"Hoodie Bandit" Strikes several BB&T banks in Fairfax County!! lets get this mofo

imported post

SemperFiGuy wrote:

ChinChin wrote:

jayarmbar wrote:

peter nap wrote:

jayarmbar wrote:

Just a quick question. If a armed robbery is happening in a legally armed persons presence do that person have any responsibility to apply deadly force? And if that person does what are the possible ramifications?

Click to expand...

You are allowed to arrest him....but not shoot him unless you are in fear for your life or grievous bodily harm.

Before you say the usual "of course I was in fear for my life or grievous bodily harm....Just think about it. Unless he's shooting at you, your probably going to be charged.

Click to expand...

So if I understand you correctly I have no obligation to protect a fellow citizen if there life is in danger?

Click to expand...

No legal obligation under the codes of the Commonwealth of Virginia which I am aware of presently.

Moral obligation is arbitrary and up to you to decide.

Click to expand...

This may not apply here, but what about "good sumaritan" laws in regards to protecting others?

Click to expand...

I am only familiar with GSLs that pertain to providing first aid, CPR, and AED aid. Maybe someone else will chime in when it comes to protecting others. I believe that the rules of deadly force should apply in said situations (IMHO).

The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1787!!:X

imported post

jayarmbar wrote:

Just a quick question. If a armed robbery is happening in a legally armed persons presence do that person have any responsibility to apply deadly force? And if that person does what are the possible ramifications?

Click to expand...

No person (even cops) has the right orresponsibility to apply DEADLY FORCE when it's simply a bank being robbed of money. If the robber starts shooting people within the bank, or raises their weapon to a cop, the rules change of course.

Ramifications? You shoot and kill somebody who has simply stolen money from a bank..... you will be charged with murder. Because of legal fees, you will lose your home, your cars, and most likely everything you have ever worked for.

imported post

DHCruiser wrote:

... I carry for the safety of myself, my family ...

Click to expand...

I'm with you. I'm not a cop, nor do I want to be one.

I decided long ago that every able bodied adult has the option to exericse their second amendment right - or not. I will not "intervene" on another's behalf if being robbed or even assulted. Possible exceptions for children and the elderly, depending on circumstances. But for a robbery? No way. I'm looking for an exit. If directly threatened - that changes things. But not unitl.

imported post

Armed wrote:

DHCruiser wrote:

... I carry for the safety of myself, my family ...

Click to expand...

I'm with you. I'm not a cop, nor do I want to be one.

I decided long ago that every able bodied adult has the option to exericse their second amendment right - or not. I will not "intervene" on another's behalf if being robbed or even assulted. Possible exceptions for children and the elderly, depending on circumstances. But for a robbery? No way. I'm looking for an exit. If directly threatened - that changes things. But not unitl.

Click to expand...

DING DING DING

The only person responsible for the safety of yourself and your family is you. The only person responsible for the safety of somebody else is them. If a person doesn't opt to exercise their 2nd amendment right and are attacked; they reap what the sew.

Should legislation be introduced and pass which would give me criminal and civil immunity for intervening on the part of somebody else being attacked; I might reconsider my stance, but in the litigious world in which we live where somebody who shoot's an attacker who was stabbing a woman, and get's sued by the stabber's family for killing "their little angel". . .not worth my time to intervene on the part of somebody who made a conscious decision NOT to arm themselves against the depravity the world has to offer. I need to be able to provide for me and mine; can’t rightly do that if I’m having to give my money to some illegal’s family for their dead barrio-rat kid.

imported post

Armed wrote:

DHCruiser wrote:

... I carry for the safety of myself, my family ...

Click to expand...

I'm with you. I'm not a cop, nor do I want to be one.

I decided long ago that every able bodied adult has the option to exericse their second amendment right - or not. I will not "intervene" on another's behalf if being robbed or even assulted. Possible exceptions for children and the elderly, depending on circumstances. But for a robbery? No way. I'm looking for an exit. If directly threatened - that changes things. But not unitl.

Click to expand...

There is a lot of open ground between doing nothing and shooting someone. I have intervened a bunch of time and never had to shoot any of them. AND I only had one of them complain to the police. He thought it was unfair to hit him with an old six cell sportsman flashlight (That was a long time ago). The cop said "I would arrest him...if I had seen it:lol

That gun on your hip is a last resort!

imported post

peter nap wrote:

Armed wrote:

DHCruiser wrote:

... I carry for the safety of myself, my family ...

Click to expand...

I'm with you. I'm not a cop, nor do I want to be one.

I decided long ago that every able bodied adult has the option to exericse their second amendment right - or not. I will not "intervene" on another's behalf if being robbed or even assulted. Possible exceptions for children and the elderly, depending on circumstances. But for a robbery? No way. I'm looking for an exit. If directly threatened - that changes things. But not unitl.

Click to expand...

There is a lot of open ground between doing nothing and shooting someone. I have intervened a bunch of time and never had to shoot any of them. AND I only had one of them complain to the police. He thought it was unfair to hit him with an old six cell sportsman flashlight (That was a long time ago). The cop said "I would arrest him...if I had seen it:lol

That gun on your hip is a last resort!

Click to expand...

.........when all lesser means (an old six cell sportsman flashlight) have failed. Yata, yata, yata (LoL)!! Just be careful!

The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1787!!:X

imported post

I have to say... if I'm in a bank with or without my kids and a person walks in, openly brandishing a firearm, demands money from the teller, and fires a couple of shots into the ceiling to drive the point home, I'm taking cover (kids too) and I'll likely shoot the guy. The fact that he fired shots means all bets are off. He's shown that he's ready, able, and willing to shoot.

imported post

Just to let you know, The BB&T in Ceredo, WV. was robbed today around 9:15

this morning.

BB&T has a victim mentality.

They do not allow firearms in there branches.

There have been a couple of branches that the perp did not have a weapon.

All you need to do is ask for the money and they are trained to just hand it over.

Thats why I moved to Suntrust.

They will at least let me carry in there branches.

imported post

Since Virginia has made it illegal to wear a hood that covers or partially covers the face, it is not possible that such crimes could be occurring. Like how there couldn't possibly be murders in Maryland committed by the use of handguns, because of the extensive "control" the state has created through legislation.

Well, I don't go into BB&T.

Thank you, Bronco Billy.

imported post

darthmord wrote:

I have to say... if I'm in a bank with or without my kids and a person walks in, openly brandishing a firearm, demands money from the teller

Click to expand...

He is already shot at this point by me if Iam there.:exclaim:

imported post

I think holding up a bank at gun point fills both the felonious and the life threatening requirements.

imported post

"lets get this mofo"?!

By "lets" I assume you meant to say "let's" which is a contraction for "let us".

The question is thus, "Which 'us' are you talking about?"

Surely I am not part of this 'us'? For I am not a police officer and have no intention of getting between an armed criminal and his target, unless that target happens to be me or someone I care about. Like the above poster said, I'll be looking for the nearest exit, thank you very much.

This attitude you come across with seems to indicate that you somehow think it's your job and the job of others who carry to "get mofos". With that attitude, you are likely to get into trouble some day, if not cause it yourself. Unless you are a cop, you are not supposed to be looking for trouble, you're supposed to be avoiding it, and that gun on your hip is a last resort.

Also, maybe I'm being paranoid, but as a general rule I avoid ever posting anything on line stating that I "would shoot" anyone, ever. Aside from being bravado, it's also going to be targeted for investigation in the event I ever do find myself in trouble someday. My thoughts on what I would do in any given situation are not to be permantly recorded on a hard drive or a server somewhere.

imported post

Sheriff wrote:

jayarmbar wrote:

Just a quick question. If a armed robbery is happening in a legally armed persons presence do that person have any responsibility to apply deadly force? And if that person does what are the possible ramifications?

Click to expand...

No person (even cops) has the right orresponsibility to apply DEADLY FORCE when it's simply a bank being robbed of money. If the robber starts shooting people within the bank, or raises their weapon to a cop, the rules change of course.

Ramifications? You shoot and kill somebody who has simply stolen money from a bank..... you will be charged with murder. Because of legal fees, you will lose your home, your cars, and most likely everything you have ever worked for.

Click to expand...

The problem with this country is this type of logic put towards everything we do. You shouldn't have to wait for the dirtbag to start killing people you should be able to take him out the second he pulls a gun out it puts everyones life in immediate danger.

imported post

Sea_Chicken wrote:

Sheriff wrote:

jayarmbar wrote:

Just a quick question. If a armed robbery is happening in a legally armed persons presence do that person have any responsibility to apply deadly force? And if that person does what are the possible ramifications?

Click to expand...

No person (even cops) has the right or responsibility to apply DEADLY FORCE when it's simply a bank being robbed of money.  If the robber starts shooting people within the bank, or raises their weapon to a cop, the rules change of course.

Ramifications?  You shoot and kill somebody who has simply stolen money from a bank.....  you will be charged with murder.  Because of legal fees, you will lose your home, your cars, and most likely everything you have ever worked for. 

Click to expand...

The problem with this country is this type of logic put towards everything we do. You shouldn't have to wait for the dirtbag to start killing people you should be able to take him out the second he pulls a gun out it puts everyones life in immediate danger.

Click to expand...

Well, in this instance, Sheriff is applying a valid principle, but incorrectly as a matter of law. One is not justified in the use of deadly force merely to protect property.

"Robbery" is the taking and carrying away of the personal property of another through threats, force, or intimidation. If the robber is applying those threats, that force, or the intimidation by means of a deadly weapon, that is sufficient for a third party to reasonably believe, based on objective fact, that there is an "imminent or immediate threat of serious bodily injury to himself or an innocent third party", which is the basis for an excusable homicide instruction.

Of course, Sheriff might be absolutely correct about the impact that a false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process might have on a person, but in the civil case to follow, those would be the bases of the damages against whomever caused him to be detained, arrested, jailed, and tried. That's why, in some places, there are police who will move Heaven and Earth, not to mention the fabrication of evidence, in order to get a conviction. That's because the causes of action for malicious prosecution and abuse of process require proof that the matter was resolved in a way that exonerated the defendant.

I haven't seen evidence of such things myself, and only heard tales, but I'm thinking back in particular to the O.J. Simpson murder trial. It's one reason I don't travel to or through certain states, states which have a history of political corruption, and pretty much happen to be the same states that don't allow non-criminals to defend themselves by restricting the ownership, use, and possession of firearms.

imported post

ChinChin wrote:

...
I would strongly advise you to retain legal counsel now; and have him/her on retainer.

Commonwealth v. Sands, 262 Va. 724, 553 S.E.2d 733 (2001).]
...

Click to expand...

I've been thinking about that retainer idea. I've never charged a retainer, which is a periodic payment just to retain counsel (and not as payment for work done); it is earned when paid, and results in a contractual obligation for the attorney to be generally available to the person who retained him, and unavailable to persons in opposition (i.e., "conflicted out"). I'm thinking of writing up a letter that one might keep in his glovebox or console, which he could give to a policeman should the person be stopped for some reason related to the ownership, use, or possession of firearms. The purpose of the letter would be to tell the cop why my client is not speaking to him, and to put him on notice that he's represented by counsel (such that there would be a duty to contact me prior to interrogations etc.).

Any opinions about that idea? What's it worth to you?

Smurfologist wrote:

ChinChin wrote:

jayarmbar wrote:

peter nap wrote:

jayarmbar wrote:

Just a quick question. If a armed robbery is happening in a legally armed persons presence do that person have any responsibility to apply deadly force? And if that person does what are the possible ramifications?

Click to expand...

You are allowed to arrest him....but not shoot him unless you are in fear for your life or grievous bodily harm.

Before you say the usual "of course I was in fear for my life or grievous bodily harm....Just think about it. Unless he's shooting at you, your probably going to be charged.

Click to expand...

So if I understand you correctly I have no obligation to protect a fellow citizen if there life is in danger?

Click to expand...

 

No legal obligation under the codes of the Commonwealth of Virginia which I am aware of presently.

Moral obligation is arbitrary and up to you to decide.

Click to expand...

I agree with ChinChin. However, the rules of the use of deadly force are clear (to me):

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Deadly+Force

"When deadly force is used by a private citizen, the reasonableness rule does not apply. The citizen must be able to prove that a felony occurred or was being attempted, and that the felony threatened death or bodily harm. Mere suspicion of a felony is considered an insufficient ground for a private citizen to use deadly force.

This was demonstrated in the Michigan case of People v. Couch, 436 Mich. 414, 461 N.W.2d 683 (1990), where the defendant shot and killed a suspected felon who was fleeing the scene of the crime. The Michigan supreme court ruled that Archie L. Couch did not have the right to use deadly force against the suspected felon because the suspect did not pose a threat of injury or death to Couch."

Essentially, you better be darn sure a felony occurred or was being attempted before you decide to use deadly force. It is human nature that people will want to step in an help someone in these types of situations spoken about in this post. IANAL, but, it is my contention that you may be arrested, and, the incident may be figured out in court. Just keep this in mind if you decide to use deadly force.

The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1787!!:X

Click to expand...

Hogwash - "It may choke Artie, but it ain'gonna choke Buckwheat." Michegan law is not law here. I quoted the citation to Sands to which ChinChin earlier referred, and I strongly suggest that we read that case more carefully.

There is, in Virginia, no duty to protect others, nor is there any duty to either make an arrest, nor to help the police make an arrest unless ordered to do so. And the effect of "good samaritan" statutes is to immunize people who leap to the aid of others in a simple minded attempt to help but who, as officious intermeddlers, make things worse. We don't have much of that here, and it's mostly for folks like volunteer firemen and EMT's.

imported post

The number of people, and I don't mean criminals, that seem to be ready to take a life at the least instance of provocation scare me. There are some who just seem to have an itchy trigger finger walking around looking for a reason to kill someone. These types of comments sure play into the gun control advocates hands as a gun should be a defensive weapon when used on people and never an offensive weapon. In other words make damn sure you know what you are doing before you go shooting someone.

As to the idiotic comments about it could have happened in certain states due to laws banning hoodiesor guns you have to remember that no law canever ban anything. Whether or not one obeys a law is entirely voluntary. Only you can decide whether or not you want to obey a law. If you want to OC in DC it is up to you, no law can stop you from doing it so just because there is a law against doing something that doesn't mean you can't do it.

imported post

user wrote:

I've been thinking about that retainer idea. I've never charged a retainer, which is a periodic payment just to retain counsel (and not as payment for work done); it is earned when paid, and results in a contractual obligation for the attorney to be generally available to the person who retained him, and unavailable to persons in opposition (i.e., "conflicted out"). I'm thinking of writing up a letter that one might keep in his glovebox or console, which he could give to a policeman should the person be stopped for some reason related to the ownership, use, or possession of firearms. The purpose of the letter would be to tell the cop why my client is not speaking to him, and to put him on notice that he's represented by counsel (such that there would be a duty to contact me prior to interrogations etc.).

Any opinions about that idea? What's it worth to you?

Click to expand...

I'd be interested, of course that would depend on rather i would have to pay for such print out or just pay if I had to use that print out

imported post

PT111 wrote:

...As to the idiotic comments about it could  have happened in certain states due to laws banning hoodies or guns you have to remember that no law can ever ban anything.  Whether or not one obeys a law is entirely voluntary.  Only you can decide whether or not you want to obey a law.  If you want to OC in DC it is up to you, no law can stop you from doing it so just because there is a law against doing something that doesn't mean you can't do it.

Click to expand...

Gee... ya think? Maybe you ought to tell those folks in Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Massachussets, Illinois, and the other pro-crime states about that. I don't think they know.

-- (signed) The Idiot

imported post

Rule number one is, if you have a route of escape, take it. If you CAN run, then DO run. If you are in the bank and the guy pulls out a gun and just hops over the counter and starts grabbing cash, RUN OUT AND DIAL 911.

You have your gun for your personal protection ONLY. And in *very* limited circumstances for the defense of others. Lets say this robber just suddenly went crazy after getting the money and started shooting people. You would be very well justified in doing what needs to be done.... But until then, run if you can, get to a phone, and dial 911.

Now if the guy comes up to you and puts a gun in your face... well... what happens next is a decision you have to make for yourself. It's a very slippery slope.

If you aren't officer, avoid confrontation unless you absolutely cannot do so. There *may* be some situations in which you can intervene... but they are ultra-rare, and only if the life of another person is in immediate and absolute danger of ending or if they face a serious and life altering injury.

You can be a good citizen exercising rights to protection and safety, but please don't play "hero" or become a vigilante. If you feel you need to be one... please leave your gun at home.

imported post

user wrote:

PT111 wrote:

...As to the idiotic comments about it could have happened in certain states due to laws banning hoodiesor guns you have to remember that no law canever ban anything. Whether or not one obeys a law is entirely voluntary. Only you can decide whether or not you want to obey a law. If you want to OC in DC it is up to you, no law can stop you from doing it so just because there is a law against doing something that doesn't mean you can't do it.

Click to expand...

Gee... ya think? Maybe you ought to tell those folks in Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Massachussets, Illinois, and the other pro-crime states about that. I don't think they know.

-- (signed) The Idiot

Click to expand...

Yup, you jumped all over it just like the Brady Bunch. That is the feelings of the BB that if you pass a law then it will stop the violence and shootings. Only the fear of punishment makes someone obey a law. In a study I read a while back 82% of all incarcerated criminals when interviewed said that getting caught never entered their minds. They knew what they were doing was illegal but they chose to disobey the law because they didn't think they would get caught.

This is the same way with any law, we volunteer to obey it because of the fear of getting caught and punished. So if you want to carry a gun in those states you named there nothing other than your fear stopping you. The criminals don't have that fear so therein lies the problem. Yes it is idiotic to think that by passing a law it will stop something from happening.