jimpeel
Member
The best out for everyone concerned would be that the perp was the one blown up at the scene.
If not, this guy could do it again.
If not, this guy could do it again.
Eerie bank robbery in Erie
- Thread starter jimpeel
- Start date
- Status
clubsoda22
member
seeing as how the guy didn't take the bombs off himself, I would not have tried to help him.
A pizza delivery person sets up a complex scenario to blame someone else for a bank robbery, then when in custody he announces that he's strapped with a bomb on a timer so the police give him some space, then he waits for a few minutes and decides to let the bomb blow his head off? Why do I find this hard to believe?
Apparently he didn't take the bomb off because he was handcuffed. They'd presumably already searched him. If they weren't willing to try to help get the bomb off, they should have uncuffed him, given him a knife, and held him at gunpoint from a distance. Screw liability. Next someone's going to suggest that in addition to be a pizza-delivering terrorist, he's also a ninja who can throw knives 30 feet with deadly accuracy. The above scenario just doesn't make any sense. Terrorists don't wait until after they're in custody to blow themselves up, nor do they generally rob banks.
Apparently he didn't take the bomb off because he was handcuffed. They'd presumably already searched him. If they weren't willing to try to help get the bomb off, they should have uncuffed him, given him a knife, and held him at gunpoint from a distance. Screw liability. Next someone's going to suggest that in addition to be a pizza-delivering terrorist, he's also a ninja who can throw knives 30 feet with deadly accuracy. The above scenario just doesn't make any sense. Terrorists don't wait until after they're in custody to blow themselves up, nor do they generally rob banks.
Mike Irwin
Member
Tyme,
Why does this guy have to be a terrorist just because he had a bomb on him? Criminals were using explosives to further their enterprise LONG before terrorism became a word in the common vernacular...
Why's it so hard to believe that this guy could either be:
1. A very dumb crook.
2. A complete and total nutcase.
Neither precludes the possibility of a very elaborate setup.
Why does this guy have to be a terrorist just because he had a bomb on him? Criminals were using explosives to further their enterprise LONG before terrorism became a word in the common vernacular...
Why's it so hard to believe that this guy could either be:
1. A very dumb crook.
2. A complete and total nutcase.
Neither precludes the possibility of a very elaborate setup.
clubsoda22
member
why the hell wouldn't he dump the vest the second he was in the bank, probably because he was told it was rigged to explode. As a cop i wouldn't risk it. Sucks for him.
Gray Peterson
Member
Unfortunately, Television has been giving crooks a lot of good ideas.
The very idea that this guy was trying to kill himself in some thing if glory is bunk. He took a delivery, he went out there, and then ended up at a bank. Since the bomb was REAL, there's something to be said for his truthfulness.
Also, this isn't the West Bank. I have a hard time believing he wanted to off himself via a bomb. There are a LOT of sick people out there who take intense pleasure in making innocent people do bad things. Control freak types.
jimpeel
Member
clubsoda22
Contemplate that over your 23rd Club Soda and let us know what he should have done before you would deign to help him.
Kinda tough to do with handcuffs on. If the guy told him that it was rigged to go off if he tried to remove it, why would he try?
Contemplate that over your 23rd Club Soda and let us know what he should have done before you would deign to help him.
TheeBadOne
Member
He was out of handcuffs much longer than he was in them. Still remains to be seen what the actual story is.
The first rule of any emergency service is, not to become part of the problem. The problem existed before you became involved, don't make the problem worse through you actions.
If an untrained individual had tried to resolve the situation and the bomb detonated, now we would have two dead instead of one. In other words, his actions made the problem worse.
In this case we have at least three possible outcomes. First, we handcuff the guy (as a robby suspect) and wait for the bomb squad. If the bomb detonates prior their arrival we have one dead robbery suspect. Second, we can try to defuse the bomb or remove the bomb from the robbery suspect even though we don't know what we are doing. If the bomb goes off, more than one person is dead. Or we can wait on the bomb squad and hopefully upon their arrival, the situation is successfully resolved. Obviously the worst case senario DIDN'T happen, which would be the bomb killing more than one person. On every emergency scene you have a risk to reward ratio to consider. They chose the correct course of action.
If the bomb was rigged to detonate if it was removed from the suspect, why is it better for a cop who is untrained in EOD to try to remove it ? If the suspect could have removed it by himself, why didn't he remove it before the police became involved or before he robbed the bank ?
If an untrained individual had tried to resolve the situation and the bomb detonated, now we would have two dead instead of one. In other words, his actions made the problem worse.
In this case we have at least three possible outcomes. First, we handcuff the guy (as a robby suspect) and wait for the bomb squad. If the bomb detonates prior their arrival we have one dead robbery suspect. Second, we can try to defuse the bomb or remove the bomb from the robbery suspect even though we don't know what we are doing. If the bomb goes off, more than one person is dead. Or we can wait on the bomb squad and hopefully upon their arrival, the situation is successfully resolved. Obviously the worst case senario DIDN'T happen, which would be the bomb killing more than one person. On every emergency scene you have a risk to reward ratio to consider. They chose the correct course of action.
If the bomb was rigged to detonate if it was removed from the suspect, why is it better for a cop who is untrained in EOD to try to remove it ? If the suspect could have removed it by himself, why didn't he remove it before the police became involved or before he robbed the bank ?
Keith
Member
If he couldn't take the bomb off himself, why would anyone think a cop could do any better? The average cop doesn't know any more about EOD than anyone else.
Or, a better question; if it turns out that this guy IS the perp and the bomb thing was a scam to clear himself should he be caught - will anyone do more than chuckle at the predicament he put himself in?
If he's innocent, I don't think anyone could have helped him. If he's guilty, he got exactly what he deserved.
Keith
Or, a better question; if it turns out that this guy IS the perp and the bomb thing was a scam to clear himself should he be caught - will anyone do more than chuckle at the predicament he put himself in?
If he's innocent, I don't think anyone could have helped him. If he's guilty, he got exactly what he deserved.
Keith
rock jock
Member
Most likely he had expected some help from LE, seeing as how (1) they are the "professionals", and (2) he simply could not see what the bomb looked like since it was wrapped around his neck. The cops should have said "hey, buddy, we got a bomb squad coming, but its going to take awhile and we can't personally help you because we don't know what we're doing." At that point, if the guy had said that he wanted to try to remove the bomb himself, the officers should have released him and let him do so. This idea that "we'll just cuff 'em and hide behind our cruisers so we're not in any danger ourselves" is offensive. Reminds me of the LEOs hanging outside Columbine HS while kids were being slaughtered because policy dictated that their own safety took top priority.
It wouldn't surprise me to find out that the whole plan was to rig this guy with explosives in an attempt to injure or kill as many police and emergency workers as possible. With the bank robbery simply a ploy to get a police response (in large numbers). If the robbery was successful, that was just a bonus. By taking the handcuffs off, it is possible that this would have enabled him to better carry out the plan.
This would be terrorism.
This is similar to senarios involving a "secondary device". Terrorists cause some kind of incident that requires emergency workers to arrive in large numbers. Before hand they try to figure out where the staging area will be. They plant a secondary device where they imagine the staging area will be. After the emergency workers arrive and stage for the first incident, the terrorists detonate the secondary device at the staging area to get as many as they can.
This would be terrorism.
This is similar to senarios involving a "secondary device". Terrorists cause some kind of incident that requires emergency workers to arrive in large numbers. Before hand they try to figure out where the staging area will be. They plant a secondary device where they imagine the staging area will be. After the emergency workers arrive and stage for the first incident, the terrorists detonate the secondary device at the staging area to get as many as they can.
TheeBadOne
Member
The whole story is not yet known.
Q. For the innocent victim theory, why didn't he call for help right away instead of robbing a bank?
A. He was told he'd be blown up if he did, or the bomb was tamper proof.
Q. Shouldn't he have known that he'd have an almost certain chance of being caught by the Police because 99.9 % of all bank robbers are caught very quickly? (and then trying to explain that the bomb you have is not yours and be believed? vs. not robbing a bank and then asking for help?)
A. But he had a bomb strapped to him.
You can go back & forth all day, but bottom line is the jury is still out. There's never been a recorded case of someone being forced to do a bank robbery by having a bomb strapped to them. The response was appropriate given the situtation and known info at the time of the incident.
Locally a man was arrested with a homemade bomb strapped to his leg in a public housing complex. He 1st tried to say someone else had put the pipe type bomb on him, but then admitted he put it on himself for "self protection".
As the article states, many many bank robbers claim to have explosives on them, especially when caught, in an attempt to make LE back off.
We are all waiting with baited breath for the full info to come out, in the mean time let's be objective.
All the best
Q. For the innocent victim theory, why didn't he call for help right away instead of robbing a bank?
A. He was told he'd be blown up if he did, or the bomb was tamper proof.
Q. Shouldn't he have known that he'd have an almost certain chance of being caught by the Police because 99.9 % of all bank robbers are caught very quickly? (and then trying to explain that the bomb you have is not yours and be believed? vs. not robbing a bank and then asking for help?)
A. But he had a bomb strapped to him.
You can go back & forth all day, but bottom line is the jury is still out. There's never been a recorded case of someone being forced to do a bank robbery by having a bomb strapped to them. The response was appropriate given the situtation and known info at the time of the incident.
Locally a man was arrested with a homemade bomb strapped to his leg in a public housing complex. He 1st tried to say someone else had put the pipe type bomb on him, but then admitted he put it on himself for "self protection".
As the article states, many many bank robbers claim to have explosives on them, especially when caught, in an attempt to make LE back off.
We are all waiting with baited breath for the full info to come out, in the mean time let's be objective.
All the best
Keith
Member
The police can not solve all problems! If this guy was a victim, it was just his bad luck - I don't see how an untrained policemen could have helped him in the short time they had.
He was afraid to take the thing off of himself! Yet, somebody else who knows no more about it than he, should be expected to take it off?
And one other point - IF he was a victim, he'd have done a lot better to go straight to the police and make his problem known. Maybe they'd have then had time to get an EOD guy there and do something for him.
Bad luck and a bad decision (on the victims part) resulted in a bad outcome. I don't see what the police could have done.
Keith
He was afraid to take the thing off of himself! Yet, somebody else who knows no more about it than he, should be expected to take it off?
And one other point - IF he was a victim, he'd have done a lot better to go straight to the police and make his problem known. Maybe they'd have then had time to get an EOD guy there and do something for him.
Bad luck and a bad decision (on the victims part) resulted in a bad outcome. I don't see what the police could have done.
Keith
Destructo6
Member
Under the remarkably strange circumstances, I don't really see much more they could have reasonably done. Those circumstances being:
A bank robbery suspect who states he has a bomb on his person.
Only now, after the fact, do we know the bomb was intended to kill him only.
A bank robbery suspect who states he has a bomb on his person.
Only now, after the fact, do we know the bomb was intended to kill him only.
TBO, don't they teach all recruits at the acedemy to cut the "red" wire? Heck, anybody knows that! (just kidding)
Having watched the video, its obvious this guy was duped, forced at the point of a gun into something that was way over his head...for what, who knows? An innocent victim.
However, if I was the officer who apprehended the guy, I'd be wondering if this wasn't the first of Osama's second wave of attacks on the USA, given the popularity of suicide bombers with Arab terrorists. Not a farfetched possibility.
Its still not determined if the bomb was timer or remote activated...if the latter, threatening to remove it from the (potential witness) guy's neck, the BG would push the button and scoot, rather than have it removed by anyone.
Lastly, I don't know exactly how long the guy waited, but most med. size cities don't have their bomb squads assembled and waiting in the wings for a 5-minute response.
I've got to cut the officials some slack on this one.
Having watched the video, its obvious this guy was duped, forced at the point of a gun into something that was way over his head...for what, who knows? An innocent victim.
However, if I was the officer who apprehended the guy, I'd be wondering if this wasn't the first of Osama's second wave of attacks on the USA, given the popularity of suicide bombers with Arab terrorists. Not a farfetched possibility.
Its still not determined if the bomb was timer or remote activated...if the latter, threatening to remove it from the (potential witness) guy's neck, the BG would push the button and scoot, rather than have it removed by anyone.
Lastly, I don't know exactly how long the guy waited, but most med. size cities don't have their bomb squads assembled and waiting in the wings for a 5-minute response.
I've got to cut the officials some slack on this one.
Baba Louie
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,831
No one saw the movie PHONE BOOTH huh?
Pizza delivery guy... bomb...
Life imitating art?
Adios
Pizza delivery guy... bomb...
Life imitating art?
Adios
I still don't see a problem with giving him a knife and holding him at gunpoint from a distance.
No. Willingly putting your own life at risk in an attempt to resolve a situation cannot make the situation worse. A person attempting to disarm a bomb when it's obvious the bomb squad won't arrive in time has not made the situation worse. The person is a good samaritan, quite rare in today's society, and though the person's family would no doubt mourn the person's loss, life goes on. The demonstration that society still has good samaritans might be more important than the life of an individual, if s/he accepts risk willingly.
"I still don't see a problem with giving him a knife and holding him at gunpoint from a distance."
As was mentioned, one possible senario is that this guy was a terrorist, so you violate all common sense and let him loose, he runs into the crowd and detonates the bomb. Oh, wait, you are going to stop him with handguns. I am sure he will be more afraid of that than the bomb he is about to blow himself up with.
"Willingly putting your own life at risk in an attempt to resolve a situation cannot make the situation worse."
As was mentioned, one possible senario is that this guy was a terrorist, so you violate all common sense and let him loose, he runs into the crowd and detonates the bomb. Oh, wait, you are going to stop him with handguns. I am sure he will be more afraid of that than the bomb he is about to blow himself up with.
"Willingly putting your own life at risk in an attempt to resolve a situation cannot make the situation worse."
Okay, well we know 444 will never be a good samaritan in that kind of situation
There's nothing sarcastic about the statement that you seemed to consider silly. Whether you believe there's no god and your awareness will simply cease, or whether you believe in a God that will judge you whether you do right or wrong, how could you be worse off (at the time of your death) by risking your life to save someone else? There are other considerations, certainly: family, etc. But they don't override everything.
The entire objective of holding him at gunpoint from a distance is that you can stop him even if he starts running toward people in an attempt to detonate the bomb.
And nobody's explained why a terrorist who's just robbed a bank where many more people would be shocked and injured by an explosion would choose to wait until he's in custody to attempt to detonate a bomb that - for clarification - is clearly designed merely to decapitate the wearer.
There's nothing sarcastic about the statement that you seemed to consider silly. Whether you believe there's no god and your awareness will simply cease, or whether you believe in a God that will judge you whether you do right or wrong, how could you be worse off (at the time of your death) by risking your life to save someone else? There are other considerations, certainly: family, etc. But they don't override everything.
The entire objective of holding him at gunpoint from a distance is that you can stop him even if he starts running toward people in an attempt to detonate the bomb.
And nobody's explained why a terrorist who's just robbed a bank where many more people would be shocked and injured by an explosion would choose to wait until he's in custody to attempt to detonate a bomb that - for clarification - is clearly designed merely to decapitate the wearer.
Sludge
Member
Well, after reading about this and thinking about it for a day or so I tend to fall into the "LE did the right thing" camp.
Hind sight is 20/20. If im the cop on site, I think Im going to do the same thing. His motives are suspect, he just robbed a bank... thats all the info I have to go on. So, we have him cuffed and observe him from a safe distance till someone who knows EOD can get there. What else can ya do? Sure now that we all have read about how this guy went out on a pizza call and ends blown up we sympathize with him. My gut feeling is that this wasnt terrorism, and that he was innocent. Hopefully the investigation into this will uncover the truth.
Hind sight is 20/20. If im the cop on site, I think Im going to do the same thing. His motives are suspect, he just robbed a bank... thats all the info I have to go on. So, we have him cuffed and observe him from a safe distance till someone who knows EOD can get there. What else can ya do? Sure now that we all have read about how this guy went out on a pizza call and ends blown up we sympathize with him. My gut feeling is that this wasnt terrorism, and that he was innocent. Hopefully the investigation into this will uncover the truth.
jimpeel
Member
TheeBadOne
444
b. If were going to do this, why didn't he do it as they were cuffing him.
c. He told the cops he was rigged. They lifted up his shirt, determined he was telling the truth and ran like Hell.
444
b. Uncuff suspect and hand him knife.
c. If suspect attempts to rise prior to removing the rig, shoot him.
The second part of my post you failed to quote was "If the guy told him that it was rigged to go off if he tried to remove it, why would he try?"
444
a. the rig was on a timer.
b. If were going to do this, why didn't he do it as they were cuffing him.
c. He told the cops he was rigged. They lifted up his shirt, determined he was telling the truth and ran like Hell.
444
a. Place handcuffs on his legs.
b. Uncuff suspect and hand him knife.
c. If suspect attempts to rise prior to removing the rig, shoot him.
TheeBadOne
Member
Ok, what is the knife for?
jimpeel
Member
Guess I should have been a bit more specific
From the story at: http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/local/6652480.htm
TheeBadOne
a. Place handcuffs on his legs.
b. Uncuff suspect and hand him knife.
c. Suspect cuts away tee shirt.
d. Suspect cuts strap on bomb hanging around neck.
d1. Bomb falls to ground. Suspect crawls away.
d2. Device detonates killing suspect instantly.
e1. If d1 true suspect is taken into custody.
e2. If d2 true nothing changes from actual result.
f. If suspect attempts to rise prior to performing c., d., or d1., shoot him.
g. If suspect starts hopping around like he is in a sack race, shoot him some more.
From the story at: http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/local/6652480.htm
TheeBadOne
a. Place handcuffs on his legs.
b. Uncuff suspect and hand him knife.
c. Suspect cuts away tee shirt.
d. Suspect cuts strap on bomb hanging around neck.
d1. Bomb falls to ground. Suspect crawls away.
d2. Device detonates killing suspect instantly.
e1. If d1 true suspect is taken into custody.
e2. If d2 true nothing changes from actual result.
f. If suspect attempts to rise prior to performing c., d., or d1., shoot him.
g. If suspect starts hopping around like he is in a sack race, shoot him some more.
clubsoda22
member
if the guy told him it was rigged to go off if he tried to remove it, why would you, as a cop, want to try and remove it?
- Status