Is it wise to assault a bank robber displaying a gun?

[Hook686]

I do not think it is ever wise to assualt anyone holding a gun. It might turn out successful sometimes, but I suspect that is not the normal outcome.

 

[CoastRange57]

People who pull out guns in polite company with a declared intent to do bad will be given no quarter by me.

I will take their actions for what they are; the threat of force to be used upon me or others for any reason, or no reason at all in pursuit of whatever they have decided they are willing to harm others to get.

I am not out to save the bank, their money, or society. I would only be concerned with saving me or my own family from someone who by displaying a gun, has shown me that they may turn their bad intentions toward me.

Exactly. This is nothing about the money. It is all about intent to use deadly force against a person. Display and pointing (menacing) of a weapon during the commission of a crime clearly displays intent to use deadly force.

 

[AOTAC]

Some would say I'm a bit of an expert in this field, given my experience. Others would say, "he's making that bubblegum up". From the data I've collected, I would say it's unwise. My data suggests if a civilian foils a bank robbery attempt, he is 10 (6 for women) times more likely to rob a bank in the future. I'm not taking any chances but don't take my word for it:

"-- Mark Rothwell made the news in Portland, Oregon, in March 2010 when he prevented a bank robbery (and rescued the terrified Chase teller) by jumping the thief, knocking his gun away and holding him until police arrived. He was later awarded a coveted Portland police Civilian Medal for Heroism. However, on Feb. 19, 2015, according to an arrest report, Rothwell himself pulled a gun and robbed the Albina Community Bank in Portland, making off with $15,700. [The Oregonian, 2-19-2015] "

Courtesy of Newsoftheweird.com.

 

[Sgt Nambu]

Then after having successfully executed all that, we go all Post #4 and practice our plastic surgery skills/aspirations, yes?!

Sorry no, Stomper. Surgery is done with a boot!

 

[2Wheels4Ever]

As soon as the guy point the gun at me, we have a problem. Until then, the money in that bank is not worth my life.

 

[CoastRange57]

As soon as the guy point the gun at me, we have a problem. Until then, the money in that bank is not worth my life.

With all due respect, you have a big problem if you wait until he points the gun at you to do anything. You are pretty much screwed and at his direction at that point.

 

[tbone2374]

There is no amount of money, in any bank, worth my interference, in an armed robbery. This is one of the situations, why I'm against, open carry!

 

[Gunguy45]

1. The money is insured. No one is losing a dime here.
2. Tackling a guy with a gun when you're unarmed and there is no imminent threat to anyone? A risky idea even if you're Billy Badass. And more importantly, not risky just to you, but to the others around if a round gets fired while you're being a hero.

That being said, I refuse to second guess. I wasn't there.

For me, absent what I think is an imminent threat to someone, I'm happy to let the guy go, LEAVING a crowded situation with tons of bystanders and let the cops deal with it.

IF I had the perfect shot to the back of the head I was SURE I couldn't miss, I MIGHT take it. But probably not.

Money is money. If the guy shot the teller on his way to Hades because I shot him and he jerked the trigger, I'd never forgive myself. Bank robbers ALWAYS get caught, eventually.

I suppose there's always the chance that the guy will decide to shoot someone on the way out for the Hell of it. It happens. But it's incredibly rare.

Bottom line is that I'm not willing to risk my life or yours over money. And sure as HELL not someone ELSE'S money.

I recently had $35k in uninsured cash on my person. MY money. Yep, I'd have shot a MFer over that. But that's about the only time I can think of where I'd make that choice.

 

[coop44]

It's the old discussion between "enabling" and "preventing" crime. A Sheriff's Sgt. once told me in a really bad part of town, that if I was to be robbed, but was armed, and let it happen anyway, I was "enabling" bad behavior. The problem is, if you do otherwise, your legal bills will far surpass anything in that wallet you were protecting. You need to ask yourself whether you are willing to hold principle above pain. Of course, if everyone acted on principle, things would change.

how would they know who to sue if you simply walked away?

 

[CoastRange57]

Because in a bank they have some really good high resolution cameras all over the place, and standing in line indicates you have business there and are known to them. My wife's store had a burglary a couple weeks ago at 1:38 am, intrusion alarm and a sharp eyed LEO found it less than 10 minutes later and the cameras got the perp doing the whole thing.

The stupid azz perp then walked into the local Plaid Donkey store while the cop was showing the clerk dudes picture on his phone. Under arrest and in custody 2 hours after the crime. Cameras are everywhere.

 

[Gunguy45]

There is no amount of money, in any bank, worth my interference, in an armed robbery. This is one of the situations, why I'm against, open carry!

I guess my response to that, as an open carrier, is that if the perp SAW my gun, he'd have to be even MORE stupid than the average criminal to rob that bank while I was there.

If he murdered me just TO rob the bank? Well, it was my unlucky day, because I just ran into the 100th of ONE percent of robbers who have no hesitation and no fear of being caught and are perfectly willing to kill someone in cold blood. Oh well, I'll be dead and my worries will be over. The chances of that happening? Well, Millions of people O/C a handgun every day in this country. Can you cite even ONE instance of that happening?

 

[waglockfan]

Nope. Not concerned about being a hero so Chase or B of A can run our economy to the crapper. As long as that gun at pointed at me....

 

[boogerhook]

The bank robber example is interesting, because nowadays it's a pretty defined and controlled process. The vast majority of these "bank robberies" have a drug addict going into a bank handing the teller a note saying "this is a bank robbery.... give me all your money". What happens next is that the bank teller - who is trained for this specific clientele - will pull a bundle of cash ($300-$500) from the cash drawer and hand it over. The robber leaves, and authorities are notified. The process is safe, nobody gets hurt, and it's a minimal loss for the bank.

There is no point getting involved. Not saying there aren't cases that warrant intervention, but more likely than not they won't happen inside a bank.

My personal mantra is:

1. Before using lethal force, check AOJ (ability, opportunity, and jeopardy) - meaning does the attacker have the ability (weapon, body size/strength), the opportunity (distance) to put your or other's lives in immediate jeopardy. Although not required in WA, I also consider "preclusion". Is there an option to walk away from the confrontation without using force that would eliminate the threat? "Stand your ground" has been controversial, and in public settings (vs. at home), preclusion will likely give you more credibility at trial.

2. Presenting a firearm without firing. Most DGUs are just that. Good guy presents a firearm and it convinces the bad guy to abort and leave. I have 2 levels. #1 - present your holster. Going from concealed carry to open carry sends a message without creating an immediate threat. It just lets the other guy know that you have the ability if needed. I think it's pretty immune against potential brandishing charges. #2 - drawing your gun and pointing it at someone who you perceive as imminent threat. That would be warranted if the other person had a weapon, had an advantage in body strength/size/age, or if the person has expressed verbally that he had plans to attack or harm others.

 

[Gunguy45]

I'm more inclined to let the guy "get away with it" because I see my intervention as being likely of more harm than good.

The consequence (bank being robbed of money that is insured) is minimal.

My intervention introduces threats that were not initially present.
I'm going for least harm here.

 

[boogerhook]

how would they know who to sue if you simply walked away?

If you shoot someone, God forbid, you must attend to his first aid after he has stopped being a threat. That includes calling for EMS and possibly rendering first aid on your own.

 

[BillGabby1]

Standing behind him in line...

You bet!

As soon as that pistol was not in someone's face, Id have donkey punched him in the back of the head. One shot knock out...

I'm not familiar with a donkey punch but I know jackasses can kick.
Please explain.
Gabby

 

[CoastRange57]

2. Presenting a firearm without firing. Most DGUs are just that. Good guy presents a firearm and it convinces the bad guy to abort and leave. I have 2 levels. #1 - present your holster. Going from concealed carry to open carry sends a message without creating an immediate threat. It just lets the other guy know that you have the ability if needed. I think it's pretty immune against potential brandishing charges.

I am not disputing your position on this, just presenting a different and my perspective. In the scenario presented, the bank robber has presented and is pointing a firearm at some one in the commission of a felony crime. Avoidance is best of course, and you will have to make some quick determinations as to what level of mental instability they are in. If it appears this is a rob, get the money and leave, then by all means remain in cover and let it happen. If some one already has a person (s) at gunpoint, you are at a complete tactical disadvantage, and attempting to draw is likely going to get you shot. Only being on scene and being able to assess the criminals intent is going to help you make that decision.

#2 - drawing your gun and pointing it at someone who you perceive as imminent threat. That would be warranted if the other person had a weapon,

Again, if the other person has a weapon presented, you have to consider what type of weapon, distance, context of the situation, and what level is the threat at. Who has control of the situation is key here. First person with a weapon at ready is already in control of the situation. Everything is reactive at this point.

had an advantage in body strength/size/age, or if the person has expressed verbally that he had plans to attack or harm others.

Intent, expression of intent, intimidating behavior, context of situation all play a part in this decision. An old (er) person as myself is going to be much quicker on the draw than a younger more capable person that could go hands on much better.

There are always a lot of assumptions made that if someone has a weapon at ready you will be able to draw, challenge and convince that person not to use that weapon against you. Not going to happen. If the other person has a gun at ready and is within effective range, your options are very limited in a one on one situation. If there are multiple people present in the scenario, you have a better chance to control the situation, my training has been to eliminate the threat without any challenge.

 

[Joe13]

Donkey punch = punch delivered from behind, directed at the base of the neck/head.

 

[7SFCW4]

Every bullet in your gun comes with a Lawyer attached. Your personal protection firearm is not a bank property protection device. It CAN be a citizen in imminent danger protection device, imminent being the operative (and to any Lawyer, subjective) word.

 

[jbett98]

One way to avoid this situation is to patronize banks that have a drive thru window and/or installed the acrylic panel shields in front of the tellers.