I know enough about dead man's switches to have let him take the banks money and scram. 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.
HerbM wrote:A threat to detonate a bomb in the room you are in is a threat to you, but let's work through it logically:lawrnk wrote:If they threaten me personally, I'll defend myself. But yes, the CHL made a poor decision.
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.