Bank President foils Robbery


I would applaud him for the apprehension BUT..........He's not a LEO nor should he have acted like one. The BG could have been carrying a MAC10 or some other sort of firearm and mowed this Banker down. The BG was clear of the Bank, the Banker was the aggressor. Some States allow intervention of a civilian if and only if a felony is being committed. Not sure about MO. Plus the Banker is not familiar with take down procedures of a suspect. Could of gone really bad.

After all that said, It's always a good thing when the good guys win. Thanks for the story.
 
sig_man said:
This is the way to do it, good job
Click to expand...

So. Here is a question.... If the robber said, "So what!" and started to drive away.... now what? One must be extremely careful if they are going to use their firearm to stop a crime which does not involve an immediate threat of grave bodily harm or death.

Link Removed

[SIZE=+1]Private person's use of force in making an arrest. [/SIZE] 563.051. 1. A private person who has been directed by a person he reasonably believes to be a law enforcement officer to assist such officer to effect an arrest or to prevent escape from custody may, subject to the limitations of subsection 3, use physical force when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to carry out such officer's direction unless he knows or believes that the arrest or prospective arrest is not or was not authorized.
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
(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or
(2) When he reasonably believes such to be authorized under the circumstances and he is directed or authorized by a law enforcement officer to use deadly force; or
(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.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.
Click to expand...

If we are going to condone this, we should do it with the caveat of know what the limits are in law, and know what danger you are putting yourself in, not only danger from the criminal, but from the legal system as well.

Personally, I would have gotten a good description of the truck, hope for a photo of the license plate, and let FDC insurance cover the money.

Also, what could have happened if the police show up just as Mr. Bank President is exiting the bank with a gun in his hand?
 
A little more of this and there would be fewer Bank Robberies. Bank Manager must have been a Republican trying to end jobs--bank robbing.
 
I think the one thing we should be taking away from the story is that the bank not only allows CC, but seems to encourage it. Even for employees.

I'd bank there if I had any reason to be in MO.
 
mappow said:
I would applaud him for the apprehension BUT..........He's not a LEO nor should he have acted like one. The BG could have been carrying a MAC10 or some other sort of firearm and mowed this Banker down. The BG was clear of the Bank, the Banker was the aggressor. Some States allow intervention of a civilian if and only if a felony is being committed. Not sure about MO. Plus the Banker is not familiar with take down procedures of a suspect. Could of gone really bad.

After all that said, It's always a good thing when the good guys win. Thanks for the story.
Click to expand...

Yes, sir, I tend to agree with you in most cases. But I live where this happened and personally know the bank president David Thompson for many years. My daughter has worked with him for 3 years as well. He has personally trained for this type of scenario and take downs. Plus he has a martial arts degree. The bank robber was a local and even though he had a mask, he was recognized by several workers. In Mo., David had every right to pursue the felon. I believe under the castle doctrine. Plus, the bank pres also owns the bank and property. I tend to disagree with you stating the bank pres being the aggressor. But I do think in most cases, it would have been a mistake to pursue a felon. The bank robber was an absolute moron robbing a bank that clearly states on it's windows "legal CCW welcome" (paraphrased). I do appreciate and respect your opinion. Thanks for letting me reply. Peace.
 
Now that makes me say a .380 is enough gun, that robber didn't like looking down the barrel.

:triniti:
 
froggiegirl said:
Deadly force was not used, no one was killed. Peace.
Click to expand...

Again, I have to ask the what if question, that gun holders who decide to affect a citizen's arrest must think about: What if the bank robber rolled his eyes at the bank president, exclaimed, "Whatever, dude" and drove away? Would the Bank President's training teach him to shoot at the escaping bank robber?

And here's another question to think about. If the fleeing bank robber was shot and killed by a civilian while attempting to escape, is it really worth it to place your family in jeopardy and putting them through a trial, possibly jail time for the hero, possibly fines for the hero, the loss of income that would occur due to lawyer expenses, and the possible civil lawsuit?
 
froggiegirl said:
Yes, sir, I tend to agree with you in most cases. But I live where this happened and personally know the bank president David Thompson for many years. My daughter has worked with him for 3 years as well. He has personally trained for this type of scenario and take downs. Plus he has a martial arts degree. The bank robber was a local and even though he had a mask, he was recognized by several workers. In Mo., David had every right to pursue the felon. I believe under the castle doctrine. Plus, the bank pres also owns the bank and property. I tend to disagree with you stating the bank pres being the aggressor. But I do think in most cases, it would have been a mistake to pursue a felon. The bank robber was an absolute moron robbing a bank that clearly states on it's windows "legal CCW welcome" (paraphrased). I do appreciate and respect your opinion. Thanks for letting me reply. Peace.
Click to expand...

The bank robber was fleeing. The bank pres. chased him. That makes the bank pres. the aggressor.
Not saying it's right. But something to think about when deciding what you would do "if".
 
cluznar said:
Even if the bank man had shot the robber I doubt he would have been convicted.
Click to expand...

But what would have been the cost of the defense? Is bankrupting your family to pay lawyers really worth it? Without stating whether the bank presidents' actions were appropriate or not, these are things that we must think about when deciding what we will do. In the case the bank president may never have planned on actually using a gun....but when you are the person who inserts a gun into a situation where there previously was no gun shown, or even a visible deadly threat, you have to realize that you are the person who has changed the situation significantly.

In Washington, for example, justifiable homicide is possible when not in self defense, as it looks like is the case in Missouri as well. The problem is, in Washington, a person is only reimbursed by the state for their defense expenses if they are found at trial to have acted in self defense (or defense of others). By all indications the bank president never acted in self defense or defense of others, he only acted to prevent the escape of a person who committed a felony in his presence. So, in Washington, he may beat the conviction, but it would cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars to do so.
 
:eek:fftopic: Citizens arrest! Citizens arrest!:shout: Like Gomer in Andy Griffith's show in Mayberry, NC.:haha:
 
froggiegirl said:
Yes, sir, I tend to agree with you in most cases. But I live where this happened and personally know the bank president David Thompson for many years. My daughter has worked with him for 3 years as well. He has personally trained for this type of scenario and take downs. Plus he has a martial arts degree. The bank robber was a local and even though he had a mask, he was recognized by several workers. In Mo., David had every right to pursue the felon. I believe under the castle doctrine. Plus, the bank pres also owns the bank and property. I tend to disagree with you stating the bank pres being the aggressor. But I do think in most cases, it would have been a mistake to pursue a felon. The bank robber was an absolute moron robbing a bank that clearly states on it's windows "legal CCW welcome" (paraphrased). I do appreciate and respect your opinion. Thanks for letting me reply. Peace.
Click to expand...
None of that really matters. A citizens arrest is allowed in Missouri if a felony has been committed. It does not have to be in progress as mappow claimed and it did not make the bank manager an aggressor of any sort, also as mappow claimed. You don't need to be trained in martial arts or takedowns to affect a citizens arrest. Yes, there was some risk involved. That's a given with any citizens arrest, and I think that was really mappow's point. Had he been in that situation, he probably wouldn't have chosen to take that risk. But the bank manager did nothing wrong. He simply chose to assume a risk that not everyone would have chosen. From the information given, it sounds like he handled it well.
 
Rhino said:
None of that really matters. A citizens arrest is allowed in Missouri if a felony has been committed. It does not have to be in progress as mappow claimed and it did not make the bank manager an aggressor of any sort, also as mappow claimed. You don't need to be trained in martial arts or takedowns to affect a citizens arrest. Yes, there was some risk involved. That's a given with any citizens arrest, and I think that was really mappow's point. Had he been in that situation, he probably wouldn't have chosen to take that risk. But the bank manager did nothing wrong. He simply chose to assume a risk that not everyone would have chosen. From the information given, it sounds like he handled it well.
Click to expand...

Rhino I only stated the aggressor part due to not knowing what MO Laws pertain to in apprehending a felony in progress. I add that unless you actually see the felony in progress you as a civilian cannot intervene. Again, not fully versed in MO Law. You also state "some risk involved". WOW, unless you're throughly trained in take down procedures your "RISK" has exponentially increased. REALLY? I also add that a bank mgr that CC's is effectively acting as a security agent for the Bank. Does the Bank accept the liability? Does the State recognize this mgr as a working security agent. Had things gone bad, there's a lot of questions that MOST civilians should be aware of. I myself would not have intervene as it's really not my concern. UNLESS the man brandishes his weapon and has the ability to shoot me. Then and only then I would engage. I ain't no LEO, just a Law abiding citizen. Leave police work to the police.
 
Neither of us can gauge the amount of risk without having been there, and it's really up to the person on the spot as to whether or not they are willing to assume that risk. It would most likely be your choice not to, as I said. I'm not faulting you for that choice. I just wanted to clarify that it was a choice for the bank manager too rather than a mistake on his part. That doesn't mean that others would necessarily see the same risk as you though, or necessarily make the same choice.
.
Point taken on the Missouri laws. I should have given you that deference. My apology for that.
.
You make another point here that I definitely think is worth mentioning. Assuming that the bank manager felt that he was serving in the role as bank security guard as you said, his mindset would have been different from the typical concealed carrier when weighing the pros and cons of the decision as to whether or not to attempt a citizens arrest. Your average concealed carrier wouldn't feel the sort of obligation to act that someone acting in the role of security guard might feel.
 
I used to live in the area and would hunt north of Troy.
I get the feeling if the robber had slowly driven away... nothing would have happened. The bloody money is worthless paper anyway ,supposedly insured FDIC. He just tried to keep the guy there until the Police arrived.
Maybe he felt a little insulted the guy tried it with the sticker posted on the door? I'm not shooting someone over paper money, unless they are ready to hurt people to get it.
Troy is a small town and Lincoln Co. is Meth central USA, weird stuff happens all the time there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 137 (members: 0, guests: 137)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,544
Messages
611,263
Members
74,964
Latest member
sigsag1

Share this page

Back
Top