Engage or not

[JPY]

So a bank I frequent just got robbed at gunpoint. The Herald Bulletin - Gunman robs National City bank

If you're there when this happens, and are carrying, at what point do you, if at all, engage the bad guy? The rumor is that he did, in fact, put the gun to the teller's head at one point. Is that enough? He was in the bank alone, his accomplice was still outside in the vehicle according to preliminary reports.

I've been going back and forth on this in my head. On one side, giving him the money will just get him out of there, no harm done. However, if he does flip out and shoots the teller and I didn't do anything, I'd feel awful. On the other side, engaging him may cause said flipout. Or it may cause him to **** down his leg and surrender.

Thoughts?

 

[Lt. Commander]

Use the drive-thru....


Scott

 

[IndyGunworks]

If he says anythink like ill kill you, or puts a gun to someones head...or fobid it... fires his gun, or in any other way threatens the life (including not leaving after he has the money) then i say shoot.... but be smart about it watch your backstop, and be prepared to get shot yourself in the process.

 

[BigJ]

So a bank I frequent just got robbed at gunpoint. The Herald Bulletin - Gunman robs National City bank

If you're there when this happens, and are carrying, at what point do you, if at all, engage the bad guy? The rumor is that he did, in fact, put the gun to the teller's head at one point. Is that enough? He was in the bank alone, his accomplice was still outside in the vehicle according to preliminary reports.

I've been going back and forth on this in my head. On one side, giving him the money will just get him out of there, no harm done. However, if he does flip out and shoots the teller and I didn't do anything, I'd feel awful. On the other side, engaging him may cause said flipout. Or it may cause him to **** down his leg and surrender.

Thoughts?

I have always flipped back and forth between this issue. I am right there with ya, if he would shoot someone then you would feel an enormous amount of guilt. On the other hand if you immediately engaged Like you said it could set him off, making the rampage your fault, and again being held responsible.

In the eyes of the law if you engage and shoot, without him pulling the trigger you could face some serious charges. I would honestly have to make the decision right then and there. If I felt he was crazy enough to do something harmful, I would engage, but if not I would step down.

 

[josterman]

I agree with IndyGunworks

 

[Joe Williams]

So a bank I frequent just got robbed at gunpoint. The Herald Bulletin - Gunman robs National City bank

If you're there when this happens, and are carrying, at what point do you, if at all, engage the bad guy? The rumor is that he did, in fact, put the gun to the teller's head at one point. Is that enough? He was in the bank alone, his accomplice was still outside in the vehicle according to preliminary reports.

I've been going back and forth on this in my head. On one side, giving him the money will just get him out of there, no harm done. However, if he does flip out and shoots the teller and I didn't do anything, I'd feel awful. On the other side, engaging him may cause said flipout. Or it may cause him to **** down his leg and surrender.

Thoughts?

IMHO, if he's putting a gun to people's heads, I'm taking a shot if I can safely do so. I'd only engage to save lives or prevent serious injury, and that would be close enough for me.

I sure wouldn't be engaging to protect the bank's money... not my concern.

 

[misconfig]

I think if anyone is brandishing a weapon to rob any place is already desperate enough to take lives. That takes a lot of thought and consideration to be able to ROB a bank, that person was obviously a very serious felon. I think if it were myself, I would shoot him while he's busy with the teller, providing a had a clean shot without over penetration or shooting any innocent bystanders.

 

[samrothstein01]

What a loaded question....no pun intended.

First and foremost you would have to be willing to risk yourself and perhaps some legal issues to engage. But then again, why do any of us carry? To protect ourselves, our family, our friends, our neighbors, and the community. Right?

I would have to be in the situation to know what I would do. There is a lot you can read in a situation about a person's behavior, tone of voice, and gestures that give you indication of how quickly the situation would/could escalate.

However, I think if he is holding a gun to someones head, you are justified per the below and the legal issues will work themselves out after all evidence is collected, etc.

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.

 

[tv1217]

Try to hit him in the head, he'll be to busy dying to shoot the teller

 

[JPY]

Do you draw down, then attempt to verbally disarm him, and fire if threat escalates or continues?

 

[samrothstein01]

Do you draw down, then attempt to verbally disarm him, and fire if threat escalates or continues?

Good question, and another hard one to answer.

I believe my answer is no. If you pull, you fire. If you try to verbally de-escalate the situation, that only gives him time flip out and fire first and hurt or kill you or someone else. If you have reason enough to pull the firearm, you best use it, and you best not hesitate. For me, it's kind of like the "shooting them in the leg to injur them" scenario. If the stakes were high enough for you to brandish the weapon, then you best keep pulling the trigger until the threat is nuetralized.


Interested to hear other's thoughts on this.....

 

[Fishersjohn48]

I have to agree with Sam. Take every opportunity to avoid confrontation first. But as my father, an ex Marine always taught me; "The only time you point a gun at someone is if you intend to kill him"

 

[Tigergixxer]

I agree that you have to be in the situation to really know...

I have read all of 35-41-3 and samrothstein01 is 100% correct in his citation. That said, you would have to have reasonable belief that there was an imminent threat of harm and you would have to draw and shoot. I firmly believe that a shot to the leg would do more harm than good - likely leading to a shot teller, a shot 'you' and others.

It would be a tough one, but that is the purpose of having a license and being allowed to carry.

Edit:
Fishersjohn48's father is spot on. My uncle said the same thing.

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

For me, it would have to be a case-by-case scenario.

Too many variables and too subjective a scenario as being discussed.

How crowded the bank? What's the "mood" of the bad guy? Actively brandishing or just threatening?

The money kept in a drawer isn't much (All things considered), as soon as certain things in the bank drawer are moved/removed, alarms are triggered. Not to mention the other alarm triggers the tellers have.

I'd like to think that I wouldn't get involved at all for a few thousand bucks from a nervous rookie crook.

I MAY get involved from an actively brandishing (knife or firarm) depending on the situation.

I carry a weapon to give ME a chance to defend MYSELF and MY FAMILY. It does my wife no good if I step in to protect someone else...and I end up in a cheap pine box 6' under ground.

Too many variables...too many variables.

-J-

 

[JPY]

No one was harmed in the robbery, but a bank employee told a relative via cell phone that one suspect had held a gun to a teller’s head.


According to witness reports from the scene, a red Dodge pickup truck with a black stripe down the side pulled up to the bank. One man entered the bank with a gun while the other waited in the truck, witnesses said.

At noon Thursday, bank employees and witnesses were still locked inside the bank talking to police.

- Actively brandishing and pointing to the head of a teller.
- "Witnesses" would imply that others besides employees were inside the bank at the time.

 

[IndyGunworks]

Do you draw down, then attempt to verbally disarm him, and fire if threat escalates or continues?

I think thats the LAST route any NON LE should try to take... Once he sees that firearm who knows what couldhappen... better draw when he is not looking and come out shooting...or if you have time get close and take a well aimed shot tothe brainstem/spinal area, then keepshooting the upper torso until he is no longer a threat. Unles you are a trained LE or Negotiator of some sort, leave the bartering with criminals to the pros... a jury of 12 will be more sympethetic if you took him out, than if you talked to him, and he ended up shooting the teller, then you opened fire... dont give him the opportunity to know you are armed....

 

[colt45er]

For me, it would have to be a case-by-case scenario.

Too many variables and too subjective a scenario as being discussed.

How crowded the bank? What's the "mood" of the bad guy? Actively brandishing or just threatening?

The money kept in a drawer isn't much (All things considered), as soon as certain things in the bank drawer are moved/removed, alarms are triggered. Not to mention the other alarm triggers the tellers have.

I'd like to think that I wouldn't get involved at all for a few thousand bucks from a nervous rookie crook.

I MAY get involved from an actively brandishing (knife or firarm) depending on the situation.

I carry a weapon to give ME a chance to defend MYSELF and MY FAMILY. It does my wife no good if I step in to protect someone else...and I end up in a cheap pine box 6' under ground.

Too many variables...too many variables.

-J-

even if she is only willing to get you a cheap pine box, I'd spring for a nice pine box

in all seriousness though, if a gun is to someones head I have to assume he is willing to kill.

While I understand that if you draw you should not hesitate, however if you fire and the gun is still pointed at her head, he could shoot her because of your actions.

If you wait to draw until the gun is lowered, he would have a chance to draw on you.

Would it be best to draw, aim, and not fire until his gun is pointed in a safer loacation?

 

[dross]

To me, a warning only helps one person - the bad guy. Pointing a gun at someone and demanding money from them should certainly make any reasonble person believe that violence was imminent.

If I were carrying my CZ or my 1911 at a reasonable distance, I might try a head shot. If I just had my little PF9, I'm not sure it wouldn't be safer for everyone to wait and see. So many variables to think through in a short time with your heart racing - who is beside or behind him, who is behind or beside you, how far away are you, how is the guy acting, how good a shot are you - all of these things have to be considered.

I think in general, if you can take the shot without endangering anyone else and you think you can pull it off, shoot him in the head. Shooting his body just starts a gun battle, which might turn a situation where no one gets hurt into one where lots of people get hurt.

 

[Tigergixxer]

One can only hope that there would be a moment when he was distracted or aimed away. I'd hate to cause him to shoot her.

 

[cosermann]

Legally speaking, he'd be fair game pursuant to IC 35-41-3-2 (he has a gun so we assume imminent serious bodily injury, and he's committing a forceable felony).

So, the question is whether or not it would be wise or advantagous to engage. That, as said above, depends on the circumstances.

Here's a link to an interesting article for some perspective:

Commentary by Evan Marshall <= linky