Would you try for it?

L

LASur5r

Moderator
Saw this on "Third Watch" the other night. Just for thought provocation, what would you do?

You're in a bank to cash a check, two guys come in to hold up the bank. They have automatic weapons. You have your CCW and your cellphone, and your daughter is with you.
At one point, the two BG's have gotten the money and they had to put their guns down to put the jackets on(with all the money stashed in the lining.

Would you take a chance at shooting them or do you hope that they go out the door without shooting anyone, especially with your kid next to you?
 
Definitely not. They have the money in hand, they just want to get out the door.

They don't want to kill anyone to add to their charges if they get caught. (At least that's what they say on tv! ;) )

Bank robbery = sucks.

Bank robbery + murder = reeeeeally sucks.
 
I saw the same show, Noticed that the uzis bolt was closed almost the whole time.

I would do nothing, and let them leave.

ARUID
 
they have the money, they're going to leave, it's NOT my money. They get a pass. The cameras will take a pretty picture of the boys. The lads in blue will be looking for them. And best of all, I don't have to worry about a 'mole' shooting me in the back of the head when I pull out my pistol. Unless they show violent tendencies I'm NOT going to start anything.
 
Ain't my money. My money's insured.

Even if it WAS my money, my daughter and my own life is worth more than cash.
 
I saw the same show, Noticed that the uzis bolt was closed almost the whole time.
Click to expand...

As did I. I also noticed that the Uzi was racked several times between shots (seriously, exactly how many time did he plan on chambering a fresh round).

The most interesting thing was the lack of mag changes during the extended firefight outside the bank. In order to expend the amount of ammunition they managed to get off, they'd have a lot more than just cash in their pockets.

As for the question; as mentioned by others, I wouldn't do a thing as long as I was reasonably certain money was their only objective. There's no reason to reason to increase the chances of a friendly fatality just for the sake of getting in a shot if indeed they are about to leave.

However, if there is a strong sense there were to be no witnesses, I'd do what I could.
 
Working the armored car industry, I'll tell you exactly what our trainers tell us.

Let them go.

There is no immediate threat to life and limb. More important than that, you don't know if they have a "plainclothes" wingman mixed in with the other customers. You could draw down on them and be killed by someone you never suspected.

The FDIC insures your money. Anything stolen in that scenario will be replaced up to $100,000.

Shooting them when you do not have a reasonable expectation of imminent death or grave bodily injury could subject you to criminal charges.

If they show hostile behaviour and a person of reasonable firmness would believe they are about to kill someone, you could take the chance. It's a gamble and you'd better be good.
 
With or without the kid, I would not try to stop them, but that does not mean I would have tried to get a grip on my gun and potentially drawn it (with no child present) and kept it concealed just in case they decide they are not leaving after all. That sort of thing MIGHT work if you have been ordered down on your belly and you can move your unholstered gun to underneath you without drawing attention.

While I would be glad to let the folks go, just because they have the money and have stated their intentions are to leave without trouble, that does not mean they are going to leave without trouble. In some 12% or so of robbery cases, according to FBI information from the Discovery Channel, bad guys go ahead and shoot, stab, club folks AFTER they get the goods and everyone in cooperating. Sometimes it seems planned. Sometimes it seems to be a last second decision to just shoot somebody on the way out or in some cases, one of which was shown, the bad guys get all the way outside, and then come back in, cap a couple of folks for good measure and then leave again.

The point is that just because all the requirements have been met and the bad guys are about to leave, that is no time to relax your guard. Contrary to what a lot of anti gun folks think or the grieving parents of a bad guy that got killed, just because they state that if you give up the money and don't cause trouble that they will leave with the money and everyone alive. The argument is presented like some sort of agreement between parties in a business decision. It isn't as if they have entered into some legally binding contract, however, or that just because they have given you their word on their intentions that you would have any reason to believe their word on their stated intentions is going to be truthful. There is no reason to believe people who have robbed you and threatened your life. If they are willing to do that, then no doubt they are willing to lie to you. Maybe it is true and maybe it is just a ploy to pacify you and the others so that they will have less trouble in dealing with you when the time comes.

Interesting about this situation being inside a bank. Why would I want to stop the bad guys from getting away with money that is NOT mine (or not much anyway that is in my account) and is FDIC insured anyway. Why would I risk my life to help the FDIC?
 
Reminded me of...

An episode of the X-Files where Mulder goes to the bank to cash his paycheck and walks in on a guy with bomb strapped to his chest and detonator in hand. Mulder shot, BG triggered detonator, bank goes KB! Of course this episode was like the movie "Groundhog Day" Mulder kept reliving the day until he got it right and got the BG and saved the bank. Pretty interesting episode really. :cool:
 
I'd probabaly follow them out to the parking lot and rob them. Or rob them in the bank, depends on a lot of factors lol.

I wonder how many real life occurances there are where the robber get's robbed by another robber?

In all honesty, do nothing unless they start shooting. Thereby making a good witness and not missing my lunch appointment.
 
I have no moral or legal right to shoot them unless I have some reason to believe they are going to shoot me or someone else.

You can't go around as a citizen (or a LEO for that matter) shooting people because they are breaking a law...even if you are sure they are. i don't think bank robbery alone is a capital offense.
 
logical, you are right that you can't just go around shooting people because they break the law, but at , the moment in time when the bank robbers produced guns and pointed them at people, the robbery aspect was not really relevant except for the fact that it was what caused you and them to come together. At that time, the issue really is not the robbery, but the fact that they are threatening lives. Because they have threatened lives, yours included as you are essentially being held hostage during the robbery or are in hiding within the bank out of fear for your life or that of your child, lethal force is a valid response legally (I think pretty much everywhere) if you choose to go that route. Just because they have put down their guns for a moment, in the given scenario, does NOT mean your life is no longer being threatened. If they were dumb enough to make the mistake of all disarming at the same time and you can shoot them all without anyone else or yourself getting hurt, good for you and bad for them!

In short, you are not going around shooting people for breaking the law, but for putting your life in jeopardy as well as those around you.

Similar example, a guy comes up to mug me at knife-point for my wallet and I manage to draw and shoot the mugger, I am not defending my wallet or its contents, but me.
 
I'd make a great witness.

That's it.

Unless I had to act, meaning it was obvious the BGs were imminently going to start shooting, or already had started.
 
Didn't see the show, just commenting on one thing mentioned:

"...the two BG's have gotten the money and they had to put their guns down..."

Presumably at the same time? Bad tactics. On either side of the law, one person always stands watch while their compatriots are otherwise occupied or unarmed.

'Course, being TV...:D

Me? Let 'em have the money. They've already got what they've came for and are in the process of leaving, why risk death?
 
Didn't see the show but obviously the characters in this situation must have been the cops? Otherwise what state do you live in that would allow CCW in a bank?

If all they want is the banks money I would let them go. I would not shoot them in the back as they left or any fool thing like that. Shooting someone in the back, especially if they are leaving, is a good way to be convicted of murder in most states.

There's over an 80% chance that doing what they say will keep everybody safe and the only person that loses is the bank. Those are damn good odds.

If someone starts shooting (and it won't be me) then all bets are off. Once they leave I would take a good position so I could kill them if they tried to re-enter the bank for any reason. There is no good reason for them to come back and now I would have the advantage of surprise because they will not be expecting resistance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top