Gutsy good guy stops bank robbery

[PetrucciFan]

Obviously this situation worked out well for this chl'er, and I can't say what I would have done in this situation, and I don't want to say what he did was right or wrong, but I do have a question for you guys after watching his interview.

Towards the end of the interview, the GG said that the BG asked if he was a cop and the GG said "yes" even though he wasn't. Now, I can see his reasoning for saying yes, but could this get him in hot water for impersonating a LEO.

If you had to draw on someone and they asked if you were a LEO, what would you say?

[israel67]

Obviously this situation worked out well for this chl'er, and I can't say what I would have done in this situation, and I don't want to say what he did was right or wrong, but I do have a question for you guys after watching his interview.

Towards the end of the interview, the GG said that the BG asked if he was a cop and the GG said "yes" even though he wasn't. Now, I can see his reasoning for saying yes, but could this get him in hot water for impersonating a LEO.

If you had to draw on someone and they asked if you were a LEO, what would you say?

SHUT UP AND GET DOWN, KEEP YOUR HANDS WHERE I CAN SEE 'EM!!!!!!!!!!

[seamusTX]

Towards the end of the interview, the GG said that the BG asked if he was a cop and the GG said "yes" even though he wasn't. Now, I can see his reasoning for saying yes, but could this get him in hot water for impersonating a LEO[?]

When you've arrested a robber, I think a few white lies are just water under the bridge.

Israel has the right idea, though. The defender probably talked more than he should have. It's too easy to be distracted.

- Jim

[israel67]

Towards the end of the interview, the GG said that the BG asked if he was a cop and the GG said "yes" even though he wasn't. Now, I can see his reasoning for saying yes, but could this get him in hot water for impersonating a LEO[?]

When you've arrested a robber, I think a few white lies are just water under the bridge.

Israel has the right idea, though. The defender probably talked more than he should have. It's too easy to be distracted.

Yep. Anyone at whom I need to point a gun, isn't my friend, and I'm not going to get into chit-chat with him. Hey man, is that a Kimber? Yeah, like it? Sure do, swell gun ... can I see it ? Sure, be careful, it's loaded .. oh no, what are you doing?? What -- BAM!!

*sigh*

I need to get out more.

[lawrnk]

Canton, Michigan (Detroit area): A man allegedly tried to rob a bank, claiming that he had a bomb. A customer who is a Michigan CCW holder drew a 9 mm pistol and told the robber to stop. The robber obviously did not have a plan B (nor a bomb) and was arrested.

The startled [robber] countered with, "but, I have a bomb" -- but Fawzi wasn't impressed. "I don't care. You are not robbing this bank!" was the reply from the other side of the gun.

I saw that on XD talk, and was amazed at the number of people who criticised the CHL for intervening! Is it really a case of 'I'm all right, Jack!' or 'don't get involved' everywhere??

My obligation in life is to be around for my wife and son. I will stand idly by if someone robs a bank. If they threaten me personally, I'll defend myself. But yes, the CHL made a poor decision.

[HerbM]

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.

[lawrnk]

I worked for a bomb disposal company for 5 years in Stafford, TX.
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.

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.

[HerbM]

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?

[speedsix]

...three years and more and it's a running thread??? how did you even FIND IT three years later???

[johnson0317]

speedsix,

Who you talkin' to? Last post I see before yours is three years old. Did someone post and then delete it when you pointed that out?

[AEA]

With regard to the 3 year post being revived......

I have personally reported spammers that come to this site and post links to various sites in their message text or in their signature line. They are usually "one post wonders" but often they have 5 or 6 posts in a short period of time and the first few were not noticed.

What I have noticed in all instances is that they somehow pick older threads to do this in. Why/how I do not know. What I do know is that it certainly makes it easier for me to spot their spamming and report it.

Once they are reported to the Mods, the posts are usually deleted and the offender usually banned. That is what may have happened in this thread.

[seamusTX]

Beiruty found a YouTube video of an interview with the defender in this case: viewtopic.php?f=26&t=46773" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Keith B. locked that thread and linked to here.

- Jim

[speedsix]

...Keith B must have a memory like a Mother-in-law to remember the original thread 3 years later's what I'm sayin'

[Keith B]

...Keith B must have a memory like a Mother-in-law to remember the original thread 3 years later's what I'm sayin'

Nah, I only remember the non-important stuff.

In all honesty, I did remember the thread, and did link back to it, but didn't realize it was that old or probably wouldn't have.

[speedsix]

...I used to have a mind like that...could relate conversations word-for-word a coupla years after...made a lot of cases in court that way...but I've gotten a bit lazy-headed...it's all still in there...but I have to dig through a lot of whatever...to get to it...(but I wear gloves)...