-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Cause you never know when you'll need it in a bank
- Thread starter bohdi
- Start date
Dustin
Regular Member
imported post
Good For him !!!
The BG was probably wearing a tucked in shirt still claiming he had a bomb ! :lol:
Good For him !!!
The BG was probably wearing a tucked in shirt still claiming he had a bomb ! :lol:
DopaVash
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Repost, but a good story none-the-less.
Repost, but a good story none-the-less.
The Fiercest Beard
Regular Member
imported post
anyone read some of the comments?, makes my blood boil when i hear "he should have done nothing and let the police handle it."
what happens when that bank robber gets away, and hold YOUR family hostage, are you going to just wait for the LEO
yeah right... we all know that LEO are not responisble for protecting us... that responisiblity falls on ourselves, and im not about to disarm a gun/knife/bomb wielding psyco with a taser or peper spray... or less
officers 00 buck, and .357, are thebest officers in my neighborhood
i think the CCW did a good job showing restraint in not shooting the guy in between the eyes, tough to trigger a bomb with an ounce of lead short circuting the brainstem.
anyone read some of the comments?, makes my blood boil when i hear "he should have done nothing and let the police handle it."
what happens when that bank robber gets away, and hold YOUR family hostage, are you going to just wait for the LEO
yeah right... we all know that LEO are not responisble for protecting us... that responisiblity falls on ourselves, and im not about to disarm a gun/knife/bomb wielding psyco with a taser or peper spray... or less
officers 00 buck, and .357, are thebest officers in my neighborhood
i think the CCW did a good job showing restraint in not shooting the guy in between the eyes, tough to trigger a bomb with an ounce of lead short circuting the brainstem.
ScottyT
Regular Member
imported post
Holy necropost Batman!
Holy necropost Batman!
pitythefools
Regular Member
imported post
Think,
medulla oblongata.medulla oblongata.
Practice, practice, practice...
Produces a no reflex drop. Its what snipers do.
A good aim point is just below between the eyes to the corners of the mouth.
In my training I have been taught that a gunshot to this area produces a no relfex drop. Finger on trigger wont flinch and suspect is dropped. Of course I am not a doctor nor a lawyer. However I do think that this is a good target. Seems that the trauma to the upper spine/ lower brain would produce the desired affect.
I spent my day on a nature walk, then shooting the M 16, UMP and 416. then the g22c play to finish it up....good times.
Think,
medulla oblongata.medulla oblongata.
Practice, practice, practice...
Produces a no reflex drop. Its what snipers do.
A good aim point is just below between the eyes to the corners of the mouth.
In my training I have been taught that a gunshot to this area produces a no relfex drop. Finger on trigger wont flinch and suspect is dropped. Of course I am not a doctor nor a lawyer. However I do think that this is a good target. Seems that the trauma to the upper spine/ lower brain would produce the desired affect.
I spent my day on a nature walk, then shooting the M 16, UMP and 416. then the g22c play to finish it up....good times.
GreenDrake
Regular Member
imported post
Ahh yes, aim for the "peach"
Ahh yes, aim for the "peach"
THway
Regular Member
imported post
and i was told that i need not carry a gun in my home town because it is ranked in the top 5 safest communities in the state.
and i was told that i need not carry a gun in my home town because it is ranked in the top 5 safest communities in the state.
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
imported post
The Fiercest Beard wrote:
Pointing a gun at a man who says he has a bomb, is foolish. This time, everyone just got lucky that the bomber was dumber than the guy CCWing.... Bluffing helped too.
The Fiercest Beard wrote:
One word: deadmanswitch. If he LETS GO it detonates. That includes depriving him of motor function through the high road.
Pointing a gun at a man who says he has a bomb, is foolish. This time, everyone just got lucky that the bomber was dumber than the guy CCWing.... Bluffing helped too.
protector84
Regular Member
imported post
A bank robber is not likely to have a "deadman switch." Some people watch too much TV. Keep in mind that the robber has to carry the bag of money out and then has to quickly get away. It is kind of difficult to do that with one hand and if the goal is to get rich, the robber doesn't want to accidently blow himself up in the process. Not to say that this can't happen but a bank robber strapped with explosives holding a deadman switch is quite unlikely. Besides, why go to so much trouble putting a sophisicated bomb together when you could just grab a gun? I don't think the permit holder was stupid. He just didn't buy the bluff.
A bank robber is not likely to have a "deadman switch." Some people watch too much TV. Keep in mind that the robber has to carry the bag of money out and then has to quickly get away. It is kind of difficult to do that with one hand and if the goal is to get rich, the robber doesn't want to accidently blow himself up in the process. Not to say that this can't happen but a bank robber strapped with explosives holding a deadman switch is quite unlikely. Besides, why go to so much trouble putting a sophisicated bomb together when you could just grab a gun? I don't think the permit holder was stupid. He just didn't buy the bluff.
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
imported post
2 points
A normally open push button is no harder to find or use than a normally closed one.
Stick it in your mouth and the tellers tend not to stall by asking you to repeat yourself. Hands free. Motivates.
Read about bank robberies with bombs. Most you'll read about are the ones that go wrong and the bad guy gets caught. Fake bombs, etc... The much larger number of successful robberies are harder to find, but you'll see the ones that get away with a bomb MO almost ALWAYS use a deadman switch. The others get caught and publicized.
2 points
A normally open push button is no harder to find or use than a normally closed one.
Stick it in your mouth and the tellers tend not to stall by asking you to repeat yourself. Hands free. Motivates.
Read about bank robberies with bombs. Most you'll read about are the ones that go wrong and the bad guy gets caught. Fake bombs, etc... The much larger number of successful robberies are harder to find, but you'll see the ones that get away with a bomb MO almost ALWAYS use a deadman switch. The others get caught and publicized.
imported post
This Dumb-Samaritan gives the GunGrabbers a good example/propaganda to fight for their side. He turned a volatile situation into a very, very, very volatile situation and greatly increased the danger to everyone's lives there.
All that was at stake was maybe $2,000 to $5,000 in cash (maybe even $10k but highly unlikely). And that's if the robber went to every teller b/c most bank's system don't keep that much cash up front. To withdraw $7k one time in cash, I was told by my bank that I had to order it 2 days ahead of time. Maybe a bluff by the bank to discourage potential robbers into thinking that they don't have quick access to lots of cash. But the bank certainly didn't want any customers to take such actions on their behalf.
A robber with a bomb is less likely to hurt anyone b/c he only has one weapon that he can only use ONE time....and if he uses it, his mission has failed....plus, he's dead. Unlike a gun with high cap mags, multiple mags, etc. where there can be many different scenarios that may warrant a Good-Samaritan's help.
The robber basically held everyone's lives in danger, all at once (depending on the power of the bomb) but didn't want to use it b/c his primary objective is the money....and this Idiot-Samaritan decides to call his bluff. A bank robbery is not the same as a suicidal mass killing spree. This guy just got lucky that no one got killed. He's no hero.
This Dumb-Samaritan gives the GunGrabbers a good example/propaganda to fight for their side. He turned a volatile situation into a very, very, very volatile situation and greatly increased the danger to everyone's lives there.
All that was at stake was maybe $2,000 to $5,000 in cash (maybe even $10k but highly unlikely). And that's if the robber went to every teller b/c most bank's system don't keep that much cash up front. To withdraw $7k one time in cash, I was told by my bank that I had to order it 2 days ahead of time. Maybe a bluff by the bank to discourage potential robbers into thinking that they don't have quick access to lots of cash. But the bank certainly didn't want any customers to take such actions on their behalf.
A robber with a bomb is less likely to hurt anyone b/c he only has one weapon that he can only use ONE time....and if he uses it, his mission has failed....plus, he's dead. Unlike a gun with high cap mags, multiple mags, etc. where there can be many different scenarios that may warrant a Good-Samaritan's help.
The robber basically held everyone's lives in danger, all at once (depending on the power of the bomb) but didn't want to use it b/c his primary objective is the money....and this Idiot-Samaritan decides to call his bluff. A bank robbery is not the same as a suicidal mass killing spree. This guy just got lucky that no one got killed. He's no hero.
imported post
I would think this would be a case of situational awareness.. a judgement call on the part of the LAC carrying a weapon. I know if it were me, I would not draw if I were convinced it would cause undue casualties. BUT, if I did think I could apprehend the subject safely... I believe it is my obligation to do so.
J
I would think this would be a case of situational awareness.. a judgement call on the part of the LAC carrying a weapon. I know if it were me, I would not draw if I were convinced it would cause undue casualties. BUT, if I did think I could apprehend the subject safely... I believe it is my obligation to do so.
J
imported post
Even if the bomb squad was there, they'd still have to assess the level of threat. It can be zero (no bomb) to any kind of bomb from a pipe-bomb on up. I doubt they'd be able to tell anything that's hidden under the robber's jacket by a simple visual. They and anyone else must assume the worse for the sake of everyone else.
The bank does not want people doing this to save their $2-5k (that's insured and just peanuts) at the risk of others lives and the inevitable legal suites by the injured and the dead's families. Heck, even the workers comp. for one injured employee and/or funeral expense for one dead employee, far outweighs the potential robbery loot.
This guy with a gun basically said, "F" all pre-cautions, bomb squad training & expertise, trainings of LEO's, etc....I'm being the hero today and I'll just treat this like a poker hand and call the bluff.
Even if the bomb squad was there, they'd still have to assess the level of threat. It can be zero (no bomb) to any kind of bomb from a pipe-bomb on up. I doubt they'd be able to tell anything that's hidden under the robber's jacket by a simple visual. They and anyone else must assume the worse for the sake of everyone else.
The bank does not want people doing this to save their $2-5k (that's insured and just peanuts) at the risk of others lives and the inevitable legal suites by the injured and the dead's families. Heck, even the workers comp. for one injured employee and/or funeral expense for one dead employee, far outweighs the potential robbery loot.
This guy with a gun basically said, "F" all pre-cautions, bomb squad training & expertise, trainings of LEO's, etc....I'm being the hero today and I'll just treat this like a poker hand and call the bluff.
imported post
JBURGII wrote:
Why? The robber's primary motive was to get the money. Not to hurt anyone. The bank doesn't want you to act on their behalf and probably neither do any of the other customers there.
This robber didn't incite any panic (which is why he passed a silent note to the teller). Common sense says that he just wanted to quietly leave there w/o raising any commotion.
Basically, you're willing to risk everyone there being blown up into pieces just to save $2k - $10k of the bank's insured money?
If someone had me at gunpoint, demanding my wallet. I would not want a bystander with a gun to draw it and try to save my wallet....b/c then I'd be in between 2 lines of fire. I'd rather risk losing my money vs. having the situation escalated and risk getting shot by 2 people.
JBURGII wrote:
Why? The robber's primary motive was to get the money. Not to hurt anyone. The bank doesn't want you to act on their behalf and probably neither do any of the other customers there.
This robber didn't incite any panic (which is why he passed a silent note to the teller). Common sense says that he just wanted to quietly leave there w/o raising any commotion.
Basically, you're willing to risk everyone there being blown up into pieces just to save $2k - $10k of the bank's insured money?
If someone had me at gunpoint, demanding my wallet. I would not want a bystander with a gun to draw it and try to save my wallet....b/c then I'd be in between 2 lines of fire. I'd rather risk losing my money vs. having the situation escalated and risk getting shot by 2 people.
david.ross
Regular Member
imported post
You're not thinking straight fellow. Just because there is no immediate danger, doesn't mean the robbery won't hurt others.
When someone tries to rob or hurt another, they are hurting every member of the community. Mr. Fawzi prevented others from being hurt, you do not allow crime to survive in decent cities like Canton or the city will turn out to develop like Chicago, riddled with crime because the cities don't want to stand up for their community.
You want to stop crime like that from happening, then encourage the public to not put up and allow criminals to roam the country free.
So the FDIC insures up to 100000 dollars, so what. I can tell you, from experience working as a contractor with banks, allowing a bank to be robbed makes the bank a target for future robberies even if they increase security.
You're not thinking straight fellow. Just because there is no immediate danger, doesn't mean the robbery won't hurt others.
When someone tries to rob or hurt another, they are hurting every member of the community. Mr. Fawzi prevented others from being hurt, you do not allow crime to survive in decent cities like Canton or the city will turn out to develop like Chicago, riddled with crime because the cities don't want to stand up for their community.
You want to stop crime like that from happening, then encourage the public to not put up and allow criminals to roam the country free.
So the FDIC insures up to 100000 dollars, so what. I can tell you, from experience working as a contractor with banks, allowing a bank to be robbed makes the bank a target for future robberies even if they increase security.
imported post
ZR1 wrote:
I kept my post pretty simple.. I stated that I would only act if I were able to ascertain the probability of safety to be in my (and whoever may be in the alledged blast zones) favor or there was an immediate danger to human life which is where the obligation part comes from. Maybe for safety sake I will just follow him out of the bank to test my theory. Just out of curiosity, does anyone have some stats handy on the actual use of functional bombs in bank robberies??
This was about a 'bomb' carrying robber, not a gunman. That would change your response a little bit. I think each event has to be evaluated as it occurs. I would not just jump up and yell "freeze" and start shooting. We can sit here and speculate over coffee all day long and never cover every scenario. As far as being held at gunpoint for your wallet, if an officer were standing there would you not want him too draw either?
J
ZR1 wrote:
I kept my post pretty simple.. I stated that I would only act if I were able to ascertain the probability of safety to be in my (and whoever may be in the alledged blast zones) favor or there was an immediate danger to human life which is where the obligation part comes from. Maybe for safety sake I will just follow him out of the bank to test my theory. Just out of curiosity, does anyone have some stats handy on the actual use of functional bombs in bank robberies??
This was about a 'bomb' carrying robber, not a gunman. That would change your response a little bit. I think each event has to be evaluated as it occurs. I would not just jump up and yell "freeze" and start shooting. We can sit here and speculate over coffee all day long and never cover every scenario. As far as being held at gunpoint for your wallet, if an officer were standing there would you not want him too draw either?
J
imported post
No, you didn't understand what I clearly stated. I said there was a danger, and obviously there is one anytime someone claims to have a bomb during a robbery. Once again, the bomber had only ONE weapon that he can only use ONE time (unlike a gun w/many bullets).
The Dumb-Samaritan escalated the danger by gambling that the robber was bluffing about having a bomb and/or willingness to use it.
Is he a bomb expert? So whenever there's a bomb threat, people with CW's should just confront them and gamble with everyone else's lives in the blast zone that the aggressor is just lying? Is this how police negotiators and bomb squads operates? They just assume it's always fake and pull out their gun and threatens the aggressor claiming to have a bomb that can kill every bystander in the area? Why even have police negotiators and bomb squads then if all you think they need to do is to draw a gun and hope that there's no bomb?
Are you a fascist? The banks can set whatever policies they want in a free market. If you don't like how they operate then go to another bank. It's real smart to risk everyone being blown up right?
No, you didn't understand what I clearly stated. I said there was a danger, and obviously there is one anytime someone claims to have a bomb during a robbery. Once again, the bomber had only ONE weapon that he can only use ONE time (unlike a gun w/many bullets).
The Dumb-Samaritan escalated the danger by gambling that the robber was bluffing about having a bomb and/or willingness to use it.
Is he a bomb expert? So whenever there's a bomb threat, people with CW's should just confront them and gamble with everyone else's lives in the blast zone that the aggressor is just lying? Is this how police negotiators and bomb squads operates? They just assume it's always fake and pull out their gun and threatens the aggressor claiming to have a bomb that can kill every bystander in the area? Why even have police negotiators and bomb squads then if all you think they need to do is to draw a gun and hope that there's no bomb?
Are you a fascist? The banks can set whatever policies they want in a free market. If you don't like how they operate then go to another bank. It's real smart to risk everyone being blown up right?
Nutczak
Regular Member
imported post
ZR1 wrote:
Where in the news story did it say that the CCW holder/user was told that the robber had a bomb??? All it said was that the teller told him the other teller was being robbed!!
I carry a gun on my side, becuase a Police officer doesn't fit in my holster too well.
The guy used his constitutional rights, stopped a robbery, and put a criminal in the right place, and you people rag on that?? WOW!!
ZR1 wrote:
Where in the news story did it say that the CCW holder/user was told that the robber had a bomb??? All it said was that the teller told him the other teller was being robbed!!
I carry a gun on my side, becuase a Police officer doesn't fit in my holster too well.
The guy used his constitutional rights, stopped a robbery, and put a criminal in the right place, and you people rag on that?? WOW!!