Bank owner celebrated for "catching the bad guy" - not sure how I feel about it

This is a discussion on Bank owner celebrated for "catching the bad guy" - not sure how I feel about it within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by HotGuns You are assuming that the cops didnt need his help. You have already established the fact that the guy was on ...

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 164
Like Tree87Likes

Thread: Bank owner celebrated for "catching the bad guy" - not sure how I feel about it

  1. #31
    New Member Array nidan11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    St.Louis, MO
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    You are assuming that the cops didnt need his help. You have already established the fact that the guy was on drugs and not in his right mind. In my dealing with drug infested criminals, that is when they are stupid enough to try anything.

    We dont know what may have transpired. Its very possible that the cops may have been fired upon, its very possible that a cop or the badguy ended up dead. We could "what if it to death, but how would you have felt if there was a high speed chase involved and the BG ended up ramming into a car load of kids?
    I've been in Law Enforcement for 12 years. I have often wondered what may have happened or not happened if I was not there to act. I have often stated, on this board, that I would much rather someone act to do what it right, than not act because it wasnt their problem or it was "too risky".

    Yeah, it can be dangerous. Yes, it is risky. Yes someone could have been killed.

    As it was, the BG was apprehended without firing a shot, an outcome that was probably the best possible scenario of many that could have transpired.

    The man apprehended a dangerous criminal who was armed. Would I likely do the same ? ... not certain. However, my family lives in the area AND the last thing I would want is for that criminal to come across my family shortly after leaving the bank (at a gas station, McDonalds, another bank, etc...). Was it dangerous to him....absolutely....did a life get taken...absolutely not. Could a life have been taken....absolutely...on both sides of the fence. TROY MO is VERY PRO GUN. The banks actually have signs on the door that state that they are PRO CONCEALED WEAPONS.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,179
    I can see LARA's point,threat was over,it's a good thing it went down the way it did without any gunfire.I think the Bank Manager's "Giddy" feeling is the adrenaline dump after the encounter.One problem that I can see is if the BG ignores his commands and decides to drive off,if he fires in some states he just used excessive force.Also if shots are fired with innocent bystanders being hit,then it would be the wrong decision,and may get you charged.
    In these situations it helps if you've played out any scenarios in your head and any course of action you might take including researching State law so you don't break the law,or come off looking like a vigilante that couldn't wait to shoot somebody.
    Jeanlouise likes this.
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  4. #33
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,044
    "It's all fun and games until someone gets an eye put out"

    Well I looked up Mo statutes and he was in fact legal in his actions under this provision.

    The actor was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.
    The full statute is here. CHAPTER 563

    Now the question is should he? Well in this case it worked out. The next time it happens and the willing bank manager pursues the suspect outside and walks into his partner with a 12 gauge it may turn out different. I bet the posts then would be "Why did he follow the guy out, that was stupid of him". Also take into consideration that he was legal under his state law others say that once the direct, immediate threat is over pursuit now shifts the aggressor over to the pursuer.

    He stated he did this out of anger for the way the guy threatened his employees not to prevent his escape he also stated that he saw the guy was frail or whatever words he used and since he was a black belt he could have taken him.

    I am truly glad it worked out for him but the question remains Should he have done it? It is all a matter of personal opinion. One thing I will say is that I guess this shows that guns are welcome signs do not discourage violence, just like gun buster signs don't encourage it.
    357and40 likes this.
    "A first rate man with a third rate gun is far better than the other way around". The gun is a tool, you are the craftsman that makes it work. There are those who say "if I had to do it, I could" yet they never go out and train to do it. Don't let stupid be your mindset. Harryball 2013

  5. #34
    Member Array LaraCroft10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    Well I looked up Mo statutes and he was in fact legal in his actions under this provision.

    "The actor was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony. "
    Ah, but I think you missed a very key word. Let's go back and read it again.

    A person may [...] use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, UNLESS:
    [...]
    (3) The actor was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.
    So it's actually under the reasons he CANNOT use physical force.
    Proud owner of a Sig Sauer P238 SAS Explosive Space Modulator.

    "I played the powerless in too many dark scenes. And I was blessed with a birth and a death, and I guess I just want some say in between." - Ani DiFranco, "Talk to me Now."

  6. #35
    Distinguished Member Array Bill MO's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,434
    Have not read all posts, but Troy is a smaller town in MO where everyone knows everyone who lives there. In that type set up things are done different than they are in big city life. People tend to take care of their own problems. The Banker let him get outside away from other people in the bank then took care of his problem. Small town USA tends to do things the way it was done years ago. The PC crap hasn't gone to us yet.

    This is one reason why my posts on what I would do in situations are different than some think is right. I have to remember where I am if in a situation as in home town USA it fall more to you to take care of and that is what is expected from those who live there not just he who is doing it.

    Just a look and thoughts from he who lives in a small rural MO town.
    It's gotta be who you are, not a hobby. reinman45

    "Is this persons bad behavior worth me having to kill them over?" Guantes

  7. #36
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,858
    I look at this situation in a more simplisitic view. If you were teaching a CCW class and you gave this scenario to the them would going out after the bad guy be an acceptable answer? We will assume you are protected by the law. Would you teach a class to go out to get the BG by yourself? Since this is a documented case you can add this into the scenario to eliminate alot of the what ifs. State that the reason for going after the BG was not for some higher civic reason like preventing him from injuring someone in the future or during his get away. You were doing it becuase you were mad. (That was the reason the bank manager gave)
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  8. #37
    Distinguished Member Array Bill MO's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,434
    suntzu, the reaction you got from this banker was not taught but just how people are in small town rural MO.

    Many years ago when I was 20 something a small town in my county was robbed by 3 women, yes women, not only did the banker follow them out with his gun but the whole town had been alerted to the bank being held up. Every truck in town had a long gun of some kind in it, in the back window. That just the way it was then, the gun as left the window but most trucks still have a long gun in them today.

    Back to the story, not only the banker but the whole town caught those women before they could get in their car and leave. They split and tried to run and hide did not work. One of the women said went caught you people are crazy, the townsman told her NO we just do like outsiders taking our money. She said its not your money but the banks, he said lady they are just holding my money for when I need it.

    Hill Billyish, maybe but thats the way it is in MO. Most big crime in small towns are done by those who do not live there and we don't take kindly to them showing up.
    It's gotta be who you are, not a hobby. reinman45

    "Is this persons bad behavior worth me having to kill them over?" Guantes

  9. #38
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,858
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Yes, I lived in a small town. Yes I understand the concept. Yes, even folks from the big city understand this (not all), yes it turned out well.
    But that was not what I asked. Folks are going round and round if he did the right thing. "Right" seems to be defined as "it worked out". Just like when LE oversteps their bounds and catches some BG on a hunch. It was the "right" thing to do because it worked out.

    Forget the end result. If this was a scenario for students would it be the "right" thing to do in a class room enviroment.

    And before someone goes off and says the real world is different. I knwo that all too much.
    We are all happy it turned out good. But this forum is also for folks to learn from others actions. Good, bad or indifferent. It is not heresy to say that the actions were wrong (in a tactical sense) but still applaud the man for his actions.
    bigmacque likes this.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  10. #39
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion County, Ohio
    Posts
    10,443
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    I look at this situation in a more simplisitic view. If you were teaching a CCW class and you gave this scenario to the them would going out after the bad guy be an acceptable answer? We will assume you are protected by the law. Would you teach a class to go out to get the BG by yourself? Since this is a documented case you can add this into the scenario to eliminate alot of the what ifs. State that the reason for going after the BG was not for some higher civic reason like preventing him from injuring someone in the future or during his get away. You were doing it becuase you were mad. (That was the reason the bank manager gave)
    Right or wrong is very subjective if one is treating this as a classroom scenario. Very valid arguments can be presented both ways.
    "When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk."
    Tuco

  11. #40
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,757
    Thoughts ...

    Quote Originally Posted by LaraCroft10 View Post
    This story irks me.

    First of all, I'm not convinced he was technically backed by the law to do what he did. The BG was already in his truck about to drive away when the bank owner decided to run out there and point a gun at him.
    Depends on the state's particular wording in the statutes. In many states, it's completely lawful to use the "degree of force deemed reasonably necessary" to stop a deadly threat, including escape of a deadly threatening person that's known to have just committed a violent felony. He'd personally witnessed that, himself. He also did not fire the weapon. He effected a "citizen's arrest" based on first-hand knowledge, threats of death against himself and staff, and theft of his business's property. It qualifies, certainly (in many states), though I'll grant it's a sticky road to walk in many states, legally speaking.

    Also, was there really a need for the second man to get involved? "Now you have two guns on you." Sounds like a power trip escalating...
    Interpretation.

    Depends on how the flow of the situation was going. The chemical (adrenaline+) dump affects everyone a bit differently. From his basic description in the news article (and we know how off-base such first reports can be), he drew his firearm and demanded the man exit the vehicle, then he got very firm and direct the moment the guy reached for his "hoodie" pocket. Seems reasonable to me, assuming he's lawful in meeting the basic criteria for such a citizen's arrest where he lives.

    From what I have learned from you very knowledgeable people, you don't pull a gun on someone unless you fully intend to pull that trigger, and you don't pull the trigger unless your LIFE IS IN DANGER. At the point in which the bank owner decided to draw his gun, nobody's life was in danger.
    Drawing to dissuade <> firing. In many states, the two acts are held to be distinctly different. Nearly ever state's use-of-force statutes are based on the "reasonable man" standard. I'm of the opinion that to stop a fleeing, known violent felon via threat of potential use of further force to effect such a stop is absolutely reasonable. I'd say he used a fair degree of control, to make that distinction in the moment.

    Besides, like the article said, it took the cops 60 seconds to get there anyway, undoubtedly because the tellers had already called the police. They would have caught him no problem without this dude's help (especially since he was drugged out and didn't resist arrest).
    That's an assumption. Possibly, he'd have been caught. But there are instances of escaping violent felons fleeing a scene only to end up carjacking and murdering someone else to ensure escape. His rapid actions helped close off such options.

    To me, it sounds like the guy has been itching to play Cop forever and seized the chance to do so - the article said he was "so giddy he couldn't sleep".
    Perhaps, perhaps not. "Vigilante" justice implies no citizen has any right whatsoever to attempt such things, under the assumption that all engagement of felons in such a manner have devolved to the responsibility of the hirelings (police, investigators, FBI, etc). Untrue. In many states, the acknowledgement (authorization) is codified by their statutes to allow for "reasonable" action to include such things as fleeing felons. Uncertain what the specific case is in this guy's state.

    And I think that's crap. It gives concealed carry license holders a bad reputation. That we are just chompin' at the bit to use our guns and are feel we are just like cops because we are armed.
    Many who don't understand the nature of citizenship, fleeing felon statutes and citizen's arrest statutes will not appreciate the distinctions, you're right.

    I don't advocate doing such a thing, myself, unless the cause and justification is "lily white" in fact as well as appearance, and unless I am fairly certain it's entirely possible the violence and/or threats in the just-witnessed situation all but assures the escaping felon is going to do it again to some other poor souls. Viewed from this perspective, letting such a dangerous person go could easily equate to further needless deaths and destruction of lives. Could you live with that, yourself, if you had ever opportunity to stop such a person? That's a very, very personal and difficult question, and it will certainly put a person up to severe scrutiny about the circumstances and reasonableness of actions. But then, that's the nature of employing force against another, no matter whether it's "mere" force, the threat of potential deadly force, or the actual act of using deadly force.

    Compare, say, New Jersey or Massachusetts to Texas or Arizona, for example.

    Much to think about.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  12. #41
    VIP Member
    Array Jeanlouise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Almost Heaven
    Posts
    2,161
    My CCW instructor reminded us that we aren't law enforcement or cowboys. The reason we are carrying is to defend ourselves from immediate and imminent injury or death.

    How do you know for sure if you're in immediate jeopardy? That's the question in this case I think. The crime had been committed, BG was wandering away, police had been called, everyone at this point was ok...bank manager was mad.

    I think he should have stayed inside and let LEOs take care of business.

    So many if's, and's and but's to every situation but in THIS situation I think he reacted on emotion, not logic.

    Ok, that said, my inner voice is yelling, "heck ya! Glad that creep didn't get away and the bank manager apprehended him. Good on him!"
    That's the voice that gets me in trouble sometimes.
    LaraCroft10 likes this.
    It may be that your sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others.

    http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown...eaves%20office

  13. #42
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    16,244
    I soooo hate to see the BG get away.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  14. #43
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion County, Ohio
    Posts
    10,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeanlouise View Post
    My CCW instructor reminded us that we aren't law enforcement or cowboys. The reason we are carrying is to defend ourselves from immediate and imminent injury or death.

    How do you know for sure if you're in immediate jeopardy? That's the question in this case I think. The crime had been committed, BG was wandering away, police had been called, everyone at this point was ok...bank manager was mad.

    I think he should have stayed inside and let LEOs take care of business.

    So many if's, and's and but's to every situation but in THIS situation I think he reacted on emotion, not logic.

    Ok, that said, my inner voice is yelling, "heck ya! Glad that creep didn't get away and the bank manager apprehended him. Good on him!"
    That's the voice that gets me in trouble sometimes.
    Your instructor presented one point of view. There are many others, equally valid.
    "When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk."
    Tuco

  15. #44
    VIP Member
    Array Jeanlouise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Almost Heaven
    Posts
    2,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1956 View Post
    Your instructor presented one point of view. There are many others, equally valid.
    I don't doubt that is true. I'm open to hearing them.
    bigmacque likes this.
    It may be that your sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others.

    http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown...eaves%20office

  16. #45
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,044
    Lara now you have me wondering. I am seeing if there is another site that lists the statute. If this is the case then it was an unlawful act for him to do what he did.

    It seems the first section is when you can use deadly force and then the next section is where you can't.

    563.031. 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:

    (1) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:

    (a) He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or

    (b) He or she is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor pursuant to section 563.046; or

    (c) The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this chapter or other provision of law;

    (2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he or she seeks to protect would not be justified in using such protective force;

    (3) The actor was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.

    2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:

    (1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony;

    (2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person; or

    (3) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.

    3. A person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining. A person does not have a duty to retreat from private property that is owned or leased by such individual.

    4. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.

    5. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section. If a defendant asserts that his or her use of force is described under subdivision (2) of subsection 2 of this section, the burden shall then be on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the use of such force was necessary to defend against what he or she reasonably believed was the use or imminent use of unlawful force.
    "A first rate man with a third rate gun is far better than the other way around". The gun is a tool, you are the craftsman that makes it work. There are those who say "if I had to do it, I could" yet they never go out and train to do it. Don't let stupid be your mindset. Harryball 2013

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

bank owner in troy confronts
,

bank robbery troy mo

,

space shuttle challenger

,
suppose the bank owners
,
troy mo bank robbery
Click on a term to search for related topics.