Off-duty officer thwarts bank robbery

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mark Tyson

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2002
Messages
2,523
Location
Where the one eyed man is king
I hope that poster who thinks I hate cops reads this.

==========================================
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~1797806,00.html

Article Published: Sunday, November 30, 2003

Off-duty officer thwarts bank robbery

By Zachery Kouwe

Denver Post Staff Writer

An off-duty Denver police officer opened fire on a group of three armed bandits, foiling their attempt to rob a credit union Friday afternoon.

At 1:50 p.m., three men wearing masks and brandishing handguns walked into the St. Dominic branch of the Colorado United Credit Union at 2550 Irving St. and demanded money, said Denver police spokesman Sonny Jackson.

The off-duty officer, who was working at the credit union as a security guard, saw the burglars and fired his gun, Jackson said.

"He was able to get the drop on them," Jackson said.

The Police Department is not releasing the name of the officer, who works in District 6 downtown.

After the officer shot one of the robbers in the leg, the three suspects ran out of the bank without returning fire and jumped into a getaway car, Jackson said.

Witnesses at the credit union were able to get a good description of the white sedan and pass it along to Denver police.

With the description of the car, police officers who were patrolling the area were able to safely pull over the car that was carrying the suspects on Colfax Avenue near Interstate 25.

Two of the suspects were taken into custody and the third was taken to Denver Health Medical Center with a gunshot wound to the leg.

Jackson said the officers arrested the three suspects without incident. Their names are not being released until police confirm their identities, he said.

No one else was injured during the attempted robbery, Jackson said.

He did not know how many bullets the officer fired.

Jackson praised those nearby for providing the description of the getaway vehicle to authorities quickly.
 
OK - off-duty cop -------- OK, security guard but hey ...

This is the archetypal classic - essentially ... ''armed citizen'' foils heist! is ANY more proof needed??!!!

This why legit carry is needed ... with NO limitations ... BG's do NOT follow the law.
 
Debate??

Does anyone feel like have the age old debate "Would you try to stop the bank robbers"


Congrats to the LEO:D
 
Boy, everything I ever needed to know about concealed carry, I learned from Joel Rosenberg.:uhoh: (Well, not really, but he sure says it in a memorable way!)
* You've got a carry permit, not a Junior G-Man badge.
* You're not going to use or threaten lethal force to protect your own money—why would you want to use it to protect Mr. SuperAmerica's money?
- http://www.ellegon.com/features/data/december2003/

Or Mr. Bank's!

Thanks, Joel!
 
Okay, I'm going to play the devils advocate here ...

Why does a bank (a private enterprise) have the right to hire an armed guard (even an OFF-duty cop, which makes no difference) to protect their private property?

The bank should just call 911 like everyone else. Don't they have insurance?

So a private citizen (serf) is not supposed to use deadly force to keep someone from stealing a $40,000 vehicle from their driveway, but a bank (lord) has the right to hire a guard to shoot some guys stealing a couple grand from a bank teller.

The off-duty officer, who was working at the credit union as a security guard, saw the burglars and fired his gun, Jackson said.
Excuse me, was the security guard's life in danger? How is this different from a store owner or homeowner shooting at a fleeing robber or burglar?

Maybe I will sew some patches on my shirt, and hire myself as a security guard to protect my home and property ...
 
* You've got a carry permit, not a Junior G-Man badge.
* You're not going to use or threaten lethal force to protect your own money—why would you want to use it to protect Mr. SuperAmerica's money?
I would not contest that, in and of itself - but would ..... make an important proviso .....

Forget the money .... but if the crooks have threatened personel ..... and there is risk of any getting shot/killed ... then surely that does put a much different complexion on things.

THAT - is where I am coming from when I applaud the ''armed citizen'' aspect. To hell with the bank's money but lives are a different matter... make sense?:)

In an ideal situation, ever damn person in a bank could be carrying (if only)!! Then let em try a stick up!:p
 
tallpine,

The banks will probably tell you they need an armed guard to protect the people in the bank, not the money.

I'm not sure on this one, if someone enters your house do they have to first make your life feel threatened before you can shoot them or is just being in your house enough?
 
I'm not sure on this one, if someone enters your house do they have to first make your life feel threatened before you can shoot them or is just being in your house enough?
Well, it varies a lot from state to state. In some states, just breaking in to a house is just cause to be shot. In others. self defense is basically banned.

But I am addressing the question (which has been debated here at length) of using deadly force against a thief (or thieves) who are attempting to steal property. It seems we have a double standard, a bank or some other corporate business may hire an armed guard to defend mere property, but in most states (except TX) a private citizen or small business owner is prosecuted for defending his or her property.

This is wrong, and stinks of the feudal system our forefathers escaped from a couple centuries ago.

Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of everyone, including banks and other corporations, taking active steps to protect their property. If this were the common rule, then we would only need the police to come pick up the body(ies) and write up a report, investigating to make sure that there was not some other motive for the shooting. But it would be a rare case that would ever happen, theft and robbery being such a hi-risk profession.

Could it be that limitations on defense of self and property constitute a full-employment act for "law enforcement" ....?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top