CCW stops Michigan bank robbery

Status
Not open for further replies.
My comment " I was under the impression that federal law forbade firearms in banks that are federally insured (all banks that I know of). Anyone?" Still stands. Yes, I checked the Michigan statute and confirmed that Michigan law doesn't say anything about banks being a no-carry zone. My post said FEDERAL law. You know, laws from the same people (CONgresspeople) who say you can't carry in Federal courthouses, post offices (some latitude for interpretation), or, for the time being at least, National Parks. Federal law trumps conflicting state law, FYI. It may be that I've imagined the federal law in this case and there is no such law, but the responses regarding Michigan law on no-carry zones are not on point.

Edit: after some quick research, I don't find any law prohibiting carry in a bank simply because it's federally insured. So it's apparently a misconception on my part. However, my point about federal law trumping state law (when in conflict) still stands.
 
@Z-Michigan,
Nobody was arguing with you.

State CCW guides and handbooks are going to address areas that are No Carry Zones in their state. That includes federal buildings and federal off-limits zones in their state.

I'm fairly certain Michigan's book will be comprehensive for the state of Michigan, so starshooter231 and others advice to check your state CCW handbook is good.
 
Z-Michigan,

There is no Federal law that prohibits carry in a Federally insured institution. There is one state I believe, IIRC North Carolina, that forbids carry in banks.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Gunner, I hear exactly what you are saying as I mention in my first post on this story:

Not to pick a fight, but I have read enough times on this forum from those that either carry a concealed weapon or those that don't that the ONLY time they would ever present their weapon was in case it was the ABSOLUTE last resort because the bad guy was pointing the gun right at him or possibly his family.
Click to expand...

He was a citizen that was armed and did the right thing.

Could it have ended different ways than it did? Sure. But if we had more people like this that gave a damn about society, I think we would have a better world to live in.
Click to expand...

There are many fine posts, people, and opinions on THR, but I sometimes scratch my head when there are NUMEROUS people in here that take the position of:

-"What do I care? It isn't my problem."

-"I'll be a great witness."

-"I'll dial 911, I'm not the police."

-"This is what the police are for, my concealed weapon is there for ME if I am in danger or maybe my family is."

-"I'm not putting my life on the line for some stranger and leaving my family in a bad situation."

At the end of the day, how a person responds to a situation is up to them. As I have said before I won't judge someone that takes these attitudes, but I'm not going to have much respect for them. However, they sure better maintain that opinion when either they or a loved one is in a lethal situation and not prepared for it, and someone that could help them doesn't because of the exact same reasons listed before.

I think the apathy of people in general is a scary thing these days. I can think of 5+ events in the last few months where people were being attacked or hit and run and people that could help in some way, did nothing.

Nice society we live in.
 
-"What do I care? It isn't my problem."

-"I'll be a great witness."

-"I'll dial 911, I'm not the police."

-"This is what the police are for, my concealed weapon is there for ME if I am in danger or maybe my family is."

-"I'm not putting my life on the line for some stranger and leaving my family in a bad situation."
Click to expand...

Perhaps I owe the thread a careful reread, but I thought the discrepency in comments was drawing down v. shooting, rather than drawing v. not drawing. It's a very very small minority that are saying that the man in the bank did the wrong thing. Some of us may have acted differently, but for the most part people are just saying that the action he took was a way and not the way. In the end, it had a good outcome, so it's hard to lend credence to those that completely disparage the man's actions.
 
Good Outcome

Let's see: the Bad Guy's in Jail, the Bank Employees and Customers are Safe, the Press has nothing bad to say about it and the Good Guy CCW Permit Holder gets a pat on the back. Good outcome !!
 
Surprizing. I was expecting the media to follow the lines "the CCW man is being sued for liability. If the suspect did have a bomb, a lot of lives would have been at stake"

this is a good report. we need more of these.
 
The bottom line here, as I see it, is a question over when to draw and when not to draw, and when to shoot or not shoot.

To Draw: Threat of bodily harm to yourself, or others, DEFINATELY warrants drawing a weapon, and nobody here argues that there was a threat of bodily harm.

To Shoot: In self defense, and defense of others. Basically the first justification to shoot someone that should be running through your head. This had a good outcome, and the CCW holder did not have to shoot the BG. Great. Had he shot the BG, I wouldn't have faulted him one bit.

Walk into an airport clean, and yell I have a bomb, and I'd bet a damn decent amount of money that you won't be going to jail, you'll be going to a morgue. The BG got lucky. But however you feel about it, right or wrong, you weren't there, and you don't know what happened, or how it happened, so who are you to judge him and say he was wrong, when the witnesses and responding police officers all say he was right?
 
siglite said:
I haven't been to arfcom today, but I hear you. I'm outright baffled by some of the content of this thread.
Click to expand...

Just because someone posts at thehighroad.com and has been shooting for several years, that doesn't mean they contribute to the pro-gun cause.
 
Perhaps I owe the thread a careful reread, but I thought the discrepency in comments was drawing down v. shooting, rather than drawing v. not drawing. It's a very very small minority that are saying that the man in the bank did the wrong thing. Some of us may have acted differently, but for the most part people are just saying that the action he took was a way and not the way. In the end, it had a good outcome, so it's hard to lend credence to those that completely disparage the man's actions.
Click to expand...

Psyops: My comments regarding the attitude of many on THR regarding events where guns are used in a defensive matter is more a general observation, rather than a comment on the actions of this specific event. I have read far too many posts that say the comments that you quoted from me.

Do a search of any event that has involved a shooting, a firearm brandished, etc... and you will find many people second guessing the actions taken almost every time. There are also multiple threads dealing with the questions of what if and the apathetic, cavalier attitudes that are expressed are disturbing to me. But I still have to respect the individuals CHOICE to not get involved, but I don't have to respect that PERSON.

Like I said, I'm sure you have read many threads in the past where people express those exact statements I quoted.
 
I applaud the outcome, but just to play devil's advocate:
a) if the customer believed there was a bomb, why hesitate to shoot?
b) if the customer believed there wasn't a bomb, why even draw?
c) if the customer was in doubt, just show him the gun and see what happens?

And FWIW...
Another report said the customer "drew his handgun, racked a round in the chamber and told the man that he wasn't robbing the bank."

Also...
Canton Police Detective Sgt. Rick Pomorski credited the customer for his quick actions - but noted that police prefer citizens to serve as witnesses instead of taking matters into their own hands in dangerous situations.

"We never condone that civilians take action when there's a propensity for violence and what could happen," Pomorski said. "We prefer they maintain their distance. That said, we're thankful for the way it turned out. He did a wonderful job securing the scene until we got there."
Click to expand...

http://blog.mlive.com/annarbornews/2008/06/ypsilanti_man_thwarted_by_bank.html
 
I don't see how he wouldn't have been justified in shooting, especially after hearing "I have a bomb." Hold him at gunpoint at first, but after "I have a bomb" I'd be awfully likely to pull the trigger at that point to make sure he didn't have a chance to set it off before the police arrived. It's certainly considered an imminent threat under the law.
 
I applaud the outcome, but just to play devil's advocate:
a) if the customer believed there was a bomb, why hesitate to shoot?
b) if the customer believed there wasn't a bomb, why even draw?
c) if the customer was in doubt, just show him the gun and see what happens?
Click to expand...

I'll bite.

A - Being a soldier from Lebanon, the man had probably heard of a "dead man's switch." In the video he said he made sure he paid attention to the guy's hands. This may be why he drew but didn't shoot right away. Which leads to

B - The perp is being held at gunpoint, but hands are clear. Still, there's more than one way to skin a cat or trigger an explosive belt. Also in said video, CCWer says the alleged explosive belt wasn't there. Made the call not to shoot. Ultimately it turned out to be a good one.

C - You didn't really phrase that in the form an answerable question.


Edited to add:
Summary. Just speculation, but the thought process may have been:
-Threat/condition red due to man with bomb.
-If the threat was real crazy/savvy he may have had a dead man's switch.
-Now there's no switch and no belt, might not have to kill this guy, but I won't let him walk off either.
 
Good comments! A bit surprising (to me, at least) that a soldier carries with no round chambered.

And sorry for the poor phrasing in C.
 
Well, after watching the CCW's video and the report on FOX news, I am convinced he did it wrong. He did it so wrong he was arrested, then cleared. When the LEOs arrived, he still had his firearm drawn. As the police said, how do you know who is the bad guy?

If the guy wanted to play LEO, at least he should have gone the extra mile, to buy a pair of handcuffs, so he could have executed a Citizen's Arrest: "Cuff 'em, Dano!" Then, he should have reholstered his weapon before the LEOs arrived! Hades, it could have cost him his life the way he did it!

He messed-up! Thank-God for level-headed LEOs!

Doc2005
 
A bit surprising (to me, at least) that a soldier carries with no round chambered.
Click to expand...
I don't think any soldier carries their weapon with a loaded chamber unless they are in or going into a hostile area. Heck, our troops aren't even issued rounds unless they are shot at first.
 
Doc, I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not. :confused:

You realize he told the robber he was cop to maintain some control of the situation so the guy didn't get any ideas to try something, right? The presumption of being under control of someone that is law enforcement goes a bit further than just your average every day joe.

I know we can all play MMQB on this all day long and it always good to run an after event analysis, but aren't we nitpicking this, just a little bit much?

I would have done the exact same thing and why would he not keep the gun trained on him until cops arrived? What other options would have been better?

Plus you talk about level headed cops being calm enough to not come in and do something wild, every single person I know that carries a weapon knows to follow the police orders at that point, put the gun down, and not to do anything remotely aggressive. After about 2 minutes, things get sorted out and everything is fine.

I think the guy did great except for not having a round chambered if he didn't.

One last question.... Why is it when a regular citizen has enough balls and brains to do something that they should do in these types of situations, they are branded as wanna-be law enforcement types? Gosh that bugs me.
 
After watching the Fox clip http://www.foxnews.com/national/crime/index.html#
the first thing that came to mind was that now the world knows he carries.

I can't say what I would have done - I probably would have been ruled by adrenaline.

But in the aftermath, I don't think I would have given a TV interview or even allowed my picture to be taken. I suppose the newspapers couldn't be stopped from printing the name, but I think I would ask them not to anyway.
 
In this video, he stated he was cop (last 15 seconds)...

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video...Url=http://www.foxnews.com/studiob/index.html

Depending on state law, impersonating a police officer may be considered either a felony or a misdemeanor. That's not nitpicking. That's giving people here a heads up. If you're convicted of a felony, you lose your guns, your voting rights and other things.

If you must use your CCW and have a CCW license, you still don't get to impersonate a cop. Don't get mad at me. I didn't make the rules.
 
Come on Jake.

This is hardly a case of impersonating an officer. From the sound of it, the criminal asked him if he was police and the CCW permit holder told him yes to confirm his belief and control the situation.


While a overzealous prosecutor may decide to bring charges up, I have a real hard time believing it would ever happen.

To me it was the smart thing to say. Would it have been better for him to say:

-"No, I'm not a police officer, but if you move I will blow your head off."

-"No, I'm not a police officer, just a concerned citizen."

Etc...Etc... You get the picture.

Why it was smart for him to let the perp believe he was law enforcement is because it helped him maintain a sense of control. If the perp knew he wasn't law enforcement he may have tried any number of things because he would think the citizen wouldn't be trained or ready for such activity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Armed bank customer captures Titusville robbery suspect
Replies
18
Views
1K
Tacbandit
T
T
  • Locked
Bank Robbery Goes Bad
Replies
16
Views
1K
DoubleTapDrew
D
M
  • Locked
Thieves Use Pens, Not Guns, as Bank Robbery Soars in NYC
Replies
7
Views
797
gabeodog
G
P
  • Locked
Bystander stops bank robbery
Replies
10
Views
2K
Technosavant
T
T
  • Locked
Bank Robberies
Replies
0
Views
519
twoblink
T
Back
Top