SicSemperTyrannis
wrote:
wrote:
23-year-old suspect arrested in Minneapolis bank heist
Police traced a license number to a south Minneapolis home and waited there until one of the suspects showed up
Staff report
Last update: July 29, 2009
Police arrested a 23-year-old Minneapolis man Tuesday afternoon after he and three other men allegedly held up the U.S. Bank branch at 4930 34th Av. S. in Minneapolis, authorities said.
Police said they believe the suspect was part of a group that had robbed the same bank twice before and also had robbed a bank in St. Paul.
Minneapolis Police Sgt. William Palmer called the latest one a "takeover-style robbery" in which four men entered with either rifles or shotguns, ordered customers to the floor, punched a teller in the face and jumped over the bank's counter before taking an undisclosed amount of cash.
The bank also was robbed April 3 and May 8, and some of the same robbers are believed responsible. Police believe the group also is linked to a bank robbery in St. Paul, said FBI spokesman E.K. Wilson.
According to the FBI, Minnesota has logged 17 bank robberies...
Almost all bank robberies are "lone bandits". "Takeovers" are rare, but they do happen, and statistically, they are much more dangerous. They also are much more psychologically damaging to those present. Still, the overwhelming majority of them result in no injuries as well.
Again,the key is to create an environment where the robber can GET OUT quickly. The real danger starts when a robber is "stuck" in a branch. Depending on the institution, most branch staff practice full-scale robberies atleast once per quarter.
What percentage would you estimate are "takeovers?" 1%? 2%?
It would seem to me that
many "takeovers" would result in injury to
someone, since the robbers would probably find it beneficial to establish fear and shock in order to gain compliance of the group quickly and definitively. So, as in the above case, punching a teller or other employee might be a standard tactic.
I definitely see the wisdom of a statistically-based
be compliant and let 'em get out approach. I'm even willing to bet my life and be instantly compliant, even with a loaded handgun in my possession. But a "takeover" and possibly some other types of robberies would seem to call for some discrimination in how to react.
What kinds of defensive approaches can be useful for the "takeover" situation, SST? Is it the same as the routine robberies: BCALEGO? That's definitely rolling the dice.
In the case cited above, certainly, a lone armed law abiding citizen against 4 guys with guns is a disaster waiting to happen. Two armed law abiding citizens would be about the same.
This case has me thinking. The best idea that comes to me so far for a situation where 4 hooligan-looking guys walk in the front door with rifles/shotguns is to
instantly head for the emergency exit and blow through it at top speed. I mean,
really fast. 1 second would probably be too long. Any hesitation at all sets up a terrible dilemma: surrender by getting on the floor in a defenseless position and a shootout with the odds overwhelmingly against the good guy.
I don't know if this tactic is really a good one. I'll have to think about it. One thing I'm fairly sure of is that instantaneous decision-making is called for. One, maybe 2 seconds is all I might get....
