You're not thinking straight fellow. Just because there is no immediate danger, doesn't mean the robbery won't hurt others
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?