CCW stops Michigan bank robbery

[Geno]

Radio said:

...Now on the other hand, if he had a weapon....take up position for a clear shot and shoot to kill.

Pay $100,000.00 attorney fees, $5,000,000.00 in wrongful death to the family and go to Jackson Prison for life.

In Michigan, we do have legislated Castle Doctrine. However, we are not allowed to shoot to kill. We are allowed to shoot to stop a crime that could result in great bodily harm of death. We also cannot shoot to defend "property".

As a technicality, while it went well, he could have ended up in trouble. I can see a slick prosecutor going after him saying he should not have drawn the weapon, didn't need to draw the weapon.

JMHO

Doc2005

 

[psyopspec]

Quote:
Not sure if I'd have shown the same restraint as the customer,

Why not? That's what our carry permit training is all about - to show restraint and use only that force necessary to control the situation.

Two reasons, but if you only pay attention to one, make it this first one: I wasn't there. I don't know if the guy made an overt threat, if he looked like he was bluffing, or if there was anything in his hands that could have possibly been a trigger. The second reason is simply that after Iraq, I take a serious disliking to people threatening to blow me up. That said, regardless of the experience and training I have, I still wasn't there and would have acted the best I could with what I had at the time.

Kudos once again to the man in question - his choices precipitated a good ending to the situation.

 

[Z-Michigan]

Interesting. But I was under the impression that federal law forbade firearms in banks that are federally insured (all banks that I know of). Anyone?

Also, while these bomb threats are false 99.999% of the time, what if this had been the one time?

I have mixed feelings. I am a Michigan CPL holder and I'd like to praise this guy's actions, but I'm not sure they were completely right.

 

[Hook686]

So the day happens when the BG does have a bomb ... then what ? Who then gets the darwin award ?

 

[ZombieHunter]

Assuming the guy has the knowledge to make a bomb, then asssuming the guy has the knowledge to make a dead man's switch, then assuming the guy has the suicidal nature to kill himself should he be denied the money...

OR

Teller: He's robbing the bank.
CCW: Oh ****...
*mental strip search of guy...nothing in his hands...ok this can go well, draw*
You're not robbing this bank.

Everyone lives, guy gets to spend the next two weeks getting yelled at by his wife for risking his life when "there was no need".

He did the right thing and certainly had the drop on him should he have reached for anything.

psyopspec: I took your first post poorly as well, but after reading your clarification I can TOTALLY understand your lack of patience with people threatening to KB you. Thanks for your service!

 

[starshooter231]

Standing Wolf

If you don't mind I'm going to steal this
"Never show up for a gun fight with an imaginary bomb."


Z-Michigan

"Interesting. But I was under the impression that federal law forbade firearms in banks that are federally insured (all banks that I know of)."
Check your Michigan Firearms Law book BANKS ARE NOT OFF LIMITS

 

[camslam]

Interesting. But I was under the impression that federal law forbade firearms in banks that are federally insured (all banks that I know of). Anyone?

I am not an concealed weapon permit official, but I don't know of any regular permit states that outlaw carrying in a bank. The most to my understanding a bank could do is say you can't have a weapon and then ask you as a private business, to leave if you are permitted. If you refused you could be arrested for criminal trespass, but that is it.

For the most part it is only "secured" areas, such as, federal buildings, airports, prisons/jails, etc... That you are not allowed to carry in, but lucky for us, every state is different.

So the day happens when the BG does have a bomb ... then what ? Who then gets the darwin award ?

I imagine this could and very may happen some day, but the realities are you probably have a better shot of winning the lotto. If a person is intent on killing themselves and many others, especially with a bomb, I would imagine they would go to a place with the most possibility for collateral damage. Maybe if they had a grudge with someone at the bank or they were ticked off about another crazy bank fee, but mostly you have people trying to steal money that go to banks and commit crimes. They usually want to live to spend the money if they get away.

We can second guess this guy all day, but he took action, it worked, and it was the right thing to do. Good for him. As I mentioned in my first post on this story, I wish we had more people that cared enough to take responsible action.

 

[jakemccoy]

If anybody knows how I can download the video, please let me know. I'd like to add this story to my pro-gun video collection on Youtube.

This is the kind of person that I am proud to say is a concealed weapons permit holder. From the story it doesn't appear that he was Rambo, SWAT, Tactical Forces, Law Enforcement, or any other kind of wanna be. He was a citizen that was armed and did the right thing.

The video caption says he's an ex-Lebanese soldier. I'm sure that fact will be played up in days to come.

 

[Geno]

We can carry in Michigan's banks. We do have some no-carry zones, but banks are not included.

 

[Janitor]

Is the line, "give me the money, I have a bomb", not the absolute stupidest way to rob a bank.

If it's not the dumbest way to rob a bank, it sure has to be near the top.

Idjit.

I'm glad it turned out well for everyone involved. That the press (seemed) to keep such a level head over the story is pretty amazing to me.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

This is going to catch some flames, but oh well.


This guy was justified in shooting him in my opinion. I probably would have shot him instantly and multiple times until he stopped moving entirely (no carpet snow-angels).

Presenting a gun and not using it is to try and gain leverage. I'm not saying this applies universally to all concealed carry situations. You don't always have to shoot and that's not what I'm saying. It borders on trying to enforce the law, rather than defend yourself from a threat to your life.

Was there a life or death threat? YES. Deadly force is justified and in my opinion - the ONLY choice, regardless of whether or not this person really had a bomb. That isn't your responsibility to find out. Curiosity killed the cat.

In Florida, using an unloaded gun to commit a crime gets you the same penalty as if it were loaded. It is also viewed as the use of deadly force. A police officer will shoot at someone who presents an unloaded gun. This is precisely the same as claiming you have a bomb. Also, declaring you have a gun and not presenting it is also grounds for lethal force. It gets tricky, because you better hope there's a witness who will testify to this fact. In the case of this bank robber, the teller and others heard him say he has a bomb.

Pulling a gun and using a Hollywood style tactic of declaring "you're not robbing this bank" is a bad idea. Waste of time and breath. It cannot help, and can only hurt.

What if he really did have a bomb? Holding him up is ZERO assurance of not getting blown up and killed. Shooting him isn't a guarantee you'll end up safe either, but it is preferable to trying to detain the perp. In the process of getting busted, panic might ensue on the part of the perp and he might detonate himself killing you and others.

It's no different than a pistol armed perp. They are making an ULTIMATUM. Give me the money or I will shoot you. Except in this case, the justification for shooting is even greater than a perp with a gun because the ultimatum presented by the perp includes blowing himself up. That right there proves 100% that he possesses a suicidal intent. That means that confronting him with force can very possibly lead to just that. If you present force, it should be the kind that ends his ability to activate whatever detonator he has. Like I said, like a pistol armed perp, we always, always take their threat at face value and do not imply they aren't serious and just want the money. We never call the bluff. That is stupid.

If a cop was present - as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow - they would have dropped the hammer on this guy in no time flat.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Radio: Herein lies the issue of my earlier post. I don't mean to pick a fight, but what you are doing is really quite similiar to the arguments I fight with anti's all the time about. That is you engage in hypotheticals. You ask:

-What if he tried to run?

-Shoot him in the back?

There is NO LAW that says you can't shoot a person in the back. Why people keep bringing up shooting in the back, as if it was a bad thing, is bewildering. If you have the right to use lethal force against a person, there is no law that states a location of impact of that lethal force on that person.

A person need not be facing you to be a threat to you and others, especially if the issue pertains to having a bomb. A person moving away from you can still be a threat to others and so the only real option may be a back shot.

 

[Deanimator]

If he's a Muslim, he ought to be played up as a REAL "Islamic Knight", who protects the innocent.

Eat that, Bin Laden.

 

[#shooter]

There is NO LAW that says you can't shoot a person in the back.

True, the law doesn't care. A jury on the otherhand does care. The number of rounds fired, caliber size, jucied loads, bullet type, and shooting in the back can turn you from citizen hero to vigilante thug very easily by a good prosecutor with an ax to grind.

 

[highorder]

Pulling a gun and using a Hollywood style tactic of declaring "you're not robbing this bank" is a bad idea. Waste of time and breath. It cannot help, and can only hurt.

Except it DID help. No one had to die, and the robbery was foiled. A dead BG is not the only acceptable outcome in any situation.

 

[siglite]

I have to admit to being a bit shocked by the negative Monday morning quarterbacking happening in this thread. Is that not something that we, as CCW holders tell the public? That we can stop a madman bent on committing voilence? "If just one permit holder was allowed to carry a gun there....."

This CCW holder was faced with a madman bent on doing harm. Yes, in the aftermath, we're now aware he did not possess the means. But in the moment, he was faced was a madman intending harm to a lot of people. And this man heroically stopped potential mass bloodshed without spilling a drop.

In the face of grave danger, he acted in the interest of his fellow man. I'm not going to sit back and criticize this guy and second guess his actions.. I'm going to call for a medal to be pinned on his chest.

 

[WC145]

I also read another account that said he also had to chamber a round, in addition to being from Lebanon.

Do you have a link?

 

[buck00]

I think it is interesting the media emphasized he was former Lebanese military. What if it had been your average white male, THR member... with no military or LEO background? Would he have gotten the same treatment by the media?

My point is, I think it is common for the media, public, and LEOs to think- well its ok he used a CCW like this, he was former military, he knows what he is doing. But perhaps a non-military civilian doing this could get a "this is a wannabe cop" or a "this cowboy endangered everyone" type of reaction.

 

[Starship1st]

Hoo-ray for our side! This is yet another example that CCW does work and that we are responsible citizens. The criminal and situation was calmly taken control of.

Threre as no cowboy gun fight: just pure control of the situation. My hat's off to the CCW carrier.

 

[Gunnerpalace]

You know what I'm a bit bewildered, I went to Arfcom and they are giving him the rockstar treatment and over here we are deriding him for stopping a robbery, I don't know what to say.

 

[siglite]

You know what I'm a bit bewildered, I went to Arfcom and they are giving him the rockstar treatment and over here we are deriding him for stopping a robbery, I don't know what to say.

I haven't been to arfcom today, but I hear you. I'm outright baffled by some of the content of this thread.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Interesting. But I was under the impression that federal law forbade firearms in banks that are federally insured (all banks that I know of). Anyone?

Absolutely untrue.

 

[SDG]

If I were in that man's shoes, I may have done some things different. I doubt that I would have done anything better though. As far as I can tell, he executed his role flawlessly.

 

[shdwfx]

Check to make sure his hand isn't on a detonator that goes off when the button is released.

Hands clear? Present weapon. Citizen's arrest.

Good outcome.

 

[TankerCadaver]

A quote from the article:

A 39-year-old Ypsilanti man used his concealed weapon and his experience in the Lebanese army to stop an alleged bank robber.

I've seen this time and time again with the media. They only seem comfy talking about citizens using firearms to thwart crime when they are a "former police officer" or a "former Marine" or the like. I think they must feel that only persons fitting that sort of description are safe to report about. Strange.