He has a detonator in his hands but is not holding down the trigger
i) finger is on or effectively on/near trigger
ii) finger is away from the trigger substantially

c) He has a detonator in his hands AND is holding down the trigger

3) You are not sure if the bad guy has a bomb or not

In case 1 the guy is threatening you (and remember your FRIENDS in the bank in this case) -- take him down. This seems to be what he actually did.

In case 3, you need to gather more information, and try to resolve the situation to one of the other cases; and weigh your uncertainty against your assessment that the situation will worse (finger on trigger) or improve (he'll leave or you will determine the situation is safer). But if you can satisfy yourself that he has no access to the trigger you can treat this as "has a bomb but hand but no trigger".

2 is more complicated but basically they come down to you can stop him BEFORE he is ABLE to access the trigger.

This was case the fellow did not have a trigger device. Neutralize him BEFORE he can produce or access one.

Neutralization can be a brain stem shot or merely subdue him but above all you must not allow the BG to worsen your position or the situation.

He seems to have done just fine -- and we certainly cannot say he did badly.

israel67 wrote:

seamusTX wrote:In this case, as Herb pointed out, if the robber actually had a bomb and was willing to blow himself up, he could have taken several innocent people with him.

How many bank robbers really have bombs on them?

If they know how to make a bomb, then why not plant it somewhere and call the cops and demand a million dollars or they'll blow it up? Much less risk than walking into a bank with the thing on your person and risk dying along with the people inside.

General principle: If a violent criminal SAYS he has a bomb you treat him as if he has it.

Isolate him, get away from him, neutralize him, comply until you can improve the situation. Do NOT allow the situation to deteriorate further.

Also note this guy was claiming a BOMB.

This means that either it is likely very much a WORSE idea to intervene or very much more important and urgent to do so.

If the guys hands are both showing and empty -- he needs to be subdued fully or shot in the head.

If he's got a legitimate looking "detonator" in his hand with his finger on the button and it is pressed DOWN, then maybe it's a good time to "run for your life" (or slide away.)

If his finger isn't even on the button, then he REALLY needs to be shot in the head now.

You mileage may vary but the principle is that we must evaluate the threat now and ALSO where the threat is likely to be going in the future.

And we had better be right, or at least right enough.