OT: Tenino man mistaken for bank robber at Timberland Bank in Tumwater

Dave_pro2a said:

Ahh the old "it's the other guy's fault" excuse. WINNING!

And it wasn't a mistake. Nothing about it was a mistake. It was 100% intentional -- on the part of bank employees and LEO. The bank employes intended this to happen, the LEO involved intended this to happen -- imho.

Click to expand...

Sure glad you added that IMHO...Because it sounds a lot like paranoid conspiracy theory- the bank whackos and the cops picked some dude to grab at gunpoint...why, exactly?

JoeSparky said:

I am hoping your parenthetical is in sarcasm, but I am wanting to make sure. Well, Is it? or is it not?

Click to expand...

Call me CPT. Sarcastic!

Dave_pro2a said:

Ahh the old "it's the other guy's fault" excuse. WINNING!
And it wasn't a mistake. Nothing about it was a mistake. It was 100% intentional -- on the part of bank employees and LEO. The bank employes intended this to happen, the LEO involved intended this to happen -- imho.

Click to expand...

I'm not making excuses for anyone. And could you tell me specifically what lead you to the conclusion that it was intentional?

Excuse me, I am sorry to bother you. I don't want to alarm you but it has been reported that you look similar to a bank robbery suspect.

No I can't check your id. Thanks for offering.

Hahaha

The fear of LEO is thick on this thread.

What does this thread have to so with guns?

Flopsweat said:

I think Stoked has a legitimate point. Was the cop supposed to introduce himself, shake the guy's hand and ask how he could help? No, he was supposed to do exactly what he did. Bank robberies are exactly the situation where we want the police there, with an aggressive attitude and an unholstered firearm.

Look, we all get it that you don't like being pushed around - neither do I - but they're not always automatically at fault when a mistake gets made. This time someone at the bank made the mistake, not the cops.

Click to expand...

So, what crime what the guy witnesses almost committing? What proof is there that he was about to commit a crime?
He was not even at the bank when he was arrested, so how did the cop do the 'right thing' by arresting the guy further down the road?
The proper response at that distance (no longer at the bank) would have been to have a "stop and talk", not a "move and die."

AGAIN he was NOT at the bank for at WORST trespassing, NOT bank robbery.

Freedom1Man said:

So, what crime what the guy witnesses almost committing? What proof is there that he was about to commit a crime?
He was not even at the bank when he was arrested, so how did the cop do the 'right thing' by arresting the guy further down the road?
The proper response at that distance (no longer at the bank) would have been to have a "stop and talk", not a "move and die."

AGAIN he was NOT at the bank for at WORST trespassing, NOT bank robbery.

Click to expand...

+1 Notice the avoidance if non cops could do the same thing?

Flopsweat said:

I think Stoked has a legitimate point. Was the cop supposed to introduce himself, shake the guy's hand and ask how he could help? No, he was supposed to do exactly what he did. Bank robberies are exactly the situation where we want the police there, with an aggressive attitude and an unholstered firearm.

Look, we all get it that you don't like being pushed around - neither do I - but they're not always automatically at fault when a mistake gets made. This time someone at the bank made the mistake, not the cops.

Click to expand...

I call bullspit....there was no bank robbery...there was no evidence of a bank robbery...there was danger....there was no RAS or PC...no reason to put peoples lives in danger with "Aggressive" attitudes.

Stoked said:

A, you apparently don't want to answer my question; and

B, what's an apologist? My wife keeps telling me I need to apologize, usually when she's in the wrong, lol.

Click to expand...

A, did you catch my question in response, would non cops be allowed to point guns at innocent people because just maybe he might fit a vague description? I didn't answer the question because it isn't germane to the point I made, it's a misdirection. But to play what if's, if I as a citizen was saw a guy who "fit the description" of a crook I would observe and not come on all "aggressive" and point my weapon at someone, if I got shot doing so because someone saw an aggressive person pointing a gun at them a jury would be right in convicting me and not the person defending themselves......by state law this should even be more so for a costumed agent in blue.

Apologist- A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.

​From the RCW's....

Legislative recognition: "The legislature recognizes that RCW 9A.16.040 establishes a dual standard with respect to the use of deadly force by peace officers and private citizens, and further recognizes that private citizens' permissible use of deadly force under the authority of RCW 9.01.200, 9A.16.020, or 9A.16.050 is not restricted and remains broader than the limitations imposed on peace officers."

Some how someway the Cops had to know who to stop & what they had done in order to know how to stop them, you do not get that information from a panic alarm. That means the Cops talked to someone at the bank. That someone at the bank either gave the Cops incorrect info or the Cops way overreacted in this case. That phone call was almost for sure recorded, If I was that guy I would be asking my Lawyer to subpoena that recording and then proceed to sue the crap out of who ever it was that overreacted or lied. Somebody screwed up rather badly here maybe even both he Cops and the bank.

Anyone that would do business with this bank or continue to do business with this bank is very foolish IMHO.

Freedom1Man said:

So, what crime what the guy witnesses almost committing? What proof is there that he was about to commit a crime?
He was not even at the bank when he was arrested, so how did the cop do the 'right thing' by arresting the guy further down the road?
The proper response at that distance (no longer at the bank) would have been to have a "stop and talk", not a "move and die."

AGAIN he was NOT at the bank for at WORST trespassing, NOT bank robbery.

Click to expand...

No. He wasn't even trespassing. He is in contractual privity with the bank and, therefore, has a full and lawful right to be on their premises while conducting business with them, as that is their standard mode of interacting with all their customers. If they subsequently trespass him, then they are possibly in breach of that contract and are subject to civil liability.

Since none of us except the person involved knows what truly happened, we don't (and can't) know the complete surrounding circumstances of the stop. My experience (albeit admittedly somewhat limited) with Tumwater LEOs is that they seem to be fairly level-headed guys and the ones I've dealt with are not antis (quite the contrary).

And, although it sounds to me (based upon the very limited info given in the article) that the LEOs were acting prudently on a report of a strongly possible sighting of a wanted person, we, none of us, knows the details of the report and subsequent encounter. As such, at least I am not in a position to competently arm-chair quarterback the incident.

Come on, no one mentioning that the ONLY stated reason the employees had for thinking he was a bank robber was that he walked in and took some brochures earlier?

Whatch out people, those informationals are a bait trap for bank robbers. Normal people won't take them, but they think only bank robbers will so keep a reign on the urge to peruse the brochures.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

Baked on Grease said:

Come on, no one mentioning that the ONLY stated reason the employees had for thinking he was a bank robber was that he walked in and took some brochures earlier?

Whatch out people, those informationals are a bait trap for bank robbers. Normal people won't take them, but they think only bank robbers will so keep a reign on the urge to peruse the brochures.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking.

Baked on Grease said:

Come on, no one mentioning that the ONLY stated reason the employees had for thinking he was a bank robber was that he walked in and took some brochures earlier?

Whatch out people, those informationals are a bait trap for bank robbers. Normal people won't take them, but they think only bank robbers will so keep a reign on the urge to peruse the brochures.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

Click to expand...

If your comment was directed at my post, then you misapprehend what I said. I was referring only to the reasonableness of the LEOs actions based upon the information they received, not the reasonableness (or, more appropriately, the lack of reasonableness) of the allegations and tentative identification by the the bank employees.

Freedom1Man said:

The proper response at that distance (no longer at the bank) would have been to have a "stop and talk", not a "move and die."

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but let me make sure I understand this point correctly.

You have a person who:

A) The bank staff felt was enough of a threat (wrong on their part) to push the panic buttons, and

B) The bank staff (to the best of their knowledge, though incorrectly) identified as a suspect in several Tacoma-area bank robberies

and you feel the best approach would be to stop him and talk to him? That's what is called, in scientific circles, "silly".


I'd like to see your point of view, truly, I would. My POV, however, is shaded by personal experience and training. I once blatantly disregarded my training and drew upon my personal experience when contacting (in a "stop and talk" manner) a person who was said to have been threatening someone with a knife. Seeing as it was a person who I'd previously contacted multiple times, sans incident, and being in a crowded area, I chose to disregard proper procedure and merely "socially contact" this person.

61 stitches and a few months of physical therapy to regain the use of my left hand later, I'd learned the hard way. I hope and pray you never have to make that call.

sudden valley gunner said:

I call bullspit....there was no bank robbery...there was no evidence of a bank robbery...there was danger....there was no RAS or PC...no reason to put peoples lives in danger with "Aggressive" attitudes.

Click to expand...

See my above answer.

A, did you catch my question in response, would non cops be allowed to point guns at innocent people because just maybe he might fit a vague description? I didn't answer the question because it isn't germane to the point I made, it's a misdirection. But to play what if's, if I as a citizen was saw a guy who "fit the description" of a crook I would observe and not come on all "aggressive" and point my weapon at someone, if I got shot doing so because someone saw an aggressive person pointing a gun at them a jury would be right in convicting me and not the person defending themselves......by state law this should even be more so for a costumed agent in blue.

Click to expand...

Yes, you can/would/should (according to your personal moral beliefs) observe. You do not have a duty to act to detain/arrest said crook.

Apologist- A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.

Click to expand...

Ok, but why do I fit the description?

Stoked said:

I'm sorry, but let me make sure I understand this point correctly.

You have a person who:

A) The bank staff felt was enough of a threat (wrong on their part) to push the panic buttons, and

B) The bank staff (to the best of their knowledge, though incorrectly) identified as a suspect in several Tacoma-area bank robberies

and you feel the best approach would be to stop him and talk to him? That's what is called, in scientific circles, "silly".


I'd like to see your point of view, truly, I would. My POV, however, is shaded by personal experience and training. I once blatantly disregarded my training and drew upon my personal experience when contacting (in a "stop and talk" manner) a person who was said to have been threatening someone with a knife. Seeing as it was a person who I'd previously contacted multiple times, sans incident, and being in a crowded area, I chose to disregard proper procedure and merely "socially contact" this person.

61 stitches and a few months of physical therapy to regain the use of my left hand later, I'd learned the hard way. I hope and pray you never have to make that call.

Click to expand...

Kumquats and bananas.

Your case, YOU knew the other parties involved directly. You knew the other party from prior contacts. The cop here did not know him from Joe Dirt personally and had no prior, known, contact with the case at hand.

The case at hand, a description of someone who LOOKED like they might have been someone listed on a wanted photo. The man was not at the bank and the original idiot was not around to say, "yes that is the man I was talking about." The cop instead of doing a "stop and talk" made the decision to make a "move and die" contact. He was not at the bank reducing the chances that it was in-fact even the same person who was at the bank.

Scenario, I walk into a 7-11 while OC, the place had been robbed the night before by a while male approximately 6' - 6'4" tall and armed with a black pistol. The perp was wearing a hat and has a goatee. Like I do. I try to make a purchase and am told to leave. I leave. I go on down the road and 15-20 minutes later I have a cop stop me with his gun drawn.

That is most similar to what happened to this guy and the bank. I didn't rob the 7-11 and he didn't rob the bank. Note this has not happened to me thankfully but it's a similar thought scenario.

Stoked said:

See my above answer.

Click to expand...

I did see your answer don't agree with it see my posting of the state law.

Yes, you can/would/should (according to your personal moral beliefs) observe. You do not have a duty to act to detain/arrest said crook.

Click to expand...

Neither do cops, if you can't justify a "civilian" pointing guns at someone than a cop sure as hell has no reason.

Ok, but why do I fit the description?

Click to expand...

Because you are rationalizing cops pointing guns at someone because they are cops.

Freedom1Man said:

Kumquats and bananas.

Click to expand...

I totally want to use that line.

So, let me see if I understand the gist of your argument. The police officer(s) in question should not have detained (at gunpoint), a person suspected of, and having been wrongly identified as, someone who had committed a felony/felonies (to wit, the robbery of banks in the past)?

sudden valley gunner said:

I did see your answer don't agree with it see my posting of the state law.

Click to expand...

Which has what, exactly, to do with the situation being discussed?

Neither do cops, if you can't justify a "civilian" pointing guns at someone than a cop sure as hell has no reason.

Click to expand...

Yes, save the fact that, based on the information given to them, they reasonably believed they were contacting a felony suspect.

Because you are rationalizing cops pointing guns at someone because they are cops.

Click to expand...

No, I'm rationalizing pointing a gun at someone suspected of being a bank robbery suspect.

Stoked said:

Which has what, exactly, to do with the situation being discussed?



Yes, save the fact that, based on the information given to them, they reasonably believed they were contacting a felony suspect.



No, I'm rationalizing pointing a gun at someone suspected of being a bank robbery suspect.

Click to expand...

Thank you for admitting you are rationalizing. That covers much of what I am saying.

Now please answer if a non cop can point deadly weapons at a "suspect"? (This of course is going by the information provided, as Apgood points out there may be more info)

Why is it reasonable for anyone to point a gun at anyone for suspicion, when there is no evidence they are violent, dangerous or about to attack you?

What the RCW note I provided has to do with this is that, cops have a higher standard of use of lethal force by law. (The reality is we know the reality is they get away with murder, Ian Birk anyone?)