Armed bank robbery, shot fired. Appropriate action?

[1 old 0311]

I hope the previous 25 posters plan to donate to your defense fund. You WOULD have legal action against you from the family of the perp. The bank would NOT be responsible to pay for your defense.
You want legal advice talk to a attorney. You want opinions go to a gun site.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

In response to 1 old 0311...

Not here in TN...we are protected from civil prosecution in the event of a "justified shooting"...many other states are the same.

 

[Jeff White]

Not here in TN...we are protected from civil prosecution in the event of a "justified shooting"...many other states are the same.

Another member who wears the supposed protection of immunity from civil suits like it was kevlar. All it takes is for a judge to allow the suit to proceed and it proceeds. The law doesn't forbid someone from filing a suit. All it does is give you a legal reason to have it dismissed. Let the plaintiff's attorney make a good enough case that your case shouldn't be protected, or let the plaintiff's attorney find a sympathetic judge and guess what? You're in court running up big legal bills.

If you don't believe this is so, ask Adventure Outdoors how much protection the Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act has given them from New York City's suit:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=363150

Jeff

 

[coloradokevin]

As we are seeing in this thread, there is no absolute answer to this situation. Even for off-duty LEO's like myself, there are many questions to ask yourelf:

Is your family with you, and will you risk drawing attention your way?

Is it likely that this will end without bloodshed if you sit back and let them take the insured money?

Is it likely that there will be more bloodshed if you do/don't act?

Do you still have the element of surprise, etc?

How many attackers do you need to beat (big difference between one-on-one and a six-on-one take over robbery)?


Some good points have been raised, but each of these requires cross-consideration with counterpoints:

Yes, felony murder charges against the criminals will sometimes protect the CCW permitee who accidentally hits a civilian in the cross fire. But, can YOU live with the fact that you killed an innnocent bystander because of poor tactics/shooting, etc?

I remember being given statistics in our department's training that said how a 98-100% shooter in training usually ends up being a 23-25% (if I recall) shooter in a deadly force encounter... adrenaline plays a HUGE part, and just carrying quality ammunition and weapons isn't always enough to overcome this. So, keep in mind that you aren't likely to score a match winning target in the bullseye shoot in a real-life shooting against other humans. It isn't to say you won't win, but your grouping isn't going to be like it is during a no-stress target shoot.


The point I am driving at here is this:

Only you can decide when it is right ot shoot or not. I think you could easily justify shooting in this situation from a legal perspective, but you need to consider all of the other factors. It is good to think about these things, but when they happen in real life, it is never exactly like you planned.

Just have a clear mind, and act as appropriately as you think you can!

 

[jlbraun]

Jeff, honestly.

Honestly, all actions that one takes will be judged by the "reasonable person" standard. Holding oneself to the "try to think of all possible situations and ensure 100% success given each one" standard is simply not possible for either cops or civilians, and ensures 100% inaction.

And I still haven't seen a sourced example of a CCW holder shooting a bad guy and killing a civilian accidentally. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but it's pretty rare if it does.

I also haven't seen a sourced example of a CCW holder being shot by arriving cops due to mistaken identity. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but it's pretty rare if it does.

One can prognosticate infinite possibilities of what has at least a tiny chance of going wrong. The reasonable person takes reasonable precautions and makes reasonable assumptions.

In the OP (you know, the one we lost track of), we know that the robber has (a) a real gun (b) intention to use it and (c) is a criminal. We make reasonable assumptions about him and his behavior, and if we deem it reasonable, we shoot. If not, we do not. Simple. And if he's firing the gun into the ceiling, I'd say it's pretty dern reasonable to shoot him at that point.

(and for the purposes of this discussion, I probably wouldn't definitely shoot the guy unless at least one other person is executed. At that point, it doesn't matter if he has accomplices, if he's wearing armor, if the police are on their way or not, or whatever other scenario one can create. All I know then is that me and everyone else in that room from that point forward is dead already, and I might as well do something.)

 

[Ridgerunner665]

If you don't believe this is so, ask Adventure Outdoors how much protection the Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act has given them from New York City's suit:

Geography matters...this aint New York...there are only 9,000 people in this entire county....and its a big county.
Things are done differently here, than they are in New York or Illinois...or various other places.
I know a guy who shot his girlfriends ex-boyfriend 6 times...in the back...as he was running down the road...he walked free as an eagle because of the ex-boyfriends bad reputation (drugs, dui's, and previous violent behavior). The ex did come there to fight...well he got one.

And that happened in 1993...a looong time before TN even had a "Castle Doctrine".

 

[CZ-100]

It is not my $$$, it is insured, and unless the robber points his gun at me or threatens to do me harm, my gun will stay concealed.

If he does I will defend myself.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

Information is slowly trickling out, but it appears a masked, armed man entered the bank around closing time, fired a warning shot into the ceiling, and escaped with some loot.

I think, at that point, it is not quite time to "switch to guns" just yet. Exhibiting wanton violence or herding people into a back room would do it for me.

 

[t3rmin]

It is not my $$$, it is insured, and unless the robber points his gun at me or threatens to do me harm, my gun will stay concealed.

If he does I will defend myself.

I agree with this in spirit, but the only problem is, if he's already pointing the gun at me, I've got no play. I can't draw faster than he can pull the trigger.

The idea, at least for me, would be to stop the threat before it's an exercise in futility, but be justified AND prudent in the whole thing. I think coloradokevin said it well.

 

[t3rmin]

For the sake of completeness, here's an article on this robbery:
http://www.chronline.com/story.php?subaction=showfull&id=1210788160&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&

 

[mekender]

wouldnt matter... the great state of NC has prohibited CCW in banks... so of course that means that robbers wouldnt dare break that law...

 

[Dksimon]

if you have a good opportunity to get a good draw and a clean shot then take it but if you arent sure you can get a shot off without hitting an innocent then lie down like a good little sheeple.

It wouldnt be right to start shooting the place up. Even if you do hit the BG and an innocent goes down also then you made the wrong move and will probably pay dearly for it.