Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Carry Issues' started by Idontplaynice, Sep 9, 2010.
[SARCASM] I didn't know that. I thought sometimes they worked alone. [/SARCASM]
Sorry- I didn't mean to jump your stuff- You're 100% right- we don't make that choice, the criminal does.
I think the biggest thing with armed robberies is that it is a fluid situation and we always have to be aware that there could be an accomplice in the crowd. We can't have a plan that works perfectly in all situations, but by carrying and being skilled shooters, we will have the tools and capability to act when needed!
If I saw a guy robbing a bank I would get on my horse and cut his head off with my katana.
You win the internetz!
Not a federal felony that I'm aware of and not against CCW laws in MO unless the bank posts a sign in accordance with state law. I have never seen a bank posted in my area. I always carry in my bank.
My personal threshold (or at least that is the plan) for using my weapon is higher than the laws of my state.
My state ALLOWS the use of deadly force to stop a "forcible felony". A forcible feloney that includes you as the victim or even someone else is (i.e., you can "stand in the shoes" of someone else from the laws perspective). You have no duty to retreat (i.e., Florida's "stand your ground" law).
My personal threshold is ... unless it is me or family member being threatened by imminent violence (and yes that is always a judgement call., i.e., one could argue being in the middle of a bank robbery when the robber has a firearm just displayed as "imminent violence". I'm not going to debate that ... it is just decision one has to be prepared to make at that moment.) ... my first choice will be to escape. Yes ... that means if I can turn around and run like a "yellow belly", that is what I'm going to do.
I'm not deploying deadly force for a strong armed robbery or any other property crime.
I'm not a hero. I'm not a protector of the public.
Again ... my personal threshold is higher than state laws.
Most of the posters have said nothing of the sort. Most have said they'd intervent if they felt anyones life was in immediate danger, and they had a chance to do something.
Seems like what 90% of the responders have also said.
Why? An armed woman is just as much of a threat whether she's the robber, or just as capable of pulling a trigger as a man if she's a customer with a clear shot/cover. Don't understand that line of reasoning at all?
I see what you did here...
In that case, the robber was so focused on the teller and the money, the guy could just wander up behind him and grab him around the neck. Could have just shot the BG in that case, had he been armed. And I wouldn't have a problem with that. He could have done that from some sort of distance as well.
What I'm against is someone drawing/engaging immediately on general principles, regardless of the situation. Only a few seem to be advocating that. If you have a great opportunity to take out the BG without much risk, go for it. But the risk of dying in a bank robbery when there is cooperation is extremely low also. I would recommend the safest course of action, as everyone's life (except the BG) is worth more than the money taken. So if you have a clear shot, his back turned, close enough you can't miss, even though vast majority of bank robbers don't shoot anyone, in that case the safer alternative may be to take him out.
If you're in his peripheral vision, with a little distance so you are unlikely to take him out without him getting some shots off, the safer alternative is to leave him alone.
Money can be replaced. People shot by errant shots, whether from the BG or GG's pistol cannot be replaced.
Nope. In MI, with a ccw you're good to go, it in NOT in the list of places you cannot carry.
Its listed as a no pistol zone for those without a permit, so no OC in a bank.
However, those no pistol zones list someone with a CCW as exempt, so someone with a CCW can OC in a bank as well.
Great consideration must be given to the innocent people involved. If you instigate a fire fight that gets innocent people harmed or killed you will have an accounting for that... both criminally and civilly. You may even be found innocent, but it will take great time, effort, and money.
I'm not saying that fear of litigation should prevent you from preventing your own loss of life. But I think it should bring pause to those who are willing to escalate a situation.
If they come in shooting, the situation is already escalated. Protect yourself. But when there's overwhelming evidence that civillians go unharmed in MOST bank robberies I think that is enough to meaningfully give us pause before we begin firing off rounds in a public place.
^Most car-jackings end up with the carjacking behind the wheel and the owner standing or lying on the pavement. Are you suggesting that when a carjacker reaches in my window and grabs me and/or my keys in the ignition in an attempt to strongarm my car that I should not escalate the situation by shooting him (on a public street) because most car-jackings end up with no shots fired and everyone alive?
This entire "in a public place" reference is actually what gives me pause. I have heard that term ALOT from the anti-gun folks: shoot someone in your home, not in public; carry that thing at home, not out here in the street with the rest of the public; what do you need to carry that in the public for? Apparently that mentality is creeping into the pro-gun folks thoughts as well.
Thank you for my first ever signature line.
Here in NM, you shoot someone that is carjacking you and they don't have a weapon, guess who's getting charged for murder? Granted he might be armed, but in your example that's not apparent
This thread is full of 2A fantasy BS.
Let me ask all of you "shoot first" manly men this, what do you think an off duty LEO would do? I know that this is GT, and all of you are 100 percent better shots than any Officer in the history of Law Enforcement, but I just want to hear what you think an off duty LEO is trained to do in a bank robbery situation.
In a carjacking, YOU are the target. Period. In a bank robbery, you are not. And if it turns out you ARE (hostage, etc) than I think you are more than justified in shooting it out.
Can't carry where I am at. And I'm not a manly he-man.
But if it's one robber, and I can take him down, I will. It's not about the money, it's about right and wrong. Citizens have a moral obligation to fight crime in their areas of operation. HOMELAND SECURITY begins by protecting your own neighbors and neighborhood. Probably from some low life with a Raven .25.
You need to make a tactical judgement call. If you can stop a robbery - anywhere - my tackling the guy, shooting him, whatever... then that's what you should do. That's the right thing to do.
All these calls for inaction makes me wanna puke. Where are we, Canada? The UK? This is America.
I hear people saying "they'll just take the money and leave." That's what EVERYONE every herded into the back of anywhere and executed has said. The robber creates an inherently dangerous situation by pulling out a gun in a public place.
If you can take him down, do it.
The money is insured. Some of us are and some are'nt. You don't know how the robbery was planned. There very well may be a corroborator in the crowd. The what ifs are endless. You won't know until you're in it, how you will react.
slow down, I'm not sure bashing Canada and the UK ( two of our closest allies ) in a "bank robbery" thread is the way to go.
Sorry man but that type of idealism doesn't mean sqaut to the innocent retirees and and other random people that just got hit because of poor shot placement when you decided to ratchet up the situation. Every cop I've iver known has said a place like that is not a good one for a shootout. There are innocents in every possible field of fire unless you havre the BG in a corner. Life is priceless, so why would you risk everyopne elses over a little bit of dough?