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

[Mike1956]

If I had been in the bank and threatened by an individual who expressed intent to commit harm, had the capability to inflict serious or fatal damage, and was in close proximity, then I would respond accordingly if an opportunity presented itself. After the threat has passed I am neither legally nor morally bound to pursue the BG. That's where highly trained LEO's come in to do their job.

Just my $0.02.

Assuming, of course that the manager is poorly trained, an assumption not borne out in the outcome.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[BigJon10125]

Next time just "end the threat" in the bank...

[Mike1956]

Unfortunately, the answer is: "It Depends." Here in North Carolina, there is no "citizen's arrest." It is also against the law to pursue and detain a criminal. We are allowed to subdue a criminal while he/she is in the act of commiting a crime, but once the BG turns to withdraw from the conflict, we cannot take any action to stop them. Had this happened in NC, the bank manager would have committed a felony.

You might want to re-check NC law:
North Carolina General Statutes § 15A-404 Detention of offenders by private persons - Legal Research

[retsupt99]

I doubt that I would chase a bank robber for the "bank's money", but I think this guy did just fine.
His friend helped...more power to him, too!
I have no problem with another dirtbag being taken down.

[Miamieddie]

Loracroft10 its ok to be on the good guys side, i know that the bg has rights, i know when the good guy wins people have to comment how wrong he was, you know what? power to the bank owner. He handled the situation without shooting or killing the bg. Probably prevented him from getting away and robbing another bank or killing someone, yes hes a hero!!! Lets see if we all can start favoring the good guy more i.stead of the bg, especially if he didnt even kill the bg.... Eddie

[ccw9mm]

My CCW instructor reminded us that we aren't law enforcement or cowboys.

We're citizens. That status is the basic, underlying authorization to defend against dire threats, right there.

Unfortunately, the heavy responsibility that goes with that is reasonably poorly defined or accepted in any "standard" way, with respect to getting involved; it varies via the statutes, by state; and its interpretation varies with the balance of zealotry/professionalism exhibited by the DA/LE involved. As witnessed by this example from the OP, as compared to any number of other examples we've seen in which someone getting involved was lambasted and treated as a vigilante. There are examples all over the spectrum, based on this muddled interpretation and the "reasonable man" standards, varying by community and instance.

[suntzu]

Loracroft10 its ok to be on the good guys side, i know that the bg has rights, i know when the good guy wins people have to comment how wrong he was, you know what? power to the bank owner. He handled the situation without shooting or killing the bg. Probably prevented him from getting away and robbing another bank or killing someone, yes hes a hero!!! Lets see if we all can start favoring the good guy more i.stead of the bg, especially if he didnt even kill the bg.... Eddie

I have not seen one post that favors the BG. Most folks that disagree with his actions or at least how he performed still praise him for stopping the BG. Myself included. I think situationaly he is very lucky on many fronts but I am happy with the ending.

[Miamieddie]

Suntzu... Ur alright glad to here ur perseption in this matter, your liked by me until u disagree with me on a next topic. LOL... Eddie

[Mike1956]

Suntzu... Ur alright glad to here ur perseption in this matter, your liked by me until u disagree with me on a next topic. LOL... Eddie

Based on your equivocal endorsement of Suntzu's post, I went ahead and gave it a like.

[tacman605]

Nedrgr21 thanks for the post that makes it clear.

[Miamieddie]

Mike1956 how about giving me a like also for making you like.

[LaraCroft10]

Damn, y'all, I go to work and come home to three more pages? Don't you people have jobs?

Okay, okay, so I read it wrong with my sleepy eyes at 5:45am. Thanks for the correction. The whole thing is pretty confusingly written.

I guess this seals it for me:

Tac and Lara, I think ya'll (yup, I did it) need to go down a little farther:
Private person's use of force in making an arrest.
563.051. 2. A private person acting on his own account may, subject to the limitations of subsection 3, use physical force to effect arrest or prevent escape only when and to the extent such is immediately necessary to effect the arrest, or to prevent escape from custody, of a person whom he reasonably believes to have committed a crime and who in fact has committed such crime.

3. A private person in effecting an arrest or in preventing escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only ...
(3) When he reasonably believes such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest of a person who at that time and in his presence
(a) Committed or attempted to commit a class A felony or murder; or
(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon. ...

The statute still says "subject to the limitations of subsection 3", but I'm so confused by the formatting that I can't figure out what subsection 3 is. So if that means that by some limitation, this man was still not in his rights, I'm not sure. If not, then I guess that changes this whole situation for me.

Because I honestly had no idea we were allowed to do that in Missouri.

Not that I still personally would have done the same thing (everyone in the bank out of harm's way and the cops en route and close), but color me educated on Missouri law.

And to whoever got fired up about me judging the man without knowing him (Ransom I think?), I said in my OP that from the article this is what it "sounds like", not a definitive: "Here are the defining characteristics of this man I don't know." Please don't put words in my mouth.

[Ransom]

And to whoever got fired up about me judging the man without knowing him (Ransom I think?), I said in my OP that from the article this is what it "sounds like", not a definitive: "Here are the defining characteristics of this man I don't know." Please don't put words in my mouth.

Hey Lara, it's all good. I'm not any more fired up than you were when you got "irked" about the story. But I have to defend myself... I did not put words in your mouth--they were already there when you said what it sounds like to YOU...

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".

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. Vigilante justice!

I just wanted to defend the gentleman since he's not on here to speak for himself. Anytime one of us uses our carry weapon in a legal way in response to a crime, we could be accused of "itching to play Cop" and that's just not a fair thing to say.

I've appreciated this thread very much and enjoyed the different opinions, and I too learned things about Missouri law. Thanks for starting it!

[HotGuns]

Because I honestly had no idea we were allowed to do that in Missouri

Dont feel too bad, most people dont know their state laws and how it deals with BG's.
One can only teach so much in a day. Lots of people go on informational overload when going through Concealed Handgun training and have a hard time retaining what they ought to know.

[LaraCroft10]

Another point of discussion:

Apparently the door was emblazoned with a sign that declared they were a "concealed carry" bank, with a nice big gun emblem.

....Weird? The opposite of a gunbuster sign. Kinda defeats the purpose of "concealed", no?